By Muhammadu BuHari
Nigeria,
like many countries, institutions and individuals, very well understands the
meaning of true friendship. In our hour of need, when confronted by one of the
most debilitating crises of our political existence, we are learning to
differentiate between true friends and fair-weather friends, and appreciate
those who are working for the vital abiding and multifaceted national interests
of our two great countries, the United States and Nigeria.
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Ladies
and Gentlemen, you are perhaps not all aware of the
current state of affairs in Nigeria, characterized as they are by a failure of
political leadership and failed governance. Nigeria, the largest and
potentially the wealthiest country in sub Saharan Africa, is today a basket
case, confronted by problems that threaten not only its nascent democracy, but
its very existence. The country’s sheer size and complexity, its rich human and
vast material endowments, provide both an opportunity and a challenge,
depending on the attitude of Nigerians and their friends and partners,
especially the U.S.
It
is worth observing that ignoring Nigeria and Nigerians by the U.S. or the world
will have far-reaching negative consequences for the region and beyond. An
unstable Nigeria driven by internal wars, insurrections, or other
manifestations of a failed state has the potential to destabilize the whole
continent of Africa. The common symptomatic phenomena of internal disarray by
way Of civil wars and refugees and internally displaced persons have been dealt
with by the world with varying successes in the past. The two world wars in the
last century and developments in their wake, the collapse of the Soviet Empire
in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and the Balkans, have produced
millions of refugees — which were and still are unacceptable. But the breakup
of Nigeria with a population of 130 million will produce a refugee crisis of
unimaginable proportions. African countries will be overwhelmed and both Europe
and Asia will be under severe strain.
The
highest number of refugees the world has had to deal with has never exceeded 25
million, with another 30 million or so displaced persons. This is about one
third of the refugee potential of a war torn Nigeria. The international community,
especially the U.S. will see it in their interest to forestall this major
tragedy for Africa and for the world.
Since
independence in 1960, Nigeria has gone through many crises including a bloody
civil war that lasted from 1967 to 1970, and cost nearly a million lives, with
attendant destruction, hunger, disease and massive population movements. The
Nigerian military has, like its Turkish and Pakistani counterparts, deemed it
prudent to intervene in the politics of Nigeria for reasons I will not want to
delve into, in this submission. As a rule most of such interventions, even when
adjudged necessary and or appropriate, have done permanent damage to the
military’s espirit de corps,
professionalism and preparedness, and have more often than not, done permanent
damage to political institution building and emergent consensus creation and
articulation —so necessary to security, progress and prosperity, in a nation
with such diverse and multifarious socio-economic and political constituencies.
The
Nigerian military have been compelled to surrender power and return to the
barracks by the imperatives of political reality and the heavy, definitely
unbearable toll on the institution.
Nigeria
is once again at a crossroad, at a defining moment in its history and the
history of Africa. Once again the country is thrown into chaos by actions of an
earlier elected but failed government that refuses to accept the verdict of the
very electorates who put it into power in the first place. The present
government was ushered into power in 1999 with considerable help from a
departing military government that paved the way by openly mobilizing
resources, international goodwill and tinkering of both the constitution and
the laws to enable the departing military government remote control the ensuing
succession in favor of a retired colleague. Four years after, it was time for
the incumbent government to renew its populate mandate. That was when hell
broke loose.
Nigerians,
full of hope in their new democracy, had wanted only to see some improvement of
their lives - even one or two. Instead, they saw none of the urgent problems
tackled with more than words. The government, contrary to its election
promises, presided over the accelerated decline of our social services,
especially health and education. It aggravated the simmering crises in
electricity generation and distribution, land and water transport, roads,
telecommunication and water supply.
To
date no one city in Nigeria can boast of a reliable water supply system.
Education from primary to tertiary institutions is in disarray with the
government permanently at war with teachers. From 2002 to mid-2003, nearly 80% of
Nigerian university students were not receiving instruction because the
colleges were closed down. Collegiate courses that normally last four years,
sometimes take 6 to 7 years to complete. The largely public funded health system
has collapsed and the private paying facilities grossly inadequate, too
rudimentary, and largely urban based, to have any meaningful impact in the
rural areas where the vast majority of Nigerians live.
The
greatest damage visited on Nigeria by the government in Abuja is in the area of
public security, and ethnic and religious harmony. The tragic track record of
the current Nigerian government, as captured in this year’s U.S. State
Department Country Report on Human Rights practices of February 25, 2004,
demonstrates how in Nigeria, as well as in many other countries, democratically
elected governments, often ones that claim to have been re-elected or
re-affirmed through, referenda, are routinely ignoring constitutional norms on
their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. It would
be a tragic mistake to ignore serious economic and political malfeasance in
Nigeria on the grounds of, so the argument goes, teething problems of fledgling
democracy, the legacy of military intervention, or the new threat of terrorism
elsewhere in the world.
It
is my understanding that democracy means first and foremost the rule of the
people by way of an electoral mandate, freely given. In the words of the
Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, in his book The Third Wave “Elections, open, free
and fair are the essence of democracy.
For
the, last nine months, we have been engaged before the Court of Appeal in a
legal battle to challenge the travesty of the 2003 elections. For seven of
these months we have been making our case through the testimony of 139
witnesses from states all over the Federation. We concluded our case last week
with a presentation in evidence of a copy of a radio signal sent by the Police
Headquarters to all State Commands directing them to favor the ruling party
during the elections.
The
government will open its defense on another “4-19”, this one in 2004. Because
the respondents failed to plead any case, their defense cannot last more than a
couple of weeks. We may thus expect the Court of Appeal judgment in a month or
so.
No
doubt whichever side loses will appeal to the Supreme Court, where we presume
the final judgment will be given six weeks from the date the court commences
hearing the case.
Should
the Supreme Court judgment be in our favour, the least we expect is the re-run
of the Presidential election. We can discuss what will follow in the question
and answer session.
Your
State Department Human Rights report is full of references to serious electoral
malpractices, violence, violations of all manner of human rights, corruption,
abuse of power and wholesale abuse of public trust by the government in power
in relation to the 2003 elections. In the words of the authors of the State
Department report and the international observers from the EU, US, the
Commonwealth and others, the elections “were seriously flawed”, and cannot be
regarded as reflecting the wishes of the Nigerian majority. The Nigerian armed
forces, the police, and the paramilitaries, were pressed into partisan service
in support of the governing party.
The
State Department report continues: “The government’s human rights record
remained poor, and the government continued to commit serious abuses...
Elections held during the year [2003] were not generally adjudged free and
fair, and therefore abridged citizens’ rights to change their government.
Security forces committed extra judicial killings and used excessive force to
apprehend criminal suspects and to quell some protests. The government at times
limited freedom of speech and press. Continued placing limits on freedom of
assembly and association, citing security concerns. Inter-communal violence
remained a problem.
According
to the country’s top police officer, Inspector General of Police Mr. Tafa
Balogun, from March 2002 until November the same year, the Nigerian police
under his stewardship killed more than 1,200 “criminals,” and arrested more
than 2,800. What these grim statistics show is that for every three persons
“arrested” by the largely untrained Nigerian police, one was killed!
Up
close and personal, my own running mate in the April 19, 2003 tainted
presidential election, an American trained political scientist, a presidential
advisor to two presidents and one time president of the Nigerian Senate, Dr.
Chuba Okadigbo, was recklessly gassed to death with some chemical substance,
while attending a lawful political rally in the northern city of Kano. Other
leaders of our party were assassinated. To date nobody has been charged.
On
July 10, 2003 armed anti-riot police abducted the governor of Anambra State,
Mr. Chris Ngige, forced his resignation and held him for five hours. Only three
days ago, the governor of Lagos State who is a member of another opposition
party, was briefly detained. The same fate was visited on the former governor
of another state, in Nigeria’s south west.
Two
days to our departure out of Nigeria, the army engaged prison warders in a
bizarre but bloody shoot out while trying to abduct one Major Hamza Al
Mustapha, who had been in detention without trial for six years for murder.
This army major is alleged to be planning to topple the government from his
prison cell!
I
am a soldier by training and thus a firm believer in discipline in all aspects
of life. I am also a convinced democrat and see no contradiction in the two
identities. Whatever I or my generation of military officers believed in the
past, as regards the problems of multi-party democracy and or its converse,
some kind of authoritarianism, in the form of a one party or non party state,
was brought crashing down before our very eyes, and the eyes of the rest of the
world, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its East European empire. The
implosion of the Soviet Union and its empire shows graphically, how
counterproductive, deadly and economically irrelevant the precepts and dogmas
of Marxism are. Ideologically driven regimes are by nature insecure and
unstable. This is true whether the dogma is economic or religious. The apparent
economic development they facilitate comes at a price too high for the people,
and almost always, their prosperity is transient and unsustainable.
My
program, on coming to power in a credible election therefore, presupposes the
existence of a democratic space as indispensable for its realization. National
consensus carefully negotiated with all stakeholders and constituencies will be
the indispensable underpinning of such a project. The project we envisage on
attainment of power will be based on the following fundamental principles, in
continuous consultation with other tiers and branches of our government, other
democratic institutions and stakeholders. They will include vigorous commitment
to:
1.
The existence of a united, democratic, strong, prosperous, peaceful, socially
just and egalitarian Nigeria that is at peace with itself internally, respected
and admired in Africa and the world
2.
Recognize as basic principles of governance, the historically overwhelming
imperatives of democracy, firm but fair rule of law, and the acceptance of
human rights and civil liberties. We commit ourselves to genuinely and openly
accountable and visibly transparent government, not as a matter of sloganeering
and sound bites, but because we believe our people, who have endured corruption
and bad governance for so long, have a right to it. Democracy without respect
for the rule of law in my view will be a contradiction in terms, and a costly
indulgence.
Our
government, if elected, will rededicate itself anew, with sincerity and vigor,
to the uncompromising pursuit of human development ii its entirety, limited
only by resource limitations on government, the recurrent constraints of
renegotiated debt servicing obligations, and other inherited commitments.
My
colleagues and I have no illusions about the state of affairs in Nigeria
presently. These are today other people’s responsibility, but hopefully with a
positive outcome of the petition before the law courts, fresh, credible
elections and new, legitimate, responsible government, these problems will
become automatically and immediately our concern.
Some
of the problems are of recent vintage. Others like corruption, economic
mismanagement institutional immorality in public life, manipulation of religion
and primordial sentiments, human rights abuses as highlighted by the recent
U.S. State Department report; have been with us over the years, but NEVER on a
scale we are now witnessing. We are all aware that democracy as we know it is,
impossible in an atmosphere of intense ethnic and other primordial preferences.
Nigeria
has many problems far and beyond what I have elaborated above. I have no doubt,
however, that with a legitimate government and committed leadership of
integrity, these problems can be solved. Indeed, they must be solved.
The
international community under United States’ indispensable leadership, must be
engaged in seeing that both sides honor the legal outcome. In the uncertain
weeks and months ahead, Nigeria will need imaginative understanding and
practical assistance. Initially this will entail technical assistance, but
subsequently a significant infusion of trained international observers for the
duration, to ensure that the Nigerian public will accept and embrace the
election results.
General Muhammadu Buhari delivered
this speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholar, Ronald
Reagan Building.
2004
Comments
Post a Comment