Convener of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Academics,
Professionals and Businessmen, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, in this interview
with TOBI AWORINDE, evaluates the government of President Goodluck
Jonathan What do you think are the highlights of President Goodluck
Jonathan’s administration? I believe, for most Nigerians, the highlight
of Jonathan’s administration is the heightened terrorist activities in
the country. Another is the enormous corruption
, which, even by the standard of Nigeria, is
unprecedented. There has never been any government in this country as
corrupt, indolent and irresponsible as this government. Also, for a
nation which has so many ethnic groups, religious differences, and
identities, one was expecting a measure of inclusiveness. Unfortunately,
Jonathan and his cabal are the most divisive set of people to have been
at the top of an administration in this country. Frankly speaking, I
can’t think of anything I would regard as a positive highlight.
Everything that I can think of, which I consciously or otherwise
associate with this President, is terribly negative. I hope I am not
disappointing you, but I have nothing positive to say about the
government. Why is corruption believed to have thrived under Jonathan’s
administration, despite the checks and balances that the constitution
provides? Checks and balances only work if they are being applied to
control political will. It requires a measure of sincerity for him to
use the checks and balances in order to tackle corruption. Clearly, the
institutions are there. Clearly, most of the checks and balances are
there. But as we see, the tragedy of Jonathan and his administration is
that they have nothing but contempt for Nigerians and the institutions
that make up Nigeria. So, he feels he can play with everybody’s
intelligence. If you are caught involved in some malpractice and you
happen to be one of his favoured people, he would say, ‘No, you are not
corrupt; maybe you did a little bit of stealing.’ As you mentioned,
there have been several allegations of marginalisation under Jonathan,
especially by the South-West and the North. What is responsible for
this? There have been deliberate efforts to marginalise certain sections
of the country. The background that somebody comes from, his culture
and certain things that make him tick clearly influence whatever he
does: good or bad. For example, I lived in Port Harcourt for four years
as a federal commissioner. I noticed that within the same broad
South-South zone, there are some people you can regard as conceited.
They believe that apart from their village, settlement or creeks, there
are no other people who live elsewhere. I suspect that is the same
attitude Jonathan has; that apart from the Ijaws, there are no other
human beings and that what is uppermost in his mind is that Ijaws must
be gratified or favoured in everything. Where he cannot get Ijaws, he
looks for other people from the South-South, or preferably from the
Igbo. Therefore, if you come from that background, it is always safe. If
you have no consideration for other people other than your own, it
shows. I believe that it was a tragic mistake that we had to end up with
this kind of character as a president because he is so unilateral in
everything he does. I don’t see how that kind of person can successfully
govern a country of almost 300 ethnic groups and do justice to all. He
hasn’t done that; he has failed woefully and I am not surprised that he
has. Don’t forget that he worked directly under me when I was at the Oil
Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission. Therefore, I know a
little bit about him even before he became the acting president. Are you
saying the South-South ganged up with the South-East to marginalise
other regions in the country? If you compare man for man, the South-West
has more people that are better educated with university degrees than
the entire South-South. But when you look at the protocol list of the
top 20 officials in the country, from the President downwards, there is
only one Yoruba man. I am not trying to incite any unnecessary fears,
but if all the appointees were chosen based on merit and there was no
qualified Yoruba person who could be in that group of 20, I am prepared
to concede. But the fact of the matter is that for every one out of
those 20, there are thousands of Yorubas who are qualified but were not
appointed. If you don’t call that marginalisation, then I don’t know
what it is. You can make an excuse that maybe northerners like me are
not educated. That was what Edwin Clark said until he had to admit at
the National Conference that he was mistaken and he had become aware
that the governors were also educated. The reality is that there was a
deliberate machinery set in motion to alienate certain sections of the
country; the entire North and the South-West were particularly singled
out for marginalisation and, to a large extent, that succeeded. Look at
the economy, for instance; it is headed by a woman who started her
career as a geographer that was bundled up and shipped to Nigeria to be
made Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy. The
Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria is an Igbo man. Within the CBN,
there is an agency called the Assets Management Company of Nigeria. For
the most part, it has been headed by Igbo men. The Nigeria Economic
Summit Group is also headed by an Igbo man. The Securities and Exchange
Commission, until two months ago, was headed by an Igbo woman. The
Manufacturers Association of Nigeria has been headed by an Igbo man. If
you look carefully, you will notice that the movers and shakers of the
national economy are Igbos, and not because they are the best or the
brightest, but simply because they could not find Ijaw people. Now that
this so-called Coordinating Minister of the Economy has driven the
economy into a ditch, we are being confronted with economic disaster for
which every Nigerian, whether Igbo or non-Igbo will pay a price. We now
have the highest level of unemployment in the history of this country,
in addition to corruption. Economic experts have repeatedly called for a
diversification of the country’s economy. Do you think Jonathan’s
government has done enough in the agricultural sector to reduce the
country’s reliance on crude oil? In all fairness, it takes a while to
diversify the economy. Any talk of diversification of the national
economy will have to focus on royalties or tangibles, as they say. How
many people are employed in the oil sector today, compared to the number
of people who are employed in the agricultural sector? Yes, oil
contributes substantially to our earnings in foreign exchange. But in
terms of gross domestic product, agriculture is still ahead of oil and
it is the mainstay of the economy. I don’t know the latest, but when I
was involved in the industry up to five years ago, I knew that the total
number of people employed in the oil sector was not more than two to
three million. And till now, over 60 per cent of employment in the
makings of the national economy is based on agriculture. Whether we like
it or not, it is agriculture that will have to be diversified for our
economy to be called a diversified and balanced economy. Secondly, it
takes time to diversify any economy and when you look at oil on one hand
and agriculture on the other, the two are miles apart. There is no
connection between oil and agriculture. If anything, wherever you have
oil exploration activity, it has the effect of destroying our soil and
you cannot engage in agriculture without an enabling environment, in
terms of land and water. For anyone to talk about diversification of a
nation’s economy, he has to have a long-term view. It is not something a
politician can do easily because if he gives himself a timeline, it
would be a serious mistake. The process of diversification has many
linkages and unless those linkages are understood, explored and are
sincerely connected, there can be no diversification. This government
has made a lot of noise about diversification of economy, but you don’t
develop agriculture by making a noise about it. What should Jonathan
have done differently in tackling insecurity? There is one word for it:
merit. Since he came to office, every single key appointment in the
Nigerian Armed Forces and the Nigerian security establishments like the
State Security Service and the Police has been made on the basis of
nepotism and corruption. For example, if you appoint an
Inspector-General of Police for the purpose of manipulating elections,
that is corruption. If you appoint Brigade Commanders, Battalion
Commanders and General Officers Commanding, not on the basis of
competence or professionalism, but on the basis of their ability to do
their bidding and you then post them to areas where they will make money
and perhaps, allow terrorists sponsored by the government to go
scot-free, that is also corruption. If we had had the service chiefs we
deserved, particularly in the Army, the situation of Boko Haram could
have happened but certainly, it would not have risen to the ugly levels
that we are witnessing. And I believe that if anybody is going to do
anything about the security challenge, he is going to have to go back to
the root of the problem. How will Jonathan be remembered? I don’t see
him being favourably considered by history. But as far as I am
concerned, he is already history. He will be remembered as the man who
messed up security, the first president to be defeated in a reasonably
free and fair election, and one whose government is the worst in terms
of corruption.
Source: Punch
No comments:
Post a Comment