YAR'ADUA AND THE EFCC

THE circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mrs. Farida Waziri as the acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the improper and hasty nature of her resumption of duty, even before she was confirmed by the Senate, suggest that President Umaru Yar’Adua has less than salutary intentions towards the anti-graft agency.

FOR a president that has come to be regarded as unhurried even in urgent national matters, President Yar’Adua’s rush to have someone else replace Mallam Nuhu Ribadu before he finishes his course at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, does not help his image as a man who is committed to the rule of law. The president’s handlers had given the impression that Ribadu was heading for a routine training course for senior officers in the Nigeria Police. The local and international outrage at what many assumed to be Yar’Adua’s subtle assault on the anti-corruption war was rebuffed in official quarters with a tacit understanding that Ribadu could return to his post at the completion of his course.

THAT Ribadu’s deputy, Ibrahim Larmode, was appointed in acting capacity was proof to some that the President, indeed, was not submitting to the caprice of powerful anti-Ribadu and anti-EFCC elements who people his ruling party. Important sections of the international community, particularly the United States and the European Union, which had offered critical assistance to the anti-graft agency were reportedly reassured that the government was not about to abort one of the critical agencies in the efforts towards the redemption of Nigeria.

HOWEVER, if the President wanted to give credence to those who have insisted in the media that he has become hostage to powerful elements who have an axe to grind with the EFCC and its leadership, he could not have done better. An otherwise contemplative President gave audience to politicians who had been accused of the most heinous crimes against the state and the people. In a most indecent manner imaginable, the politicians who were standing trial for gross abuse of office, did not even visit the president nocturnally, in which case their visits could have been officially denied when reported in the media. They were received in broad daylight. The reaction of Yar’Adua’s media scribes that the visits of these former public office holders had nothing to do with their ongoing trial was not only cheap, it was perverse.

ANY decent government would not carouse in the company of those who have not only been accused of such grave crimes, but are, also, generally believed in the public not to have been faithful to their oath of office. Style, as this newspaper insisted during the 100 days celebration of the president in office, can be as critical as substance. Therefore, if the president decides to cavort with accused men, he cannot claim the moral high ground. The state of Nigeria’s national morality is not just bad, it is dismal. Despite this, nothing recommended that a president parroting high-minded commitment to the rule of law would play host to those who were on trial for looting their states.

THAT these men are yet to be convicted cannot be claimed as an excuse for this ill-advised action. Otherwise, the president, if they were to also have access to him, would be playing host to other Nigerians who are also standing trial for other crimes, say rape. The visits became further inexcusable because even the spouses of some of these accused had also been caught in London and are standing trial for money laundering in the United Kingdom. What further motivation would a president— who wants to keep an impeccable record in rectitude— need before taking a decent distance from such former office holders?

THE media have reported many times that these elements were working hard to ensure that Ribadu did not return to the EFCC and that the acting head, Larmode, who was part of the Ribadu era, would not continue the act. While no one can take away the right of the president to appoint whoever he wishes, the truth is that appointments to offices, even by the powerful president, are conditioned by the limitations placed by ensuring geographical spread, called national character in Nigeria, equal representation, called quota system, and the dictates of public decency and moral accountability. That one of those who had been speculated in the media as the choice of those currently standing for corruption was eventually appointed by Yar’Adua constitutes gratuitous deficit.

WAZIRI’S swift resumption of duty even before her Senate confirmation, and her appointment as “acting chairman”, a position which does not exist in the statute books, gave further reasons to doubt the intentions of the president. We believe that a president loved by millions of Nigerians should not be involved in the vile struggle to end the rectitude constituted by the EFCC, as imperfect as its operations were. The president still has the opportunity to withdraw the name submitted to the Senate today and save himself the embarrassment which this decision constitutes. Otherwise, his affirmed commitment to the rule of law and moral high ground would become a ruse.

obi: round two to etiaba

MR. Peter Obi pursued the governorship of Anambra State with stunning single-mindedness. He left the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in a buff when a dark horse was named as the party’s gubernatorial candidate. He became the candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), a party, as its name suggests, that has progressive pretentions.

THE Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) announced Mr. Obi’s rival in the PDP, Dr. Chris Ngige, as the winner of the gubernatorial election. Some people expected Mr. Obi to suffer apoplexy, but he pushed on. He sent a petition to the election tribunal.

THE tribunal and the appeal court declared Mr. Obi the actual winner of the election, but he would be in office for less than a year. It had taken the tribunal more than three years to deliver judgment.

MR. Obi was impeached almost as soon as he took office! The legislature, dominated by the PDP, constituted itself a kangaroo court and some members, not up to the required number, impeached Governor Obi.

DAME Virgy Etiaba, Mr. Obi’s deputy, became the governor. Mr. Obi went to court to challenge his impeachment. It was said that Dame Etiaba clearly enjoyed being governor and that this made Mr. Obi very angry.

MR. Obi won his case against the lunatic legislators and returned to office. Some people said they expected Dame Etiaba to resign, but the Dame told them, “Damn you!”

MR. Obi returned to court to argue that his term should begin when he took office, that he should be in office for four years and not a few months. The case reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court kicked out Mr. Andy Uba who had “won” the April 14, 2007 governorship election and Mr. Obi returned to the Government House after a second break.

AND now the dogged fighter has told Nigerians that he is a quitter. He has threatened to resign as governor because of an apparent disagreement with Dame Etiaba, his deputy.
DAME Etiaba was not bemused; she was amused. She said Governor Obi was always threatening to resign. She begged him not to resign, meaning he should do so immediately.

BUT Mr. Obi will not resign, will not allow the Dame to dethrone him. His resignation threat is mere brinkmanship. He has no intention of moving close to the brink of political oblivion.
DAME Etiaba has displayed more political savvy than Governor Obi, the man with the amazing staying power.