By Bola A. Akinterinwa
Three major events of concern in the past two weeks are the marking of June 12 as Democracy Day; Arise News Channel’s Exclusive Interview with President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) on Thursday, 10 June, 2021; and President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB)’s tweetoplomacy. The three events have the great potential to further attract special global attention in the foreseeable future because of their nature and strategic implications for Nigeria’s foreign policy. They necessarily raise questions on the extent to which democracy can endure in Nigeria, the extent to which there can be fairness- or justice-driven governance in Nigeria, and particularly how foreign policy can be conducted and managed to protect domestic policy inconsistencies. In fact, they raise the extent to which Nigeria can remain united as an indivisible, sovereign nation-state.
On June 12, a day set aside for remembering the people’s political will was slaughtered on the altar of democracy in 1993. It was the day Chief MKO Abiola was on record to have won the fairest, the freest, and the best ever-organised presidential election in Nigeria’s political history. The results of the elections, for selfish militaro-ethnic considerations, were recklessly annulled by the then military president, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida. As a result of the annulment, every June 12 has been marked since 1993 to celebrate Chief MKO Abiola, the President we never had, as a symbolic instrument of democracy. The impact of the celebrations is such that PMB had to put a stop to the marking of May 29 as Democracy Day in favour of June 12 with effect from … apparently to secure the political support of the Yoruba South West.
The marking of June 12 this year, 2021, is particularly noteworthy because of its environmental insecurity and particularly the agitations for self-determination and sovereign autonomy. The statement of Mr. Sunday Igboho, an apostle of Oduduwa Republic, is a pointer to this observation. As credited to Mr. Igboho, under no circumstance should the peaceful public demonstrations scheduled for June 12 be tainted with any bloodshed. In his words, ‘let us warn the Federal Government that if there is bloodshed this weekend, the international community is watching, if the military kills any Nigerian this weekend, it is going to be very hot. The Yoruba Nation rally will go ahead in every part of Yoruba land and the rest of the country where it will hold.’
And perhaps more importantly, Sunday Igboho said ‘red alarm will begin on Friday. People should stock up food items from Friday night. We are not backing down this weekend. We are ready to take back what belongs to us.’ This statement is self-explanatory. It is against this background of environmental insecurity that the discussion of the Arise Television Exclusive Interview with PMB and PMB’s tweetoplomacy becomes relevant.
Arise Interview and PMB’s Tweetoplomacy
The exclusive interview granted by PMB to the Arise News Channel on the future of Nigeria, and particularly on what to expect from the PMB administration in the next two years, enabled viewers to delineate PMB’s apparent dual character in the governance of Nigeria: character of statesmanship when convenient and character of an unrepentant military dictator when helplessly pushed to a tight corner. The questions asked during the Arise News Channel interview and the mania of PMB responses clearly show that he is not, and cannot be, a good President of a truly united Nigeria, simply because he consciously dodged critical questions bordering on patriotism and fairness and clearly showed partisanship when specific questions relating to his ethnic group are raised.
Put differently, a good leader, a patriotic leader, must have the discipline of always defending fairness, equity, justice and requirements of good governance, rather than conveniently seeking to defend his people indirectly. A good Nigerian must also similarly defend objectivity and honesty of purpose. They must seek to address issues rather than addressing people. This is why PMB has not been able to superintend national questions well and why policy makers now find themselves in a junction of confusion and policy inconsistencies. This is a major rationale for Nigeria’s current problems. A review of the Arise News Channel interview is relevant and necessary at this juncture.
First, PMB hardly responds to questions asked. It is possible he does not hear the question well, or does not understand the question, or he understands the implications of providing the explanatory truth but does not want to respond to it. Whatever is the case, the attitudinal disposition of PMB simply reminds of what Chief Obafemi Awolowo said in 1985: ‘our ship of state is heading towards the rock, unless the chief helmsman rises courageously to steer the ship away from its present course, the inescapable consequence will be an inexplicable disaster.’ There is nothing to suggest that the inescapable consequence is not at hand with the responses of PMB.
The first question asked by Dr. Reuben Abati, after Prince Nduka Obaigbena’s prolegomena, was on the deepening situation of insecurity: ‘Mr. President, the nation is witnessing a rising insecurity, banditry, arson, kidnapping. How do we get here? What is the way out?’ The essence of these questions is not far-fetched: that there is an intrinsic situation of insecurity in Nigeria, which is a truism. That the insecurity is also deepening is another truism. The point of interest is how did we move from the level of a crisis to that of a conflict? In other words, why the crises and the conflicts? Perhaps more interestingly, before the insecurity began to deepen, could it be that PMB was unaware? If he was unaware, why? If he was aware, what has he done to contain the worsening of the conflicts? The bottom line of Dr. Abati’s question is How did we get to the level of a rising insecurity? Without doubt, ‘HOW’ is more about mania, rationales, factors, and what is responsible for the rise in insecurity.
The responses given by PMB did not address the question of how. As submitted by PMB: ‘when we came, it is (sic) been a very difficult undertaking. But we closed the borders with Benin Republic. We closed the borders with Niger Republic. We stopped smuggling. We asked Nigerians to grow what they will eat and eat what they grow. The cost of importation of rice and other foodstuff, we stopped it. We made fertilisers available and we were very impressed and happy with the action of Nigerians. They went back to the farm. And we made sure our neighbours, especially Niger (are carried along), because there are Nigerians who order food in Niger for Nigerian market, the Nigerien government cooperated with us. So really we depended on ourselves and Nigerians do not regret it.’
PMB spoke on corruption, which he said is ‘very difficult under this system and even under the military system, luckily I have experienced both occasions…’ He explained how he too was arrested and detained by the security agents, how he had to put on his ‘agbada and join politicians and how he may not be able to change the system, etc. From the foregoing transcribed quotation, PMB has not in any way addressed the question of how we got to the current noisome situation in the country. He also did not respond to the issue of quo vadis also raised by Dr. Abati.
The second question was raised by Prince Nduka Obaigbena who anchored the interview: ‘Shekau was reported dead. Does that give us an opportunity for us to zero in and consolidate and secure the North East?’ PMB responded that ‘the problem of the northeast is difficult. The Governor, this present Governor, is working very hard. He is taking a lot of risk (sic). And I asked him, this Boko Haram, is it our people or is it Nigerians or people coming out…? He said they are Nigerians… Most of them. They are Nigerians. As I said, the only way to go round about it is that you cannot kill innocent people and say God is great. That works very well. But I think we have a problem of unemployment. We have a lot of youths looking basically for what to eat, not even (to) talk about accommodation… The level of poverty is almost unimaginable. So this is our problem. But those who are really keeping in touch with what we are doing, they know the difference between the time we came in and now. And the people of North East and South South, I think, are the best judges for the performances of this administration, because they knew what they were in and they know the condition now.’
Again, the essence of the second question is to know the extent to which there can be a glimmer of hope now that the Boko Haram leader is purported to have been killed. Is security in the North East now feasible? PMB cannot reply as to whether there is an opportunity or not to consolidate security in the North East. By explaining that the situation in the North East is difficult, does he imply that there is no opportunity of consolidating security in the region?
Without doubt, in virtually all the questions raised, including those of Mr. Olusegun Adeniyi and Ms. Tundun Abiola, PMB always found it convenient to justify what his administration has done, rather than seeking appropriate explanations to questions asked. For instance, while Mr. Adeniyi raised the question of the spread of insecurity from the North East to the South East, and Ms. Tundun Abiola raised the issue of formalisation of State police, PMB simply gave the usual defensive narratives. In light of this evasive attitude, we strongly believe that it cannot be possible even for a well-intentioned leader, to ensure national security in Nigeria. PMB’s vision is quite questionable. His intentions and words conflict with his actions.
As regards PMB’s tweetoplomacy, the Twitter.Com, a social network and podcasting private company, removed @MBuhari from its clientèle space for violating its operational regulations. Twitter.com is not a government outfit but one that all governments relate with for various reasons of force majeure. In the same vein, @Buhari.com is not governmental in character. At best, it is individual. It is PMB’s private twitter handle, and, therefore, quite different from that of the Nigerian presidency, @ngr.presidency. In reaction to the de-registration of his private twitter handle, PMB declared the Twitter.com non grata in Nigeria. Did PMB act because of the dishonour done him as an individual or because of the national interest?
It is useful here to note that, as a social network and a podcasting company, twitter.com was founded on 21 March, 2006 in San Francisco, California, United States, by Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone, Noah Glass, and Evan Williams. It was launched in July 2006 to provide a social network service with an original code name, ‘twttr’ and an original name, called ‘Status’. As Wikipedia has it, ‘the original name was called ”status”, but after searching through the dictionary, he (Dorsey) found the word Twitter. The definition was a ‘short burst of inconsequential information, and chirps from birds.’ More important, when Twitter was first launched in July 2006, ‘no one used ”tweet as a noun or a verb. Instead, the Service referred to the tweeting process as ”twittering” and those who used the Service as Twitter-ers.’ Thus PMB is simply an ordinary twitterer, like many others.
More significantly, Twitter is an online micro-blogging service for the distribution of a short message service for groups. In terms of policy stand, Twitter like other social media companies, is constantly under pressure to prevent hate speech, harassment and bullying in whatever is posted in Twitter site. It is against this background that the misunderstanding between PMB and the Twitter.Com should be partly explained and understood.
Beyond the Braggadocio
The Federal Government has really engaged in a battle that it cannot win. The ban has seriously tainted Nigeria’s international image and also seriously undermined her national interests. The business of tweeting is necessarily conducted vertically and horizontally in a manner of win-win. The twitter.com, as the business owners, engages in tweeting not only to make money, but also to control and possibly influence direction of global governance. Like in other social media, tweeting cannot but be a good platform for intelligence gathering, which is good for the twitter.com and also for the Government of Nigeria. It is a platform that all the security agencies should be interested in, in Nigeria. Suspending or banning the services of Twitter in Nigeria, temporarily or permanently can only generate and deepen public animosity vis-á-vis the Federal Government.
Secondly, the mere fact that the art of communication can be vertical, be it in the manner of ascending or descending, or horizontal in the manner of parity and not authoritative like it is in the vertical sense, Government cannot but be the major looser when it is only able to suspend the Twitter, but unable to sanction the Nigerian clients of the Twitter, who all have alternative platforms to take advantage of. Twitter’s operations have a global character though the company is registered in the United States.
Thirdly, even though the Government has been enabled, with the suspension of Twitter, to consider regulating further the various social media platforms in the country, the truth is that PMB is the first victim of his policy decision of suspending the Twitter simply because he necessarily denies himself access to the same platform as an individual and as a government agent.
True, it was the Twitter that first launched the attack by deleting on 2 June, 2021 @MBuhari, which is PMB’s individual account. Twitter considered that PMB had violated its regulations by making pronouncements along threats of violence. Twitter has rules and policies on many issues: hate speech, dummies, harassment, suspension of accounts, trending, bullying, etc. Whereas, Twitter’s regulations, under safety and violence, include non-threatening of violence against an individual or a group of people. The regulations also protect privacy and authenticity.
Unexpectedly, PMB reciprocated, not by acting as an individual, but as the president with all powers, by initially banning and later re-explaining that it is suspension of the Twitter. In the eyes of the Government of Nigeria, the Twitter’s micro-blogging site was being used to undermine Nigeria’s corporate existence. If PMB were not the President or in the position of power as at the time the decision to suspend Twitter was taken, he would not have been able to so react. In this regard, PMB has used his official position to promote selfish interest. However, if we do consider the fact that PMB has the onerous responsibility to also ensure national unity and territorial integrity of the country, the extent to which PMB should be blamed cannot but be limited.
Fourth, and true enough again, there is no disputing the fact that the Twitter platform has been severally used in the past to promote anti-government sentiments, to which the Federal Government has not been favourably disposed and which has also been a major source of anger all along. The #EndSARS protests are a case in point. The opportunity of Twitter’s deletion of @MBuhari only served as the crescendo of already existing Government’s animosity vis-à-vis Twitter in the continuum of intolerance. The main problem here is that the ban has now generated a fresh multi-dimensional problem: international condemnation which the Government is finding it increasingly very difficult to manage.
At the Nigerian domestic level, for instance, there have been condemnations as well. The ban is seen as an assault on democracy, on freedom of expression, as a further special attempt to gag the press and opponents of PMB and his government. In fact, some Nigerians have instituted a legal action against the PMB government at the ECOWAS Court of Justice. Their prayer is an interim injunction restraining government from implementing its suspension policy. The court’s likely grant of the prayer cannot be taken for granted.
At the international level, virtually all the major European powers have condemned PMB’s ban and have asked him to rescind his decision. Although Russia and Donald Trump appear to support the ban, international condemnation of the ban is quite overwhelming.
The diplomatic missions of Canada, European Union’s Delegation to Nigeria, Republic of Ireland, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States noted in their joint statement their great disappointment about Nigeria’s ban. In their words, they ‘strongly support the fundamental right of free expression and access to information as a pillar of democracy in Nigeria and around the world and these rights apply online as well as offline. Banning systems of expression is not the answer. These measures inhibit access to information and commerce at precisely the moment when Nigeria needs to foster inclusive dialogue and expression of opinions, as well as share vital information in this time of COVID-19 pandemic.’
More important, the joint statement has it that ‘the path to a more secure Nigeria lies in more, not less in, communication to accompany the concerted efforts of Nigeria’s citizens in fulsome dialogue toward unity, peace and prosperity.’ With this position, it should be expected that the ban has the potential to impact more on Nigeria’s foreign relations multi-dimensionally, in terms of political and economic sanctions. Europeans do see fundamental human rights of free expression not only as a pillar of democracy, but also as a non-negotiable one. It is from this perspective that the issue of Twitter ban cannot but also remain an irritant in Nigeria’s foreign relations.
Fifthly, and perhaps more importantly, the ban on Twitter necessarily raises the question of who really is in charge of Nigeria’s foreign policy: the Minister of Information and Culture or the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Is it that the Information Minister is more actively engaged than the Foreign Minister? These questions are prompted by the many problems of Government’s always reasoning after pronouncement of policies, and not always thinking enough about their likely implications before their pronouncements. Government should make haste slowly in acting speedily after inadequate reflection on foreign policy implications. PMB’s mania of keeping silent on burning national questions or taking much delight in not wanting to speak on such questions forthrightly, can only taint whatever legacy he is claiming to want to leave for posterity. The truth as at today is that many observers believe that the rising insecurity in Nigeria is a resultant from alleged PMB’s fulanisation agenda, Islamic jihadism, and his unrepentant nepotism.
Besides, it is most unfortunate that PMB can say that merit should apply in the appointment of military chiefs and all those who grew in the system and qualified for appointment are only his ethnic people. Consequently, in reply to Prince Obaigbena’s question of what security future, with the alleged demise of the Boko Haram leader, Nigeria’s security future cannot be bright for a simple reason: Fulanisation, jihadism, nepotism, inequity, unfairness, injustice, etc, cannot be celebrated on a platter of gold and at the same time still expect goodness of purpose, patriotism and national unity from the people.
