Date Published: 08/05/10

A WALK FOR FAME – A response to Momodu’s piece on Jonathan

By Soala Jumbo

From Dele Momodu’s account in his column in Thisday Newspaper of Saturday 31 st July 2010, it appears he received a lot of criticism for his call on Jonathan not to contest the 2011 election which he made in an earlier article. I did not read the earlier article; unfortunately, I read the sequel. I was struck by Momodu’s bias and his blindness to it, his poorly disguised subjectivity and his range for contradictions.

For those who don’t know, Dele Momodu is about the most ‘popular’ candidate for next year’s Presidential election. It is only fair to expect that Chief Momodu would be fair in taking shots at potential opponents, especially when he claims to write as an objective media practitioner. Unfortunately, he has shown the propensity to hit below the belt, to discuss personality rather than principle.

In writing about Jonathan, he begins by alluding to a perceived personal weakness, suggesting that the President is not manly. He says:

“Once upon a time, the only name on every lip was Turai. It seemed no other woman existed. Even Dr. Goodluck Jonathan did not possess the temerity to assume power when it was so obvious that power was his for the grabs.”

For the grabs! Momodu’s choice of words gives him away. A man who views the situation pervading during those dark days as power being up for the grabs suggests that he takes a long knife approach to life - an aficionado of intrigues and betrayal. I did not read Goodluck Jonathan’s actions as revealing a lack of courage; I’d rather say that he showed uncommon strength. If, as Momodu agrees, all he had to do was grab a commodity as alluring as power, then he showed great self discipline in holding back. A virtue many Nigerians have praised, a decision ratified by hind sight.

At a time when the courts were guilty of double speak, when the National Assembly prevaricated; as uncertain as those times were, a ‘desperado’ may have grabbed power. Momodu feels that one who did not grab at such an opportunity may not now subject himself to the electorate. “He didn’t grab when he should have, he should not be given” Momodu reasons.

Momodu continues:

“Some of us had to take to the streets without any prompting from him to liberate him from the jaws of the lions of Abuja. The situation was so grave that even many of us feared for his life... his food was possibly sanctified by his pastors. But human memory is always very short. Nigerians have since moved on in our traditional habit of what Wole Soyinka called “collective amnesia” .

It saddens me that such a venerated name as Soyinka’s would be desecrated by association with such vain and pitiable literature from Momodu. “Some of us had to take to the streets”, Momodu says. Little wonder then he was so visible at the rallies, he was radiant in so many of the pictures published. Was it a mere photo opportunity for him? If he had a personal agenda in appearing at the rallies, why should he rub it in our faces?

Momodu was alone on the streets that day. I sense that many unknown Nigerians whose pictures may not have been published participated out of a sheer sense of frustration, a protest against the blatant desecration of our interim constitution. For those genuine protesters, it was not about bragging rights nor even the health of the Vice President, those Nigerians walked for freedom, Momodu walked for fame, for ovation!

Let us assume we do not suffer from Momodu’s brand of collective amnesia, what would Momodu have us do to prove it? The Constitution is being amended in reaction to that saga, Nigerians support it. What more does Momodu want? That we make him President because he marched for Jonathan? I ask Momodu, what does all of this have to do with Jonathan’s candidature? Throughout his piece there is no illumination. Every paragraph leaves gaping holes in reason, eliciting endless streams of questions. At the end, there is no release from this psychological torture.

He seems to realise his false trajectory when he attempts an explanation:

“The major plank of this thesis is that President Jonathan would have robbed Nigerians of the luxury of a free and fair contest once he participates in a race he’s expected to supervise”

Such a suggestion perhaps is only considerable in a Nigerian context but even at that its credence does not withstand scrutiny. Firstly, Momodu reaches a conclusion without disclosing the premises. Secondly, Momodu’s conclusion is based on an exaggeration of the President’s powers. If Momodu’s thesis is true, then the USA would never let a sitting President seek re- election.

The powers of the President to supervise elections are limited, that is not even his constitutional role. There are three arms of government; the President is only the head of one. Each arm of government has its role and none is less important than the other. INEC also has a major role, the Police force is important, civil society, foreign observers, students and the general electorate have roles to play.

Civil society groups including the Save Nigeria Group recognise this and are taking the right steps. An example is pushing for better tailored laws including electoral laws, analysing and understanding the problem of rigging and devising means to stop them (Donald Duke recently gave a useful expose at one such forum), holding public officers to task and putting pressure on relevant people and authorities to act. It is through intelligent, informed, coordinated and concerted effort and public vigilance that electoral malpractice can be cut down and not by asking a candidate to disqualify himself.

Should Goodluck Jonathan choose not to contest, that is no guarantee that there would be free and fair elections. Should he contest and fail, what better way is there of passing the message that the elections were free and fair? But Momodu beheads the chick before it is hatched. He believes Jonathan has been rewarded enough. Momodu says:

“What I expected from President Jonathan is to offer sacrifice to God for elevating him from a man who was treated like nobody to somebody”

Why is Goodluck Jonathan such a distasteful proposition to Momodu? Why is he so sure that Goodluck Jonathan contesting the 2011 elections would entrench rigging? Why does he see vice in what others consider virtue? Why does he see Jonathan as a ‘nobody’ whom ‘God performed a miracle for’? Why is he sure that a man who did not grab power when he could would now steal it? There is something Momodu isn’t telling us. In the absence of any real answers in Momodu’s ‘thesis’, I assume that the man has a bias – a rather unfortunate thing for a media man.

Soala Jumbo is a legal practitioner based in Port Harcourt and can be reached via – email at sfjumbo@yahoo.com