By Tonnie Iredia

To place governance on some measure of intellect is to officially seek answers constantly to recurring posers in society. One such poser in Nigeria is the increasing level of public rejoicing whenever a government official is relieved of his appointment. It does not really matter how highly placed the affected official is.

People do not also seem to care about the rationale for the removal of any political office holder. The undeniable response whenever an official is sacked is that several segments of society are immediately and spontaneously thrown into joy and applause. Is it that our people are sadists?

A simple analysis of the subject may reveal that public disenchantment with government makes people rejoice each time one official-a representative of government meets some misfortune.

This point is underscored by the hyper cynical posture of the public with respect to anything government in which whatever is positive about government is believed while everything negative about her is doubted or disbelieved.

Gulak…President needs time to focus on issues

Government itself does not help matters as it hardly gives reasons for any of its acts- a good example being the sparse statements on the departure of every official from his office. Unknown to government, the idea of giving a soft landing to those relieved of their duties adversely affects government’s credibility.

The posture indeed places every sacked appointee on the same footing as those who breached certain rules and those dropped merely for political exigency are presented to the public the same way. Each time this happens, the officials affected, the government and its spokespersons as well as the general public, evolve and keep to different stories on the subject.

Only a few days ago, the Political Adviser to our President, Alhaji Ahmed Gulak ceased to hold that office.  Did he resign? If so, why? Was he sacked? If so, for what offence? As usual, the story produced many versions. The government statement which announced the end of the appointment said the President thanked Gulak for his services to the present administration.

The statement gave no reasons for the development. On his part, the former Special Adviser claimed that his departure was self-influenced.  But as usual, the media quoted unknown reliable sources which suggested that Gulak’s departure might not have been unconnected with an alleged face-off with Governor Godswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom State.

Gulak however rejected the speculation that he was sacked. As far as he could recollect, he left the presidency to join the governorship race in Adamawa State, saying “indigenes of Adamawa State are fed up with the misgovernment of Admiral Murtala Nyako”, whose accomplishments according to Gulak, have been very negligible and controversial.

He reportedly added that the Adamawa people had been urging him to come forth and give them the type of leadership they deserved. To drive home his point beyond doubt, Gulak adduced three more points in support of his own version. First, that his relationship with President Goodluck Jonathan was very cordial.

Second, that PDP was functioning as a family and third, that there was no faction in the party adding that the focus now was the determination of the party to win “50% of the governorship seats in 2015.”

Which of the above versions should people believe? Those who would have believed the government version may not be able to understand certain posers.  If for instance, the Presidency had no problem with Gulak, why should a blameless official leave office or be allowed to do so unceremoniously and with immediate effect?

Is not likely that the sudden nature of the ‘sack’ explains the inability of government to name an immediate successor? If on the other hand, he had done anything wrong warranting his sack, what was the government statement thanking him for? As for Gulak’s version, it is only natural to expect those who have followed political events concerning him to disbelieve his version.

Otherwise, how would such people understand a recent public complaint by the PDP chapter in Akwa Ibom State that the former Political Adviser was unduly interfering in the politics of the state?

According to a communiqué signed by Mr Paul Ekpo, the Chairman of the party in the state, Gulak reportedly “came to Akwa Ibom State to inaugurate a sectional and an unknown support group in favour of President Jonathan. Accordingly, the party advised him to first sort out PDP problems in his own Adamawa State, so as to deliver the state to the President “before rushing to safe territories, like the South-South Nigeria, where Jonathan requires no campaign”.

There was also the specific allegation credited to Governor Akpabio himself that the former presidential aide was associating with his political enemies under the pretext of working for the President’s yet-to-be declared re-election bid.

For a stalwart of Akpabio’s personality to categorically state that Jonathan’s re-election bid is yet to be declared clearly suggests that the President needs to sack more of his overbearing aides currently engaged in the electoral malpractice of premature public campaigns.

For no less than two years now, the President has had to publicly appeal many times not to be distracted from governance emphasizing that it was premature for him to make any declaration at the time. Although the promised time-2014 has come, the nation is yet to see any such declaration.

Is not embarrassing that any of those closest to government is among those being accused of holding rallies for 2015 in breach of the electoral law? Last year, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had to draw attention to Section 99(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, which states that: ‘the period of campaigning in public by every political party shall commence 90 days before polling day and end 24 hours prior to that day’.

The Commission even called on security agents to apprehend anyone in breach of the provision. Since then however, no such person has been apprehended notwithstanding that their misdemeanor is public knowledge. It is thus not uncharitable for people to believe that such defaulters have official backing. It is therefore expedient for all of them to be disowned now.