By Remi Sonaiya
It was the former president of the United States, Barack Obama, who said that Africa did not need as leaders at this moment strong men but rather, strong institutions. And indeed, “strong men” have not been in short supply on the continent; unfortunately, however, unlike Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, most of them have not distinguished themselves by their positive contributions to the development of their countries. From the late Idi Amin Dada of Uganda to the current Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, several African leaders have been known for their almost tyrannical rule over their people, maintaining a stranglehold on the country and its resources and, more importantly, doing all in their power to remain in office. Even during Nigeria’s current democratic dispensation, we have had a president who was bent on running for a third term in office, contrary to the nation’s constitution. It has been suggested that African political leaders probably see themselves more as the traditional rulers who used to exercise almost divine authority over the people. Only death could remove them from office.
Transiting from that traditional set-up where all authority was vested primarily in an individual, the king, to the democratic system of government where power effectively belongs to the people, who then use it to choose their representatives, has posed a serious challenge to us in Africa. Taking the case of Nigeria in particular, one finds that electoral campaigns usually carry a strong messianic tone – this is the man who will deliver the people from all their problems. Candidate Muhammadu Buhari was seen as the only one who could unseat the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan; and that, for many people, was all that mattered. Even his antecedents as an undemocratic military ruler were not taken into consideration. It was not long before it became evident that this was another “strong man”, bent on doing things his own way, not minding what would normally be expected in a democratic setting: his lateness in appointing the members of his cabinet; the lop-sidedness of his key appointments (mostly from his part of the country); and several other actions and inactions which have made Nigerians come to the disappointing conclusion that “this is not the change we voted for”.
Building strong institutions is an urgent and crucial need in Nigeria today, for many individuals are far too “strong”; much stronger than the state! In a recent article published in several online news media, including Sahara Reporters, Professor Pius Adesanmi maintains that the recent “discoveries” in various locations of huge amounts of cash by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the most recent being the N13 billion found in an apartment in Osborne Road, Ikoyi, are in line with what he calls “the long history of the Nigerian state – embodied by the Presidency – in serving as the foster parent of high crimes committed by Nigerians who operate above the state, above the constitution, above all mechanisms of and apparatuses of the Nigerian state”. Are there truly Nigerians who operate above the state, who can get away with just about anything? It would appear so.
Professor Adesanmi’s article, titled, “The Nigerian Presidency as a Foster Parent of Crimes” cites several cases to support his assertion: from vanishing oil tankers; to the Siemens, Halliburton and Malabu incidents; to the use of a private jet to convey dollars to South Africa; and even to the collapse of Pastor T. B. Joshua’s church which allegedly claimed hundreds of lives, especially of South Africans. In all these instances, the author maintains, the alleged perpetrators of whatever crime might have been committed have not been held accountable; instead, the Nigerian state has stepped in to assume responsibility or, in his terms, “foster-parent” the crimes. This would often involve sacrificing some “lesser individuals” as fall-guys: in the case of the MT African Pride and MT Jimoh oil tankers which simply vanished after being arrested for oil bunkering by government authorities, two naval officers were court marshalled and dismissed from the Navy. That was all.
Even when the crimes of these powerful people finally get to our courts, what inevitably happens is that their cases hardly ever get what most people would consider as the morally right judgment; they remain in the courts interminably, getting adjourned over and over, or even being thrown out in the end based on so-called technicalities. The rich and powerful have those who work for them to ensure that their interests are always protected, and that includes lawyers and judges.
How does a nation develop if there are such strong private and personal interests which override the common interest and indeed, the overall wellbeing of the state? More importantly, what would we need to do in order to reverse this trend which would otherwise lead to our complete destruction? Among other possibilities, I believe that if we could decide to entrench two important practices, then we might be able to set ourselves on the path to building strong institutions and giving democracy – and consequently, development – a real chance to materialize.
First, we must institutionalise merit in all our doings so that truly competent people are put in charge of our affairs. Those who feel they would be marginalised in such a system and who, instead, defend “federal character” should instead begin to invest in manpower development in their regions. Secondly, everybody must be brought under the rule of law. Otherwise, the people would remain mere pawns in the hands of a few powerful individuals.