Presidential Probation: Yar’Adua’s Evaluation Report
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Franklin
Otorofani, Esq.
12.30.07
|
|
|
Preamble
In all likelihood, you’re a great reader
with above average grasp of the Queen’s
language. But in all probability, you’ve not
heard the term “Presidential Probation,”
before now. Never mind, you’re certainly not
alone. While you already had the term
“probation,” in your lexicon, “presidential
probation” is the new kid on the block,
linguistically, that is. No one has heard
the term before now because the term simply
didn’t exist before now. It was coined here
and now, and you read it here first! How’s
that for wordsmithing?
The English language and indeed, every other
language for that matter, is grown by
wordsmiths for which our very own Nobel
Laureate, Wole Soyinka, has become one of
the grandmasters. Every now and then
hundreds of new word coinages are added to
the English Dictionary, especially from the
realm of information technology. Such words
as “internet,” “e-mail,” “streaming video,”
“blog,” “spam,” “google,” “e-commerce,”
“video conferencing,” “webmail,” “website,”
ex-cetera, ex-cetera, have become common
vocabulary. Our languages; whether it is
English, French, Spanish, Igbo, Yoruba,
Hausa, Edo, Ibibio, Izon, Urhobo/Isoko, you
name it--are enriched through the linguistic
craftsmanship of wordsmiths and the
wordsmiths are hard at work coming up with
new words and expressions, to add color,
depth, and breath to our linguistic
heritage. This dynamic process in the
reinvention of our languages is ongoing and
we seek to advance it one notch even in this
article.
Probation
Those in the business of hiring and firing
are enamored of the term “probationary
period” or simply “probation.” A new hire,
whether he be the lowly messenger in an
office who dutifully delivers the
interoffice mail and other packages or
simply runs official errands, or the high
flying President and CEO of a Fortune 500
Corporation who breathes down the necks of
subordinates from his posh expansive ornate
oval office on the 40th Floor of a
glittering Corporate Headquarters in a
skyscraper, is made to go through the
crucible of probationary period.
Probationary period is a Human Resources
tool for evaluating the on-the-job
performance of a new hire in order to
determine the competence and/or suitability
of the individual for the job in question.
However, while it is true that Human
Resources managers place greater premium on
the utility of probationary periods which
enables them to determine who to retain on
the job, the period also affords the new
hire an opportunity to assess his/her
employer and new work environment and decide
whether it’s in accord with his/her goals
and aspirations, or otherwise move on to
another employer.
Viewed from that perspective therefore, it
can safely be argued that probationary
periods provide both employers and the
employees the opportunity to evaluate each
other and determine whether to continue in
the labor marriage or terminate the
employment relationship. The initiative to
terminate the relationship could come from
either side and it’s by no means limited to
the employer side of the equation. Thus it
is as much in the power of the employer to
fire the employee as it is for the employee
to fire the employer. In other words,
although it may sound ridiculous, “hire and
fire” is as much a prerogative of the
employer as it is of the employee, in that
the employer too can be “hired and fired” by
the employee just as the employee can be
hired and fired by the employer. Here is how
it works: When a new hire abruptly tenders a
resignation letter or simply walks out on
his employer, he/she is considered to have
“fired” his/her employer just as when he/she
is given the boot by his/her employer.
That said given the unequal relationship
between employers and employees, the
scenario of an employee “firing” the
“employer” carries little or no weight as
the employer firing the “employee.” That’s
why probationary period means more to the
employer than the employee. New hires dread
the period and generally put their best foot
forward during the period. They are
considered fully employed only upon the
successful completion of their probationary
periods. Those who scale through are
retained and those who fail are shown the
exit door! It’s that simple!
The author has just completed such a
probationary period that lasted five
grueling months of management training and
hands on experience in a top flight Health
Insurance Company and he is happy to report
that he scaled through in all the evaluation
reports to date (three in all). Thumbs up
for one more ‘Niger’ right up there in the
heart of the financial capital of the world!
But don’t envy me folks: it’s as tough as
hell out there in corporate America. But
it’s one heck of experience that would
prepare one for higher responsibilities in
life someday. So, Yar’Adua is not alone in
being subjected to probationary evaluation.
He is even lucky that his job is political
rather than professional where he has a
greater flexibility and operating legroom to
maneuver his way through his probation.
Applicability in Public Office
But is the concept of probation applicable
in the political arena? Do political office
holders worry about passing their
probationary periods as civil servants and
the rest of the labor force do? Is there
anything like parliamentary, gubernatorial,
or presidential probation? If the answer is
‘no,’ I ask, why not? And, if it is ‘yes,’ I
ask, how so? The answer is both ‘yes’ and
‘no’. ‘No,’ in the sense that no elected
political office holder is formally required
to commit to a probationary period at the
point of hire as it’s done in other offices
once elected into office. A political office
holder, such as a lawmaker, municipal
council chairman, governor, or president, is
elected for a term certain, and therefore,
enjoys the luxury of running out his/her
full term of office (all things being equal)
without being subjected to an initial
probationary evaluation that could abruptly
terminate his/her tenure, if found wanting.
Permit me to postulate, however, that there
is as much probation in public service as
there is in private service. In other words,
political office holders, such as
legislators, local government chairmen and
councilors, governors, and presidents, are
subject to the same probationary standards
as are other public office holders in the
polity, perhaps, even more so, especially in
well established democracies. In functioning
democracies, there are tools for evaluating
the performance of political office holders,
and if need be, terminate their tenures
before their expiration dates. The most
dramatic of these tools are: (1) impeachment
(2) constituency recall, and ultimately (3)
voting out.
Impeachment: Impeachment is the process of
an abrupt termination of the tenure of a
sitting public office holder particularly
that of the executive and judicial branches
of government. A president, governor, or
judge, may be removed from office through
the process of impeachment on grounds of
incompetence, gross misconduct, or other
reasons before the expiration of his/her
term of office. While the instrument of
impeachment is rarely used in developed
democracies it has gained currency in
Nigeria in the present democratic
dispensation. What, with the raft of
gubernatorial impeachments in Ekiti, Lagos,
Abia, Oyo, and Anambra states, Speakers of
Houses of Assembly, and the inchoate but
audacious attempt to visit it on former
President Obasanjo, Nigerians sure know what
impeachment sounds and feels like even
though they might not be absolutely sure
that the instrument was not being put to
illegitimate use or abuse during the period.
When put to legitimate use, however,
impeachment provides the polity with a
valuable tool for the probationary
assessment of an incumbent chief executive
or judicial officer, provided, of course, it
is not hijacked as a partisan tool to fight
political battles or personal vendetta as
was the case during the US President
Clinton’s impeachment debacle or as was the
case in Nigeria.
Constituents’ Recall: Recall of political
office holders by their constituents is one
of the instruments of tenure termination. It
is the prerogative of the constituents of an
elected public office holder to determine
when the office holder should cease to
represent them. A governor of a state or
legislative representative of a constituency
can be recalled by his/her constituents at
will. The most recent example is that of
former Governor of the state of California,
Mr. Gray Davis, who was recalled by the
state constituents thus paving the way for
the emergence of the incumbent Governor
Arnold Schartzeneger. Governor Davis was
swept off the state executive mansion
through a petition started by a Republican
party activist that snowballed into a
political hurricane that took away the
governor in one huge gale. His alleged
stand-offish arrogance had alienated him
from his core democratic constituency that
dumped him like a piece of trash at crunch
time. In Nigeria, the former Deputy Senate
President, Alhaji Ibrahim Mantu, was
subjected to the ordeal of constituent
recall, albeit unsuccessfully. While no
constituent recall efforts have to date been
successful in Nigeria, the very public
awareness of the availability of that
instrument and the willingness to deplore it
against erring public office holders, makes
it a veritable instrument for keeping in
check excesses of public office holders as
well as their performance evaluation.
Voting Out:
(The Terminator!) A thousand
apologies to Gov. Schwartzeneger! This is
the ultimate instrument of termination. When
everything else fails, a public office
holder is bound to meet his/her waterloo at
the polls. His constituents would ambush
him/her at the polls and take their pound of
flesh. That is their payback time and they
would take full advantage of it. Those who
have the power to hire also have the power
to fire and that’s when the concept of the
people’s sovereign power is validated in a
democracy. Again, Ibrahim Mantu provides a
good example in Nigeria of the exercise of
that power by the people.
All efforts to get Mantu out of the Senate
failed miserably until his traducers used
the last senatorial elections to shove him
aside. Discounting for a moment the role of
electoral malpractices, the defeat of an
incumbent in a re-election bid signifies the
rejection of the candidate, and ipso facto,
the termination of his representation of the
constituents in question. It’s therefore, a
vote of no confidence in the performance of
the particular office holder. In other
words, it’s a failure in his probationary
evaluation report if the first term is taken
as the probationary period.
In all the above cases the constituents are
both the judges and enforcers; in some cases
acting directly, as for example, in the
Governor Davis case, and in others, through
their representatives in parliament, as in
the impeachment cases.
Application Constraints
However, the mechanism for monitoring and
evaluating the performance of public office
holders even in well grounded democracies,
is radically different from what obtains in
the private sector. While a new hire in the
private sector is subjected to intense
scrutiny by his managers, sometimes on a
day-by-day basis, the political office
holder is given a wider berth or somewhat
loose evaluation regimen over a much longer
period of time. The reason for this
wooliness in the evaluation process can be
located in the very nature of the political
system itself and its operating culture
protectionism.
Who, for instance, monitors and evaluates
the performance of the lawmaker, governor,
president, or local government council
chairman, for that matter in a systematic
and continual basis? Some may say, the
governor or president monitors and evaluates
the lawmaker, and the lawmaker, in turn
monitors the governor or president. Others
may hold that the people are the ones that
monitor the President, governor, and the
lawmaker. Yet, others may say it’s the
judiciary that monitors all the other public
office holders in the other branches of
government.
All of the above answers are more or less
correct. However, they only give a partial
picture of the landscape, and only so in
theory and hardly in practice. While the
constitution provides for a robust regime of
checks and balances as between and among the
three tiers of government, the very process
of the composition of these tiers of
government makes it extremely difficult, if
not impracticable, for inter-institutional
surveillance and evaluation to be
effectively undertaken in a democratic
dispensation.
This inherent weakness is accentuated by the
party system, which promotes loyalty to the
party and its functionaries rather than to
the nation. Thus a President whose party is
in control of the legislature is likely to
get away with both legal and constitutional
infractions regardless of the constitutional
provisions for checks and balances. We have
seen that in the US where the Republican
Party moves in lockstep with President Bush
in each and every issue except on
immigration, including the hot button issue
of wiretapping telephone lines of fellow
American citizens in their own country in
the name of war on terror. The Republic
party controlled Congress bluntly refused to
censure the President and shot down every
attempt by Democrats to censure the
President. Senator Russ Feingold’s
Resolution to censure the President was dead
on arrival on the floor of the US Senate
because of the fierce opposition by the
Republican senators who stood behind their
President like Iroko trees. We have seen
that also in Nigeria where the ruling Party,
the PDP controlled National Assembly, lined
up behind the President in almost every move
of the President regardless of the
constitutionality or legality of some of the
presidential actions.
On its part, save for a few occasions, the
Presidency is unwilling to call the
legislature to order ostensibly in deference
to the doctrine of separation of powers.
Again, we saw that play out in Nigeria
during the Ettehgate affair when President
Yar’Adua bluntly refused to intervene to
urge the resignation of the ex-Speaker Etteh
until she was forced out by the Nigerian
people themselves when everything else
failed to move her. The wooliness of
probationary period of elected public office
holders is made more precarious by
geo-ethnic considerations in a country like
Nigeria. Political and public office holders
in Nigeria have their entire ethnic groups
lined up behind them who would go to any
lengths to protect and shield their sons and
daughters in public service from public
accountability when the chips are down. This
‘ethnic insurance policy’ on tenure renders
almost completely nugatory the concept of
probation in public service. And if there is
any redemptive feature left after that, it
is taken away by the zoning formula, which
has stealthily crept into the nation’s
political lexicon to put the final nail on
the coffin of accountability and financial
probity.
Thus the deadly combination partisanship,
ethnicity, and zoning, that foster
protectionism in public service, have
conspired to rob our democratic experience
of the vitality and wholesome features that
are inherent in the human resource tool of
probation. In other words, it has rendered
the constitutional provisions of checks and
balances in the system as theoretical
toothless bulldog that is even unable to
bark let alone bite. This has in effect put
to question the practicability of the regime
of checks and balances in our political
system. As the nation embarks on the
exercise of constitutional amendment she
needs to pay a great deal of attention to
the issue of checks and balances and fashion
out a formula on how best to actualize their
operability in a politico-cultural milieu
such as ours.
Yar’Adua Evaluation Report
The constraints alluded to above
notwithstanding, Nigerians in general and
the media in particular, owe it to
themselves and the nation to perpetually
keep the government on its toes in its own
interest and the interest of the nation. And
this should by no means be restricted to the
Federal Government but to governments at the
lower levels as well. After all, more than
50% of federal revenues goes to the other
two tiers of government—state and local in
addition to their internally generated
revenues. In the end the states and local
governments are a whole lot richer than the
Federal Government itself; all of which
revenues are shared with the states and
local governments while bearing the brunt of
funding our defense diplomatic missions,
military, federal highways, air and
seaports, internal and external security,
tertiary education, postal services, and a
host of other responsibilities.
That said the focus here is on President
Musa Yar’Adua and not on state governors and
local government chairmen. The reason for
this is because the President sets the tone
and direction for the entire country. The
presidency exerts the greatest political and
economic influence on the entire nation.
It’s only natural therefore, that we train
our searchlight at the Presidency.
Presenting the Report:
Ladies and gentlemen, please permit me to
present the Evaluation Report of President
Musa Yar’Adua Probation—May 29,
2007-December 29, 2007.
In presenting this report to the nation it
is important to observe at the outset that
this report has defined parameters: (1) It
must strive at objectivity rather than
subjectivity; (2) It must be fair and
balanced; (3) It must be constructive,
neither partisan nor sensationalized; (4) It
must be progressive; that is to say, it must
point the way forward; (5) As the title of
this piece suggests this is not a final
verdict on President Yar’Adua. It is a
report on the probationary period therefore
the President is not being evaluated on his
ultimate records in the long haul. It’s
necessarily a provisional report; and (6) It
must meet Yar’Adua on his own turf, that is
to say, match President Yar’Adua’s
performance against his electoral promises
rather than what others want him to do. Put
another way, Yar’Adua must be evaluated
against the goals he set out to achieve as
President of the greatest black nation on
earth. If a man fails to meet the goals and
expectations set by others he can be excused
but if he fails to meet the goals and
expectation he sets for himself the verdict
would be a lot harsher. And that brings us
to Yar’Adua’s goals and expectations of his
presidency.
Yar’Adua’s Seven-Point Agenda
The seven-point agenda features energy
emergency, security of lives and properties,
land reforms and human capital development
with compulsory education for children.
Others include wealth creation/poverty
alleviation, transportation and
infrastructure revolution.
(1)Energy Emergency:-“Yar’Adua to declare
national emergency in power sector,” screams
the dailies. Nigeria’s energy problems have
defied every government solution. It appears
that Nigerians are condemned to live in
perpetual darkness in this information age.
It is hard to believe that Nigerians cannot
enjoy a single day of uninterrupted power
supply which even war torn countries like
Iraq and Afghanistan enjoy, at least in
their capital cities. The preceding Obasanjo
administration embarked on an ambitious
reform program that was unfolding when
President Yar’Adua took over. But despite
more than a trillion naira invested in the
sector, very little change has been
recorded. It appears that the problem has
even worsened as demands continue to outpace
supply by an ever widening margin. Nigeria’s
power need is currently put at 15,000
Megawatts whereas it currently generates and
distributes less than 4,000 Megawatts
leaving a huge shortfall of over about 11,
000 Megawatts. It’s easy to see therefore
why the meager successes record under the
Obasanjo administration in increasing
generation output from the miserable 1,700
Megawatts to the under 4, 000 megawatts,
would not even make a dent in the energy
profile of the country. While the reform
agenda in the power sector is on the right
track, the reforms urgently require an
accelerated response from the government.
Thus President Yar’Adua’s promise to declare
an energy emergency in the power sector “as
soon as he was sworn in” was a timely
response from ‘candidate’ and
“President-Elect’ Yar’Adua, as opposed to
President Yar’Adua.
Report: We report that this promise has yet
to be fulfilled seven
months after inauguration. The presidency
has offered the nation a cocktail of excuses
for the lack fulfillment of this electoral
promise. We note however, that the President
has set up a commission to work the issue
which would submit its report in six months.
The nation has seen the difference between a
presidential candidate on the campaign
stump, a president-elect caught up in the
euphoria of victory, and a president in
office in terms of performance.
Recommendation: We recommend that the
President should
declare an economic emergency that would
enable the government to bring in power
plants in badges offshore similar to what
obtains in the oil sector in deep sea oil
prospecting rigs, in collaboration with the
private sector until the inland power plants
under construction come on stream. Waiting
for a report by some bureaucrats in six
months does not exactly appear to us as the
best
way to respond to a national emergency of
this magnitude.
(2) Security of Lives and Property:-This
issue must be
treated for what it is vis-avis the role of
government in society. Government may not
provide electricity for the citizens. It may
not provide food on their dinning tables; it
may not provide clothes and shelter for the
citizens; it may not provide health and
education for the citizens; and it may not
provide anything in between—roads,
transportation, telecommunication,
ex-cetera, but it cannot afford not to
provide security for the people because that
is the very reason for the existence of
government in the first place! Thus
President Yar’Adua hit the nail right on the
head when he made security of life and
property one of his seven-point agenda. In
fact, I could go so far as to state that it
should have been the number one item on the
agenda even before energy. If President
Yar’Adua is able to fulfill this promise he
will have justified the reason for the
existence of government, and in Biblical
language, everything else thing will be
added unto him.
Report: The President has not delivered on
this promise.
While the 2008 first full Yar’Adua budget in
office contains impressive vote for
security, which could significantly improve
the dire security situation in the country
if approved by the National Assembly, there
is no significant short term measure to
combat worsening security conditions in the
country at the moment. The nation is
currently under siege by armed robbers
making life short, hazardous, brutish, and
therefore, unbearable for the generality of
the citizenry.
Recommendation: The Nigerian Police Force as
presently
Constituted, is not a crime fighting force
but an engine of corruption. The dismal
performance of the Nigerian police stems
primarily from a climate of attitudinal and
ethical atrophy and not necessarily from
dearth of manpower or equipment. The police
do not need armored tanks, frigates,
warships, bombs, and jet bombers, to fight
street crimes like armed robberies.
Therefore, for the police authorities to
always blame their failures on lack of
sophisticated police equipment is sheer
bunkum and it’s totally un-acceptable. It’s
an attempt to blame their failures on their
tools rather than on their poor, deficient
skill set. A situation where the force
cannot even police itself and harbors armed
robbers within its rank and file is, to say
the least, deplorable. We recommend
therefore that the President must give the
top hierarchy of the force enforceable
security benchmarks within specific
timeframes, failing which it should be
disbanded and replaced with another one with
similar benchmarks.
(3) Land Reforms:-Presently
the 1978 Land Use Act
(LUA) vests all lands within the state in
the Governor of the state. Land is
recognized as the most important factor of
production because everything thing required
for economic activities sits on land. But
land is a finite resource that cannot be
produced but only improved or reclaimed as
the case may be. Vesting all state land in
the governor of a state was meant to make
land readily available for economic
activities through the machinery of
government. But today the lofty dreams of
the then military government of General
Olusegun Obasanjo have all but been dashed
as state governments make a racket of land
certificates of occupancy (C of O). C of Os
have become veritable instruments of
corruption in the hands of state governors
thus negating the very purpose of the land
reform.
Report: Yar’Adua has yet to deliver on this
agenda item.
Worse still, there is no indication on the
ground pointing to government’s activity on
this front. No legislation has been proposed
before the National Assembly and no
committee has been set up either, to advise
the government on the way forward. In fact,
it would appear that land reform item has
disappeared altogether from the seven-point
agenda. Yet, it is too early to conclude
that the government has abandoned
this agenda item. The government might just
be working
under the radar to fashion out solution that
would not upset the applecart.
Recommendation:-The government needs to
reassure the
people that it has not abandoned land reform
in its agenda. If for whatever reasons the
government is no longer keen on the proposed
reform it should be bold enough to let the
public know its position because governance
is a public trust, therefore it is
counterproductive to keep the citizens in
the dark on this issue. No one knows the
character of Yar’Adua’s proposed land
reform. However, anything that quickens the
process of land acquisition for economic
activities would be most welcome even if it
means divesting state governors of the
vesting rights to land. However, that would
require an amendment of the constitution,
which would be a Herculean task as the
governors would most certainly mobilize
their Houses of Assembly to oppose any
amendments of LUA that divests them of their
present powers. But we recommend that the
real goal is not about power play to
castrate the governors but to accelerate the
process of land acquisition and if the
governors can be constitutionally made to be
more responsive in land acquisition
processing bureaucracy the better for all
and our economy.
(4) Human Capital Development:-There is no
question that the nation is blessed with
huge reservoir of human capital. The
question is whether this huge asset is in
tune with the demands
of the times. Has the nation developed a
critical mass of manpower in the critical
areas of human endeavors that are relevant
to our quest for economic and technological
attainments? The answer is a resounding
‘no.’ It is the reason why highly trained
graduates are still roaming the streets in
search of jobs while the nation hires
foreigners to service the economy in
critical areas of technology. There is no
question therefore that the products of our
tertiary educational system are
unemployable. Human capital development must
therefore be focused and targeted at the
areas of need that are most critical to our
national goals.
Report: Yar’Adua is yet to deliver on this
agenda item. There is
nothing on the ground to suggest even
remotely that the government is interested
in implementing this item on the agenda. The
nation may have to wait for the details of
the budget breakdown to know what percentage
of the budget would specifically go for
human capital development. Until then mum is
the word.
Recommendation:-Human capital development
holds the key to
the nation’s quest for economic and
technological aspirations. As I have
recommended in a previous article Yar’Adua
must expand this agenda item to include
Research and Development (R&D) rather than
just concentrating on formal education
alone.
(5) Poverty Alleviation:-This item on the Yar’Adua agenda is perhaps more relevant to
the common man in the street than any other
item on the agenda. In a country where
majority of the citizens live below the
poverty line this item should resonate well
with the people. The preceding
administration had an entire governmental
agency devoted to the issue of poverty
alleviation but it is not clear how much
success it has achieved in the past eight
years. Statistics available indicate,
however, that there has been some modest
reduction in poverty levels in Nigeria over
the period although this has not been felt
in any significant way in the street.
Report:-Yar’Adua has not delivered on this
agenda item. Beyond the usual sound bites,
there is nothing on the ground to indicate
that the government has come up with
anything new to reduce the country’s poverty
levels. Even the existing agency created for
poverty alleviation has not been elevated or
accorded the prominence it deserves in the
scheme of things. In fact, many Nigerians do
not even know of its existence let alone its
impact on their fortunes. There is no
movement on this item so far.
Recommendation:-The best and permanent way
to reduce poverty is through job creation.
While it is the role of the private sector
to provide jobs with appropriate
government’s incentives in place, it is
recommended that government should embark on
temporary measures to create jobs. One of
such would be the revamping of the Public
Works Department (PWD). Direct labor could
be used to maintain our broken roads and
buildings and other infrastructures as well
as beautify our environments.
(6) Transportation:-Transportation system is
to the nation what the circulatory system is
to the body. The body would be starved to
death without the circulatory system which
carries all the essential nutrients that
make life possible to the various organs of
the body through the blood stream. The
nation’s transportation system, like every
other sector, is in disastrous condition
whether we are talking about air, marine,
land, and rail transportation. Therefore for
candidate Yar’Adua to have included this all
important item on the agenda is quite
commendable. Nigerian leaders have done
exactly the same thing in the past. It’s so
easy to correctly diagnose Nigeria’s
problems because even an unborn child could
easily do so from its mother’s womb.
Therefore, the issue is not about including
the item on the agenda per se, but making a
difference. Everyday, the nation is
bombarded with reports about the deplorable
conditions of our roads. Whole sections of
so-called Trunk ‘A’ roads have been cut off
and motorists and travelers spend hours and
days on our roads with huge costs to our
economy and the vehicles alike.
Report:-Yar’Adua has not delivered on this
item. There is no plan on the table, save
for what Yar’Adua inherited from the
Obasanjo administration, for the development
of the transportation sector nor has the
transportation policy inherited been
accorded any meaningful impetus or added
urgency in the scheme of things.
Recommendation:-Yar’Adua has got just seven
items on his agenda of which transportation
is one. He is fortunate enough to have
inherited a comprehensive transportation
policy from his immediate predecessor.
Implementation of that policy should not
take forever. He needs to move aggressively
to implement the transportation policy that
would create a modern and efficient
inter-modal transportation system for the
nation.
(7) Infrastructural Revolution:-This is an
omnibus item on the agenda. Obviously,
infrastructure would include transportation,
telecommunication, roads, railways,
buildings, power supply, and everything else
in between.
Report:-Yar’Adua has not delivered on this
item. No revolution has been declared so far
in infrastructural development. It’s still
more of a political campaign sound bite than
any serious attempt to launch a revolution
in these areas. Just as the President failed
to declare a state of emergency in the
energy sector, so has he failed to launch
the promised revolution in infrastructural
development.
Note: By “delivering” we don’t necessarily
mean solving the problem in question in
seven months but articulating a
comprehensive and actionable interventionist
agenda for solving the problems and backing
that up with appropriate budgetary
provisions. It would also involve setting up
the implementation machinery within the
probationary period. Where that is not the
case the President has not delivered even in
the preliminary stages.
Verdict: President Musa Yar’Adua Has Failed
His Probation! Incidentally, the AC has
reached the same conclusions and most honest
Nigerians would unquestionably agree with
the above score card of the administration.
Recommendation:-It is hereby recommended
that Yar’Adua’s presidential probation be
extended by another five months to enable
him begin the implementation of his first
full budget.
Conclusions: The advent of this
administration held so much promise for the
nation even if came on board in a blaze of
controversies arising from the flawed
elections. The reasons for the optimism stem
largely from his youth and educational
attainment as well as change in leadership.
It was truly a generational shift that
Nigerians were yearning for. For the first
time a university graduate and a youth was
given the chance to lead. It was a huge test
for the youthful Yar’Adua. But given the
sterling performance of youthful stars like
Oby Ezekwesili, Nuhu Ribadu, and el-Rufai in
the previous administration, not a few
Nigerians thought, perhaps wrongly, that
President Yar’Adua would make a significant
difference just like the other youthful
stars in the previous administration.
Unfortunately, Yar’Adua is turning out to be
of a different hue altogether. He has
surrounded himself with non-entities who are
busy demolishing the reform structures
inherited from the previous administration
without as much as replacing them with new
ones. In one word, they’re not builders but
destroyers eager to undo the achievements of
their predecessors in office.
The President limited himself to a
seven-point agenda which is a modest
portfolio by national standards. He showed
flashes of inspiration philosophically in
his early days in power. His postulation on
servant leader and his commitment to rule of
law declarations hold some promise that are
yet to be put to practice in real sense.
That initial flash of inspiration has,
however, begun to wear thin for lack of
demonstrable consistency and sincerity of
purpose in matching words with action. There
is a wide gulf between the president’s
public declarations and his actions. Rule of
law is observed when it suits the
administration and dumped when it stands
between the administration and its parochial
agenda.
What is more, the President has fallen short
of his own expectations, and therefore of
the nation. In the place of action the
nation is being offered empty slogans and
sound bites. In the place of policy
fulfillment we’re getting a menu of
promises. In the place of performance we are
offered a basket of excuses for failure.
Even as this article goes to the press
President Yar’Adua is still in Kano making
the same promises he made during the
electioneering campaigns. It would appear
that, for him, the campaigns are not over
yet. The administration has spent more of
its time churning out promises than
delivering on a single one of them.
Meanwhile, short of a coherent policy
platform, all manners of dark schemes are
being hatched in Aso Rock designed for the
personal destruction of individual
characters who are not in the good books of
the administration. The current onslaught
against EFCC is indicative of this renewed
trend. First, it was el Rufai that was
booted out. Charles Solubo was to have
joined him but for the law establishing the
Central Bank that makes it almost impossible
to fire the CBN boss without the concurrence
of the legislature. But the administration
has ensured that Charles Solubo is
frustrated enough in his policy initiatives
just as it has done to Nuhu Ribadu. The D-G
of BPE Mrs. Irene Chigue survived the bid to
remove her by the whiskers. INEC Chairman,
Maurice Iwu has been targeted for removal
and he is hanging in there by the tread of
electoral adjudicatory circumstances. And
after several failed attempts to cage him,
Nuhu Ribadu, has at last, been shoved aside
under patently dubious circumstances. The
administration appears to be on a mission of
vendetta against those who outshine them
even as it walks on crutches on account of
its congenital electoral deformity.
All the leading lights of the reform agenda
Yar’Adua inherited have been removed and/or
sidelined. And the tragedy of it is that
they are being replaced with mediocre and
unremarkable individuals who have only
succeeded in dimming the lights on the
reforms by indulging in sundry acts of
revisionism. Is it any wonder then that the
administration is still groping in the dark
unable to chart a distinct course for itself
more than seven months after taking over the
reins of power? The administration bears all
the hallmarks of a caretaker regime, very
much akin to the Shonekan’s lame duck
governmental interregnum after the forced
exit of the IBB, aka ‘Evil Genius.’ It’s a
matter for regret that the Yar’Adua lame
duck presidency is fast degenerating into a
sorry pass where witch hunting has become
its first order of business. It may well be
the beginning of the end in the macabre
dance of the current dispensation.
If I were a soothsayer, I would say that the
auguries do not look particularly good. But
I’m not. Yet one does not need to be a
soothsayer to appreciate the auguries. What,
with the nation in disarray over ordinary
local government elections when the dust
over the last general elections is yet to
settle; with the Presidential Election
Tribunal verdict around the corner; the 2008
budget quagmire, and the Ribadu nightmare
haunting the Yar’Adua administration, how
optimistic can one be in these precarious
times? A dark pall hangs ominously over the
nation that only a decisive action on the
part of the President can dissipate it.
President Yar’Adua must stop the current
drift into despair and hopelessness.
Yet the President continues to show some dim
promise even if not fulfillment. For that
reason, therefore, he would need to have his
probationary period extended till the
execution of his full budget to enable us to
deliver a fuller assessment of his
probationary performance in office. For now,
however, there is not much to write home
about. No substantive progress has been
recorded by the administration leaving his
spokesman Mr. Olusegun Adeniyi to plead for
patience and understanding. Mr. Adeniyi has
spent more time making excuses for
Yar’Adua’s failures and pleading for time
than singing about the successes of the
administration. That should be a barometer
for measuring the pathetic state of the
Yar’Adua administration. Unfortunately,
patience, just like land, is a finite
commodity, which is in very short supply
right now in Nigeria.
Mr. President needs to be more firm and
surefooted in governance. He appears to be
groping in the dark with no clear cut policy
direction thus allowing external forces and
political jobbers to dictate the tune of his
administration. The emerging public image of
his government is one that has been hijacked
by gubernatorial rogues. The Yar’Ardua
administration is now hostage to crooks,
rouges, and vagabonds. The removal of Nuhu
Ribadu, the Chairman of the anti-graft
agency, has only helped to ossify that image
in the minds of Nigerians. Trust me, that is
not the kind of image Mr. President would
like to take to the bank in retirement.
God Bless our Nation and Guide our Leaders
Aright.
Franklin Otorofani, Esq. (USA)
Contact:
mudiagaone@yahoo.com
|
|
|
