Connect with us

Opinion

Insecurities, NASS invitation and Buhari’s volte-face by Lateef Adewole

Published

on

Mental health A virtual meeting with former Heads of State presided over by President Buhari at the Council Chambers in the State House, Abuja land border anti-corruption protests land borders bandits icpc Presidency external borrowing external loans duplicated projects

The Insight by Lateef Adewole

“When Buhari’s regime is gone, everybody will remember the name Buhari and not Malami.” – Chief Mike Ozakhome (SAN)

In my last week’s article, I mentioned a few incidents which surprised me with regards to how many people in the north suddenly began to find their voices, crying out and speaking up against the degenerated state of insecurity in Nigeria, and the north in particular. Other things I deliberately excluded were the call on the president by the senate to sack the service chiefs, the invitation extended by the House of Representatives to President Muhammadu Buhari to address them on the floor of the house and the “unexpected” acceptance by the president to honour that invitation.

When the House of Representatives deliberated on the issue and subsequently issued that invitation, I simply laughed it off. It was not because I don’t have regards for the national assembly, but because of previous experiences we have had under such circumstances. When has the President ever honoured an invitation from the national assembly if it doesn’t suit him or actually comes from the executive arm?

Advertisement

As we discussed that invitation on a social media platform I belong last week, a friend commented that; “Is Gbajabiamila playing with his job?” Why would he say that? It’s because, many believe the current leadership of the National Assembly (NASS) does not have the boldness to act in ways that seem to question the authority of President Buhari. This is so, based on their antecedents, body languages and their previous utterances, which many alluded to the way they came on board.

It is not news that the President and leadership of APC under Comrade Adam Oshiomhole and some influential party leaders played no small roles in ensuring that the present NASS leaders emerged in 2019, against all odds. They enjoyed the full backing of the executive, unlike the case in 2015 when Senator Bukola Saraki seemed to have outsmarted the political juggernauts. They left nothing to chance in 2019. No stone was left unturned. This seeming influence of the President and his executive arm has earned the NASS leaders some demeaning appellations like; “rubber stamps”, “extension of executive”, etc.

David Ayele abducted on Sunday have been released el-rufai apc marafa

The leadership has acted in consonance with such appellations most times. Not that people expect that there should be rancour between the executive and the legislative for democracy to strive, but it is expected that in the midst of beneficial cooperation between them for the betterment of the larger society, a certain level of independence must be ensured and maintained, so as to sustain their autonomy and be able to act effectively in their oversight functions over the executive. Otherwise, democracy is doomed. But that has not been the case largely. This is seen as the reason why the President, his appointees and the executive arm generally hardly respect the legislative arm, their resolutions, their invitations or summons, as the case may be.

Therefore, it was a huge surprise that President Buhari accepted to appear at the national assembly and address them, as earlier slated for last Thursday. It was said that it will be to the joint sitting of both chambers and not just the reps. Arrangements to host him were already in top gear and all Nigerians were anxiously looking forward to it. And then… boom! The President changed his mind, dishonoured his words and refused to appear.

Advertisement

When the news of that first frittered in on Wednesday, many people called it “fake news”. Not until people begin to see the kites being flown that the reality of the situation dawned on them.

Governor Babagana Zulum's convoy was attacked

Governor Babagana Zulum of Borno State

The focus of the invitation was the general breakdown of security in the country and massive killings going on in the north specifically. It was the Borno APC caucus in the house, who raised that motion. They are 10 lawmakers. This showed how seriously worried they were, given that they belong to the same party and come from the same region as the president, the north.

If it had been otherwise, no-one would have given it a chance. Many people would simply have introduced their divisive religious, tribal and partisanship sentiments to it. They would have accused those who are behind the move as “unpatriotic”, called them names and instigated northerners against them. The motion would have been dead on arrival! But this did not happen, though, some still fought it.

However, it looked like I celebrated too early. It was the Governor of Borno state who first started to water down the situation, while addressing the delegation of the Arewa Consultative Forum, who paid him a condolence visit. He said that the fight against Boko Haram has been more successful since Buhari took over than in the past, based on empirical evidence. I could not dispute him as I believe in accurate data.

But when issues are looked at in isolation without considering many other factors which are supposed to be in favour of a new government which took over in 2015, then, it is disingenuous. Factors like years of experience and the lessons learnt in the fight from previous years. As at 2015, the military already had an idea of what insurgency was and how they execute their wars, unlike five years earlier. Also, we are talking about the situation in 2020 after spending five years in government by a new set.

Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami

Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami

On Wednesday, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, said the national assembly has no constitutional power to invite the President to come and address them on security matters. He backed it with some parts of the constitution. This has generated tonnes of arguments since then. Immediately I heard that, I knew President Buhari will be “no-show” at NASS on Thursday, and I was correct.

Unfortunately, some people were still optimistic that the President was coming but that was either out of political naivety or lack of understanding of how this government has operated in the last 5 years. Funny enough, had former Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari, still been alive, many would have blamed him for the disappointment by the President. Now we know he was not solely responsible for all that happened while he was alive and “in charge” or may be someone else has simply stepped up into his shoes and “taken charge”. Not that I am re-echoing Professor Wole Soyinka’s speech. It just seems obvious.

Advertisement

It was said that the “Progressive” Governors, as those elected on the APC platform is called, mounted pressure on the President to shelve the idea of addressing the national assembly. They had a meeting with the president and proceeded to have another with the caucus at the national assembly. There was insinuation that they feared that their respective houses of assembly could be emboldened to begin demanding for them to address them too. Isn’t that a big joke?

When did it become scary for one arm of government to address another under a democratic system? It’s all because, governors in Nigeria are not used to being accountable to anyone and must have perceived the legislative arm questioning the executive arm as demeaning. So, to them, and many political jobbers and sycophants, it’s inconceivable to see the President being held accountable by the legislators by their invitation to him to address them. What kind of democracy are we practicing in Nigeria?

FILE: Senate President Ahmed Lawan; President Muhammadu Buhari and Speaker, House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila during their meeting at the Presidential Villa Supreme Court

FILE: Senate President Ahmed Lawan; President Muhammadu Buhari and Speaker, House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila during their meeting at the Presidential Villa

In my opinion, after studying the diverse opinions of many commentators, I believe Malami was clever by half. In the precise context of what he said that; “The management and control of the security sector is exclusively vested in the President by Section 218 (1) of the Constitution as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, including the power to determine the operational use of the armed forces.”

He was also quoted to have said; “The confidentiality of strategies employed by the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not open for public exposure in view of the security implications in probably undermining of the war against terror.”

Looking at these statements, would anyone not be persuaded to agree with him? In response, many other senior lawyers have also responded to him. Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), said that; “With respect, the President is under a moral and legal obligation to honour the invitation. Having undertaken to honour the invitation, the President should ignore the misleading advice of those trying to expose him to ridicule by portraying the President as inconsistent or a man who cannot honour his own words.”

Advertisement

“By the combined effect of sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution, the National Assembly is empowered to summon any public officer, including the President, in the course of investigating any matter concerning which it has the power to make laws and the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry or government department charged, or intended to be charged, with the duty of or responsibility for executing or administering laws enacted by the National Assembly.”

Mr. Raji Ahmed (SAN) described Malami’s argument as “90 per cent in political content and less than 10 per cent of law.” Another senior lawyer, Mr. Dayo Akinlaja (SAN), noted “that what the National Assembly has done is not out of place when the provisions of Sections 14, 67, 88 and 218 (4) (a) of the constitution are taken into consideration.”

All this back and forth debates just for a leader to address his people on a very crucial matter like the state of insecurity? It showed the level that governance has sunk in Nigeria. No rational person will see it as unimportant for the president to do whatever he needed to do, to bring everybody on board, get the support of all in order to overcome this challenge.

While this was going on, bandits killed other innocent travellers, 16 in number, who were indigenes of Dambatta local government in Kano state, along Abuja-Kaduna highway same Wednesday. They were people returning from their business trips from Abuja. The governor of Kano state laid curses on them. That should suffice, rather than “disturbing” the President with such invitation by the House of Representatives.

Advertisement

I said earlier that I might have rejoiced too early about the “north waking from their slumber” in my last week’s article. The actual title I initially contemplated for that article was: “Why is the south crying more than the bereaved north?”. I changed my mind as a mark of appreciation of efforts I thought were being made by some in the North who spoke up but it’s like I might be wrong. When the people who were concerned that President Buhari should address the NASS on security matters are checked, majority are southerners, while those defending the cancellation are majorly northerners. This just fits exactly into my article’s “botched” title.

My take is that the President should have appeared and address the NASS members. Doing so, he would have used one stone to kill many birds but his handlers and advisers must have thought otherwise. Afterall, they know him better; understand his preferences, his style and body language. But I think they were wrong. That cancellation was in bad taste.

Had the president come; one, the perception of him as being autocratic would have been greatly impacted positively. Two, he would have been seen as being sensitive, humane and a caring leader. Three, at this stage where the national spirit is at the lowest ebb, an inspiring appearance and speech from the President could lift that up. Four, many concerns being expressed by Nigerians would have been addressed, while addressing the NASS members at the same time without actually giving away any security operational details, something Malami hid under to (mis)advise the president not to appear. Five, he would have empowered NASS by changing their “rubber-stamp” image. Six, the terrorists would have gotten the message that all arms of government are united and ready to face common enemy, rather than the bad-blood that this action has caused.

These and many more would have benefitted the President, the legislative arm, the people and the country as a whole, but some people strive in an atmosphere of dissonance. They will always ensure it is sustained.

Advertisement

In all, it is never too late to undo whatever is done wrongly. It’s easier to be happy together than keep malice. President Buhari should reconsider his decision and do the needful.

May God continue to protect us and guide us aright.

God Bless Nigeria.

Lateef Adewole is a political analyst and social commentator can be reached by email lateefadewole23@gmail.com or via WhatsApp +2348020989095 and @lateef_adewole on Twitter

Advertisement
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2015 - 2024 ChronicleNG

Discover more from Chronicle.ng

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading