By Douglas Anele

Therefore, in my opinion, the most important challenge for Jonathan is not ethnic inequality per se in the distribution of key positions, but to justify his choices on the criteria of excellence and performance in spite of ethnicity.

From the not-too-encouraging performance of his government thus far, it is fair to say that, ethnic bias or not, Mr. President, in most cases, did not choose the best caliber of Nigerians to occupy several crucial positions in his government. The situation is worsened by his increasing tendency of allowing egoistic considerations to overshadow merit and national interest in decision-making processes.

According to Sobowale, with his lopsided appointments the President is unwittingly creating problems for us. Sobowale claims apocalyptically that if political “power swings back to the north, in the near future generations unborn from the south will pay the price for the actions of President Jonathan with his attitude to appointments and governance.”

Evidently, that prediction is predicated on the “revenge mentality” of some prominent northerners, the type of mind-set which motivated Murtala Ramat Mohammed and Theophilus Y. Danjuma to execute the bloody revenge coup of July, 29, 1966. But there is nothing inevitable about Sobowale’s prediction; it is quite possible that the northern President who would be elected after Jonathan might be a wise and enlightened leader deeply committed to genuine national rebirth and reconciliation.

The main problem with ethnic bias in official appointments is not the possibility of revenge, although that in itself is deplorable. Instead it is the denial of merit and excellence which is a type of social injustice that harms the individuals directly involved and, ultimately, the entire society.

As Prof. Achebe correctly observed in his latest and highly controversial book, There was a Country: A Personal History of Biafra, “whenever merit is set aside by prejudice of whatever origin, individual citizens as well as the nation itself are victimised.” The recent state pardon granted by President Jonathan to some Nigerians found guilty of various offences is an avoidable miscalculation which has generated heated debates in the country and abroad.

Critics of Jonathan argue, and I concur, that pardoning convicted criminals like Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, former governor of Bayelsa state, and Mohammed Balama, erstwhile managing director of Bank of the North, is immoral and a complete negation of the war against corruption.

However, Reuben Abati and Doyin Okupe, Jonathan’s mouth pieces, insulted the intelligence of Nigerians by arguing, inter alia, that (1) critics of President Jonathan’s action are suffering from “sophisticated ignorance,” (2) that the issue is purely a matter of law, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy vested on the President by the constitution, and (3) Jonathan has done nothing wrong since some American Presidents also pardoned American citizens who were guilty of various offences. Sycophants tend to go to absurd lengths just to please their paymasters, especially when the material rewards are huge.

To claim that there is a lot of “sophisticated ignorance” among critics of the state pardon is to commit a mistake the Austrian philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, called “language on holiday.” Frist, the meaning of “sophisticated ignorance” is unclear. Second, critics of Jonathan, including experienced lawyers and intellectuals, know very well the procedures for granting state pardon as stipulated in the 1999 constitution. Therefore, Abati and Okupe are arguing against the straw man by pretending that the issue is just about legality and procedure simpliciter.

The crux of objections to Mr. President’s ill-advised action is that pardoning convicted felons, especially Alameyeseigha and Balama, at a time when corruption at the topmost levels of political and corporate governance is crippling the country and when the current administration is purportedly fighting a war against corruption will encourage corruption-minded Nigerians to go ahead with their plans in the hope that, even if they are caught and convicted at a later date they will be pardoned by a “compassionate” President. Hence, the consequences of the pardon transcend mere legalism. Significant issues of morality, of deterrence, of repercussions on the war against corruption are also involved.

The questions Mr. President and his sycophants should ask themselves are: what is the likely impact on the fight against corruption if people convicted of stealing billions of naira are pardoned so easily? How will our benefactors such as the United States and United Kingdom respond to the tacit endorsement of corruption by the Nigerian government? Is being the political benefactor of Mr. President sufficient reason for granting a criminal who jumped bail in a foreign country state pardon? We have already stated that Jonathan’s decision will encourage VIP thieves to go ahead with their plans.

On the second question, an official of the American government has already hinted that the US might cut of development aid to Nigeria this year estimated at $600 million. Britain would likely do the same for a good reason, because Alamieyeseigha, who was detained in London in September 2005 for money laundering charges and later released on bail, jumped bail and eloped back to Nigeria.

Concerning the state pardon granted by American Presidents to some compatriots, Jonathan’s sycophants are incredibly disingenuous to use that to justify what is unarguably a terrible misjudgment by the President – it is a case of mixing bananas with oranges. For instance, when Richard Nixon was pardoned by Gerard Ford, the offense for which he was found complicit and for which he got pardoned was not part of a major systemic problem in America the way official corruption is in Nigeria – the burglary of an office belonging to the Democratic Party was an aberration, a one-off occurrence.

More importantly, that American Presidents did something does not automatically make what they did right, to the extent of becoming a universal standard for other leaders to emulate. Every action of a leader must be judged on its own merit, irrespective of whether it has or does not have a precedent elsewhere. It is even insulting to suggest that Nigerians should accept President Jonathan’s selfish and unpatriotic state pardon simply because former American leaders did so; that is a silly endorsement of colonial mentality and self-abnegation that has been militating against the attainment of authentic selfhood and independence in Nigeria particularly and in sub-Saharan Africa generally which must be rejected.

From the foregoing the conclusion is clear: President Jonathan erred by misusing his powers to pardon criminals. But that is not the end of our troubles: it is highly probable that as election time approaches, Jonathan would be preoccupied with decisions that would bolster his chances of reelection, not with the much more important task of improving the lot of Nigerians.

To be concluded.