When President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan announced the setting up of a national dialogue on 1st October, 2013, his preamble was that the government had “taken cognisance of suggestions over the years by well-meaning Nigerians on the need for a national dialogue on the future of our beloved country … When there are issues that stoke tension and bring about friction, it makes perfect sense for the interested parties to come together to discuss.”
The suggestions referred to by the President are the series of persistent demand for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) by a large number of prominent Nigerians, especially those of the progressive political orientation. It is a historical fact that the loudest voices among the advocates of a national conference, whether sovereign or not, have been from the Southern parts of the country, particularly the Yoruba of the Southwest.
In the days of the June 12 political crisis of 1993, and the Sani Abacha era that followed, the demand for a Sovereign National Conference peaked with the insistence by the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) that Nigerians must come to a conference table and re-negotiate the terms of their co-existence under one political entity. Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the current National Leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was a prominent member of that pro-democracy organisation.
Outside the Southwest zone, there were many other prominent Nigerians who joined in the clamour for a national conference because they, too, felt dissatisfied with the existing political structure, which allowed for injustice against, and the marginalisation of some ethnic groups by others. In spite of these obvious facts, there were no serious efforts made by successive governments to address what is now known as the “national question.”
In the 1990s, Military Head of State, General Sani Abacha, promised to set up a national conference. He, however, reneged on this promise due to his own political ambition. Then, former President Olusegun Obasanjo organised what was thought to be a genuine national conference in 2005/2006. But, it failed, as Obasanjo was suspected to be using the Conference to amend the constitution for the purpose of securing a third term for himself. Clearly, therefore, President Jonathan is the first Leader to have found the courage to provide Nigerians the opportunity of a national dialogue in which there are no “no-go areas”
Now the shocker! Some of the well-known and very vocal advocates of a national conference, including the leadership of the APC, its National Leader, Bola Tinubu, governors of the party and other politicians, have rejected the offer of a national dialogue. The first open objection to the conference was by Tinubu who, on arrival from an overseas trip at the International Airport in Lagos, accused President Jonathan of presenting Nigerians with a “Greek gift”, insisting that the conference was “diversionary and an act of public deception.” At the meeting of the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue with stakeholders in Benin City, on 28th October, 2013, the Edo State governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, was attacked by a mob when he objected to the dialogue, saying that it was a waste of public funds.
And, on a Channels Television Programme, on Saturday, 16th November, 2013, Governors Babatunde Fashola of Lagos and Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti rejected the national conference on the rather disingenuous argument that “Nigerians need a better life, electricity, good roads, water, food and healthcare” rather than a perfect constitution” which the conference is all about.
The position of the APC, Tinubu and the governors is a reflection of the typical Nigerian opposition politicians who lack principles and would rather serve their own personal interest than the interest of the larger population. Not only are they insincere, they would do everything to score cheap political points. Imagine Adams Oshiomhole, claiming that he grew up in the North and would, therefore, not be involved in any process that was detrimental to the interest of that region. It was speculated that Tinubu had assured the G-7 Governors of the PDP that he would not do anything that would hurt the political fortunes of the North, as if the conference was being planned against that region.
Now the Mother of Treachery! Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar was widely reported to have said (Vanguard of October 11, 2013) that he had no objection to the national dialogue and that he would attend, if invited. Atiku even suggested areas that needed to be addressed including, the restructuring of the country, devolution of power and increase in revenue allocations to the States and Local Governments.
Then, suddenly, on November, 13, 2013, the same Atiku aligned with the APC and Tinubu’s position in rejecting the national dialogue, claiming that the president lacked the capacity to organise a conference and at the same time conduct the 2015 general elections. It would have been surprising, if Atiku had not made a u-turn. He has never been consistent in politics, which explains why he drifts from one political alliance to another. Who knows his reason for now re-aligning with Tinubu; he may be exploring some new grounds close to what happened in 2007 when he won the AC presidential ticket, particularly after manipulating the registration of the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM). How impudent, for Atiku to talk of President Jonathan not having the capacity to organise a national dialogue and simultaneously conduct the 2015 election! Is he suggesting that the president should halt all political activities because of the general elections of 2015?
The APC, Tnubu, Atiku and all those opposed to the national dialogue are playing deceptive politics, which they consider convenient in the circumstance and position in which they have found themselves. They should be told that the conference is an important moment in the history of Nigeria and that it is intended to bring together political and social groups, women, youth and zonal representatives to draft the future of Nigeria. It is being organised for all men and women of goodwill who have been looking forward to this opportunity. Why, then, should any group of politicians block and oppose the possibility of Nigerians coming together to express their views and voice their opinions? Is it not true, as our elder statesman, General Abdusalami Abubakar, said recently that “it is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war,” especially in a politically volatile society such as Nigeria.
· Abubakar sent this piece from Abuja.