By Mohammed Adamu
One of the many ‘ends’ of Philosophy –the discipline in which President Jonathan possesses a Doctorate Degree- according to J.P. Ekarika in his book ‘Introduction to Philosophy’, is to help in the acquisition of “true and correct know ledge –thinking, speaking, writing… by the proper arrangement and utilization of materials, resources and thought processes.”
And it got me thinking: suppose IBB had attended the Eagles Square event; would that have exonerated him from allegation on the Abuja bomb blast? Certainly no! It then would be logically preposterous to say: ‘if he (IBB) was not responsible for the blasts, how come he did not attend?’ Again suppose IBB sponsored the blasts; would it not have been wise if he created the perfect alibi –by attending?
Especially knowing he would’ve had foreknowledge it would be safe within the Pavilion? Again wouldn’t planting bombs by IBB at such event simply serve to create sympathy-opportunity for Jonathan? Imagine if Jonathan had not poorly handled the blasts!
Cheap national sympathy was the political silver lining Jonathan failed to see (and grab) in that adversity. Should we not ask genuine questions as would be asked in other serious climes or jurisdictions?. For example, if Jonathan insists ‘MEND didn’t do it’, and he claims he knows who did it -but would not tell- shouldn’t two things be clear: ‘he is standing in the way of investigation and he is withholding information -both of which, in my lay understanding of law, are criminal.
Because no Nigerian security organization would investigate what the President had publicly foreclosed! The legal maxim has always been: “supressio veri, expressio falsi”, meaning: “a suppression of the truth is an expression of falsehood.”
Yet if Jonathan has the right to insinuate, without an iota of proof, that a ‘Fifth (political) Columnist’ did it, shouldn’t those accused without basis, in self defense, have the corresponding right to counter-allege (and justifiably so) that maybe ‘The Main Column’ itself, known and goaded by the Jonathan Camp, masterminded it?; Why? to rope-in formidable opponents?
Didn’t Jonathan sound authoritative: that ‘it was not MEND!’ –but a small outside terrorist group, sponsored by insiders’?! Why would he suddenly – by subterfuge and diversionary doublespeak- dodge the immediate responsibilities that go with such claim? –namely to proceed to name names and by so doing save the nation time, money and agony!
Moreover pro-Jonathan had said ‘he is right in all his claims!’ because ‘as the nation’s Chief Security Officer all reports reach him first’ Reason, they insist, he could countermand even a self-incriminating MEND! But logically better reason even, that makes it all the more incriminating. Because if he had all the security reports -America’s, Britain’s, MEND’s and others- why were they ignored?
Because as the saying goes: ‘it is one thing to get caught in the rain; but it is entirely another to know that it’ll rain and to still get caught in it!’ Do you now see why Jonathan had to tactfully –even if clumsily- recant and become an advocate of ‘unfettered investigation?’ Which will be like solving the almighty formula: walking back to the answer! –known only to Mr. President!
So if Okah did it -unrepentant, amnesty-repudiating MEND-member-Okah, then there is at least one MEND member, somewhere!? – whose Aljazeera interview implicated Jonathan; and a claim which Mr. President dubbed ‘the bubble of a drowning mass murderer.’ Meaning there was an Aljazeera interview! -with Okah after all! In any case every Nigerian knows that amnesty-repudiating MEND members had long said to Yar’Adua: ‘we are staying put!
And long before the Abuja blasts they had etched their signature attacks, in Lagos and Warri to prove their existence!
But truth is: Jonathan, un prodded, has made series of self-implicating comments, and even now as he attempts to wriggle out he continues to make more and more such implicating comments.
Yet Columnists who never gave an innocent, terminally ill Yar’Adua a breathing space, now on allegations of the magnitude of ‘high crimes and misdemeanor’ only advice that Jonathan “be more circumspect,” or urge that a mere ‘Presidential slip of the tongue should not be politicized!’ Politicized by who? By Jonathan who started it all?
Or innocents like IBB and Dokpesi who were simply defending themselves against false and malicious accusations? Some standing logic on its head had asked: “did Bush resign after September 11?” But the questions should be: ‘did bush selfishly preempt the investigation of September 11?, did he become spokesperson for Alqaeda or Taliban?, and did Bin Laden, from hiding, implicate Bush? ’
Let’s face it, it is absolutely disingenuous and it will be a monumental metaphor of our collective un-seriousness as a nation to appear to be shielding Mr. President on what, at the very least, is Nigeria’s version of Watergate.
Every attempt to shield the President falsifies all claims of our collective innocence and our claim for empathy with the victims of the Abuja blasts and their families (whose pains and agonies should be assuaged by our collective resolve first to be true one to another).