By Dele Sobolwale 
History is not like some individual person which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men [and women] in pursuit of their ends.” Karl Marx, 1803-1882, writing in 1845.

Karl Marx, the author of immortal “Communist Manifesto”, which set the world ablaze in the 19th and 20th centuries, wrote about more than economics. He was also a brilliant historian. His observation about individuals and history is pertinent when we turn our minds to the current legal confrontation between the former President’s wife and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

EFCC boss Magu and Patience Jonathan

Future historians, if there be any, of 2016 Nigerian political history might be scratching their heads pondering why the “mouse” having lost its “lunch” to the “cat” would want to openly challenge the latter in a bid to reclaim what was almost irretrievably lost – and, in the process, risk becoming part of the “lunch”.

But, those poor fellows will be forgiven by others who would also record that the years from 1999 to 2016 represented the period when Nigeria could be described as a lunatic asylum managed by the most deranged. Few of their actions made sense to reasonable people all over the world. That explains why the nation, assuming the pretentious titled of GIANT OF AFRICA, made no sustainable progress in any direction whatsoever.  The case of the ex-President’s wife and the EFCC illustrates all that was wrong with Nigeria during the era.

However, before going into the details of the case, a vital diversion is necessary. Shortly after the ex-President was sworn in as Acting President in 2010, an article appeared on these pages advising the newly sworn-in CEO of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to please keep his wife strictly at home because the nation’s constitution does not recognise the office of First Lady and she had very little official role to play. Even as the piece of advice was being given it was clear after twenty-six years of writing on these pages that it would land on deaf ears. It did. Anyone trying to advise Nigerian leaders, whose first priority is “the pursuit of their own ends”, must first of all practice talking to cows. They listen selectively and only to those who will help them in “the pursuit of their own ends”. Despite the well-worn appeal for “all hands on deck”, the only hands the leaders want on deck are those to help them achieve their ends. So, the ex-President failed to keep his wife at home.

On the contrary, either by permission or defiance of the ex-President, the ex-first lady strode unto the political landscape in a manner last seen when another former Military President’s wife had the effrontery to lead Ministers, Governors and their wives around the country in search of an elusive “Better Life for Rural Women” from 1985 to 1993. But, it was during the presidential campaigns of 2014/2015 that the ex-President’s wife was shown in her true colours. A “First Lady” frequently using unladylike language, unrestrained by her husband, was a novelty to Nigerians and the international community listening to her. Like the Biblical Goliath, it never occurred to her, and her husband, that “David” might win and somebody would lose his/her head. Well, against all odds, in Africa at least, the underdog surprisingly won the contest in 2015 and it appears that heads will roll – literally.

Here again, wiser heads would have counseled keeping a very low profile, not provoking the victor who now holds the power of “life and death”. As Homer, 900 BC, wrote, “Foolhardy [woman]! Why provoke one whose temper is foul already”. (VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS, VBQ, p205). Everybody with brains knows that the new Ogapatapata (big boss) is not only vindictive, but he has a memory longer than that of an elephant. He neither forgives nor forgets. Any guy who still nurses a grudge from 1985 is the sort of person who, if he seizes your “meat” you voluntarily surrender your “rice” also. Otherwise you run the risk of going hungry and being beaten in addition. That is if the “lunch” is indisputably your own.

Unfortunately, the ex-Presidents wife is caught in a trap. She will find it extremely difficult to prove ownership. Was it not Sir Walter Scott, 1771-1832, who wrote: “O! what a tangled web we weave/ When first we practice to deceive.” (VBQ p 35). If the “lunch” was really her own, why did she have to set up a web of deceit to lodge it in a bank instead of just walking up to any bank and opening a domiciliary account in her own name? Why get others involved in breaking laws which her husband had sworn to protect and enforce? Why get a bank to break so many rules in order to accommodate the obviously illegal requests? And, why expose yourself and your “dear” husband to the ridicule that would follow the publicity that claiming the funds would entail? Would she have been feeding on bread and water if she walked away from the “lunch” instead of stubbornly trying to reclaim it? Questions, questions, and more questions for her. More of them later.

There are, however, a few for him – the ex-President – to answer. O. K, let’s reduce them to four. Was he aware that “Madam”, his loving wife, opened these accounts in these fraudulent manners? What step did he take as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Nigeria – if he knew? Was he aware that she was going to sue the EFCC and expose the family to ridicule? What steps will he now take with regard to this mess as a collateral victim – assuming he was not an accomplice before the fact?

LAST LINE. To all Presidents, Governors and Local Government Chairpersons – Please keep your spouses at home.

PLAGIARISING BEGINS WITH THIS GOVERNMENT.

“Buhari orders sanctions for “Change begins with me” mix-up.”

THE NATION, September 17, 2016, p 1.

“Change begins with me”, CBWM, is the second major document released by the All Progressives Congress, APC, government.  It is also the second to end up being embroiled in controversy, recriminations and the President threatening sanctions against an unnamed individual. The first document was the 2015 Budget. The controversies it generated continue unabated – even as the third quarter of the year draws to a close. It also brought the charge by Buhari that the budget was padded and the promise to punish those involved. But, since then, the Presidency had made an about-face and declared that the budget was not padded after all – while the National Assembly, NASS, which originally denied padding is now tied down to conflict on charges of padding. A lot of things have certainly changed since May 29, 2015.

The second document, CBWM, released in the third week of September, most probably to divert attention from the failures of the first, landed straight into controversy. Most Nigerians were in no mood for platitudes offered instead of plates of food to millions of starving people. That was bad enough for a government which had expected some political dividend from the idea. Value for money? Forget it.

Worse was to come. Just as eagle-eyed readers discovered that some portions of the 2016 Budget were lifted word for word from the 2015 appropriation bill, hawk-eyed observers discovered that the best parts of CBWM were plagiarized from President Obama’s address in 2008. Prior to that discovery, the Federal Minister for Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, had been assailed by individuals claiming authorship of the document. The Minister had dismissed such claims by insisting that he was the sole author.

But, that was when there was still a glimmer of hope that some credit would accrue to the President and Minister from the project – despite the overwhelming condemnation it received. With the taint of plagiarism, the inevitable embarrassment to Buhari and the nail on the coffin of CBWM, Buhari had reverted to his instincts. Somebody must be sanctioned.

The President’s spokesman hinted at the “speechwriter” being the likely scapegoat. If so, it would amount to gross injustice. Any speechwriter, and I write as one who had been engaged in that work, presents only a draft. The Minister or Commissioner must vet it before presenting it to the President or Governor – who must also read and approve before publication. Failure on their parts to take responsibility for what is published under their names cannot be blamed on the subordinate officer.

When Presidents deliver addresses which are highly acclaimed, nobody knows or cares who wrote them. When problems arise, nobody should care who wrote the speech. If at all anybody deserves sanction, it is the Minister who had earlier claimed authorship. He would have been clinking glasses with his friends if it was a roaring success. He should feel the lash now that it had become a disaster.