EVERY Easter, like the one celebrated this week, Nigerian leaders send messages to Nigerians, exhorting them to be good citizens. Yet, if the leaders examine themselves, they would realise they are the ones who need exhortations: to be good leaders. Indeed, few people need the redemption and renewal that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ brought to humanity more than Nigerian leaders!

LAST week, most Nigerian newspapers were awash with stories about the International Monetary Fund’s 2019 Article IV Consultation with the country. This is an annual process in which the IMF scrutinises a country’s economic management and reports its findings.

ALL nations were once poor and chaotic, but several have successfully transited from poverty to prosperity, from anarchy to order and stability. Some are, however, still stuck in extreme poverty and chaos. A modern example of the former is China. In 1951, China was an impoverished backwater, today it’s an economic superpower. Nigeria, sadly, is an acute example of the latter – still stuck in extreme poverty and chaos.

EMINENT statesmen from the North and South of Nigeria publicly endorsed the candidature of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar in this year’s presidential election. Leaders of the Pan-Niger Delta Forum, the Northern Elders Forum, the Middle Belt Forum, Afenifere and Ohanaeze Ndigbo came together under the umbrella of the Leaders and Elders Forum of Nigeria and gave their collective backing to the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party. They said Atiku “demonstrated the deep understanding of the critical needs of the country at this time and possesses the capacity to proffer clear solutions in that respect.” The former vice president, the elders concluded, was the only candidate who could “retool Nigeria on the path of development as a true federal entity”.

LAST year,  Ibrahim Mantu, a former  Deputy Senate President, told Channel TV how he helped rig elections. Apparently incredulous, the interviewer, Esther Ogun-Yusuf, repeated what she heard. “Can I just clarify one thing”, she said, “Did I hear you say you helped to rig elections before now?” Mantu replied: “Yes, I did, I am now confessing the truth”, adding he was now a “born-again politician”. The rigging, he explained, didn’t always involve tampering with ballot boxes, but “giving  money to INEC boys to help if they can see any chance that they can favour you  and  providing  money to security agencies”. 

AHEAD of this year’s general elections, I wrote a piece in this column, entitled “Nigeria must pass seven basic tests of credible polls” (Vanguard, January 10, 2019). Drawing on Denis and Ian Derbyshire’s work in Political Systems of the World, I stated that, to be truly free and democratic, elections must not involve voter intimidation, vote-buying, vote-miscounting or the abuse of incumbency, such as the militarisation of the polls or the intimidation of opponents. Thus, for the 2019 elections to be considered free, fair, transparent and peaceful – and credible – Nigeria, I stressed, must adhere to the universal standards. So, time to ask: Did this year’s general election pass the credibility test?

PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari recently told leaders of the Arewa Consultative Forum who paid him a congratulatory visit that he would work harder in his second term. “This is my last lap”, Buhari said, “I will try to work harder.” The subtext is an admission that he didn’t work hard enough in his first term. Most people would say he didn’t work hard at all! But a president who ballsed up his first term cannot blithely promise to work harder in his second because it’s “my last lap”. Why is Buhari’s “last lap” more important than his first? Four years is too significant in a nation’s life to be wasted!

LET’s get down to brass tacks: Muhammadu Buhari won this year’s presidential election, and Atiku Abubakar lost it. The election was, of course, marred by significant irregularities and shortcomings, including violence, intimidation, disenfranchisement and vote-buying. But, as the doctrine of substantial performance goes, while these anomalies undermined the legitimacy of the outcome, they didn’t materially change it. So, Buhari won, Atiku lost!

ELECTORAL democracy is in a terrible state in Nigeria. Its practice defies universal standards of acceptable behaviour. But while everything is wrong with democracy in Nigeria,the greatest danger to its development is election violence. Elections are a do-or-die affair in this country, with politicians willing to unleash violence to achieve their ambition. That desperation was on display last Saturday as Nigerians voted in the rescheduled presidential and National Assembly elections.

NOTHING is certain in Nigeria until it happens”, a top British business leader once said at a London conference. That was a damning indictment of Nigeria’s reputation for predictability and certainty. But that reputation suffered a further damaging blow last week when the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, cancelled the February 16 Presidential and National Assembly elections just a few hours before voting started. 

THIS Saturday’s presidential election features a motley crowd of candidates, about 76 in all! Yet, despite the dense thicket of candidates, only two really matter. The contest is between two recurring faces in Nigeria’s political space: President Muhammadu Buhari, of All Progressives Congress, and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, of People’s Democratic Party. Both candidates are very different personalities, with diametrically opposite visions and values. But neither possesses, holistically, the qualities needed for a country’s leadership, and, indeed, each has devastating flaws. Thus, Nigerians must decide, based on key evaluative factors, which of the two candidates is the lesser of two evils. 

GENERAL Muhammadu Buhari was elected president in 2015. He was not a good, rounded person for the job. He lacked knowledge of economic management. His economic philosophy, Buharinomics, as military ruler from 1984 to 1985 damaged Nigeria’s economy. He also lacked the quality of inclusive leadership; he couldn’t treat all Nigerians equally; championing, for instance, Fulani herders against non-Fulani farmers. Furthermore, he wasn’t well. This was apparently disguised during the 2015 election, but illness later hobbled his presidency.

PRESIDENT Buhari has deliberately upped the ante on corruption in this campaign because he wants to make next month’s presidential election all about graft. His decision last week to suspend and replace the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, on allegations of corruption was calculated to escalate the issue of graft in this election and upend his main opponent, Atiku Abubakar and his party, People’s Democratic Party, PDP. But in seeking to outsmart his opponents and win next month’s polls, Buhari is abusing his incumbency and trampling on the rule of law in a way that risks undermining the credibility of the entire elections.

THE Yoruba are the most ardent federalist in Nigeria. They don’t believe they must belong to the party controlling the centre to survive. As a result, they are immune to the “bandwagon effect” in Nigeria’s elections, whereby people vote in gubernatorial and state assembly elections for the party of the declared winner of the earlier presidential poll. The Yoruba don’t do that. They are the Californians of Nigerian politics.

SUCCESSIVE  Nigerian leaders have either been utterly  inept or woefully visionless, or both. But none combined incompetence with brazen arrogance. Except President Buhari. He is intolerably inept and unbelievably arrogant! Buhari’s ineptitude is recognised globally. Recently, the international consulting group, Eurasia, said in its 2019 Top Risk Report that Buhari “lacks  the energy, creativity or political savvy to move the needle on Nigeria’s most intractable problems”. His stubbornness and arrogance are legendary too.