Douglas Anele

Most Nigerians do  not know that the foundation of northern domination of the country was surreptitiously laid before independence by the departing colonial administration. The late master storyteller, Prof. Chinua Achebe, refers to Osei Boateng, a journalist for the New African magazine who, in a November 2008 cover story captioned “Nigeria: Squalid End to Empire,” carefully documented how colonial Britain manipulated Nigeria’s independence elections “so that its compliant friends in the North would win power, dominate the country, and serve British interests after independence.”

Ever since Nigeria became a self-governing nation-state, British leaders believe that as long as the federal government remains dependent on Britain, even if the administration in question emerged either through a military coup or rigged elections, the strategic interests of Britain are secure.

Thus, Muhammadu Buhari’s visit to the United States and Britain shortly after he was elected President reconfirms the dependent status of Nigeria in relation to the West. It is as if our President was reporting back to the owners of a Western franchise represented in Nigeria by the new APC government. Now, as long as there is no fundamental change in Nigeria’s strategic foreign policy direction, for example, in the form of a substantial paradigm-shift towards Russia and China that threatens their economic interests, both Washington and London would continue to support the Buhari administration.

Has there been any positive change in the philosophy of governance or leadership since the APC eclipsed PDP and became the dominant party in the country? In my opinion, nothing has really changed in terms of improved ideological orientation or philosophy of governance since May 29, 2015. To begin with, prominent members of the APC are well known to Nigerians. Virtually all of them have the same stinking reputation for avariciousness and corruption as those who worked for former President Jonathan now being hounded by the EFCC. It would be hard to justify the incredible wealth belonging to APC kingpins as the product of morally justifiable legitimate earnings. Furthermore, President Buhari, contrary to what Buharimaniacs believe, has not completely weaned himself of the military mindset and autocratic tendencies he internalised as a military officer.

One does not have to be a senior advocate of Nigeria to know that the President is stretching his presidential powers to their elastic limit by some of his actions and those of his subordinates. For example, the President does not have the powers to authorise bailout funds or loans to states without prior approval of the National Assembly. Sections 58 and 59 jointly interpreted confer on the federal legislature powers to make laws through bills, including laws dealing with any public fund belonging to the federation, and to override the President’s refusal to assent to any bill it has passed with a two-thirds majority.

Section 164 stipulates that “the federation may make grants to a state to supplement the revenue of that state in such sum and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.” Therefore, although it seems reasonable that the federal government is helping insolvent states to meet their obligations to the people, such assistance must be rendered in conformity with the law.

Recent freezing of the account of Ekiti state governor, Ayodele Fayose, is another instantiation of executive overreach by the Buhari administration that must be challenged. To many people, Fayose should not have been governor at this time because he was impeached the first time as governor for corruption and abuse of office. But he is governor presently, and ought to be accorded the rights and privileges of his office in line with the constitution. Now, should the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have the power to freeze anybody’s account without obtaining an order from a magistrate or judge in an open court?

How far can the EFCC legitimately go in investigating an incumbent governor? To be candid, I am not very knowledgeable about the Act establishing the EFCC. Nevertheless, it would be a serious aberration in a democratic setting if the law empowers the anti-corruption agency to secretly obtain from a judge an ex parte order that permits it to freeze the account of a citizen, let alone that of a sitting governor. Given that power corrupts and excessive power leads to totalitarianism, the proper thing would be for the EFCC to present incontrovertible evidence against Ayo Fayose to the Ekiti State House of Assembly, which is the body authorised by the constitution to remove him from office.

After the impeachment, it can go ahead to prosecute him in a court. Now, the scurrilous speedy freezing of Fayose’s account gives the impression that he was already guilty before trial. But nothing stops the EFCC from tracking the account in question quietly without freezing it, because transactions in that very account can still be marshaled as evidence against Fayose whenever he is prosecuted after the expiration of his tenure.

Prof. Itse Sagay, Femi Falana and others celebrating the manner Buhari’s government has been arm-twisting the law in its one-sided war against corruption have allowed themselves to be swept along the tide of APC’s negative triumphalism in the anti-corruption programme of Mr. President. Evidently, corruption by top government officials is one of the most serious obstacles to the development of our country.

Paradoxically, most Nigerians who often times cheat the system and one another in various ways are very eager to see top public officials caught in the dragnet of the EFCC punished severely and speedily even if doing so entails overstretching the provisions of existing laws. In that frenzy to punish, it is easy to forget that usurpation of the powers of the legislature and the judiciary by the executive arm of government opens the door to tyranny, which is deadlier than embezzlement of public funds.

It is difficult to refute the argument that the EFCC as presently constituted and run can be used, and has been used, by an incumbent President to witch-hunt his political enemies, real or imagined. In the case of Ayo Fayose, a plausible case of witch-hunt can be made against President Buhari. From the period of electioneering campaigns to date, the Ekiti state governor has been one of the most vocal and severest critics of Buhari and the APC. Of course, Fayose could be guilty of EFCC’s allegations against him, but that decision cannot be made now by any court while he still enjoys immunity as stipulated in section 308 of the constitution. I wonder why Falana and Sagay who repeatedly accused former President Olusegun Obasanjo of using the EFCC to harass and intimidate his political opponents have suddenly become pachydermatous to the same scenario unfolding before our very eyes. If the EFCC were not the willing tool of Mr. President and his cohorts to witch-hunt their opponents, why is the EFCC very unwilling to investigate prominent APC members such as Nasir El-Rufai, Babatunde Fashola, Rabiu Kwankwaso, Rochas Okorocha and others who at one time or another were accused of corruption and abuse of public office? Since when did corruption become the exclusive preserve of prominent PDP members, such that even those who decamped from the party to join the APC have, by so doing, escaped the dragnet of the EFCC?

Although Nigerians are pleased that the elephantine corruption allegedly perpetrated by Sambo Dasuki, Olisa Metuh, Musliu Obanikoro and top-ranking military officers in the previous government is steadily being exposed, the selective character of Buhari’s anti-corruption programme is worrisome. Recently, it was revealed that a prominent member of Buhari’sgovernment and current Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, has two mansions in Dubai worth $1.5 million (N540m).

The haste with which the federal government, including the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) cleared the Chief of Army Staff is highly suspicious. Buratai claimed that he bought the houses through savings, and that they were declared to the Bureau in his wife’s name. As a military officer whose income must be a tiny fraction of $1.5 million, how could he have saved such a huge sum of money to purchase expensive mansions in a foreign country? If he had nothing to hide, why should he declare the buildings in his wife’s name? Why is the EFCC uninterested in investigating the matter thoroughly?

To be concluded.