In fury, the dictator directed the cameraman’s bosses at the NTA to dismiss him immediately. But the staff was said to be so competent at his job that, rather than be sacked, he was only redeployed from outside broadcast to an obscure seat at headquarters. After Obasanjo shed his khaki in 1979, together with all the appurtenances of power and dictatorship, NTA managers brought back the cameraman to continue on his job at the seat of power.
In 1999, the cameraman was actively at work in Aso Rock when Obasanjo strutted into office as Nigeria’s second executive president. If the cameraman thought his nemesis in Dodan Barracks would either not recognize the offender he ordered fired over 20 years ago, or had put that incident behind him, he would soon be quickly proved wrong. The first day Obasanjo saw him in the Villa, he was quoted to have thundered: “You are still here. I thought I ordered then that you be fired.” The president promptly, for the second time, directed that the cameraman be booted out.
At present, the polity is tense with fears of a similar, unforgiving backlash from President Obasanjo, this time over failure of his third term bid. The president is still seething with rage over the abortion of his bid to elongate his tenure. Constitutionally, his term ends on 29 May next year, when the maximum two terms legally allowed him expires. But last year, an agenda to pad the president’s stay, via an amendment to the constitution, suddenly grew thick and dominated political, economic and media discussions for the greater part of this year.
On Thursday 16 May, a bill to, among other things, amend the constitution to extend Obasanjo’s tenure, was thrown out by the National Assembly. Key among institutions which fought to scuttle the third term idea because of its unconstitutionality was the media, some politicians and a handful of elements in Obasanjo’s cabinet itself. Since the defeat of the bill, certain developments would suggest that the president has been behaving true to type. Obasanjo may, indeed, have embarked on a revenge mission against those who stood in the way of his ambition. In the dock currently are two journalists from the Daily Independent newspaper and Africa Independent Television, AIT.
Rotimi Durojaiye, a senior aviation correspondent with the Daily Independent and Gbenga Aruleba, a presenter with AIT, have been charged before an Abuja Federal High Court on a six-count charge of seditious publication “with intent to bring hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the person of the president or the government of the Federation.’’
Durojaiye was alleged to have committed the offence by virtue of his report in the 12 June 2005 edition of the newspaper, which he titled, “Controversy over Age, Cost of Presidential Jet, Five Years Old, and Acquired from Lufthansa. NAF, Civil Pilots Fight for Control.”
Aruleba, on the other hand, is being told that he, on 13 June 2006, “uttered seditious words, published or reproduced seditious publications, using the medium of Focus Nigeria, a program on AIT, against the president of Nigeria or the government of the Federation.” The seditious words, it would seem, are the alleged reference to the plane as “Tokunbo”, a parlance meaning second-hand.
According to Salisu Aliyu, Director of Public Prosecution, the offences of the two journalists run contrary to section 51(1) of the Criminal Code Act, chapter 77 Laws of the Federation.
Intense criticisms have been trailing government’s decision to take the two men to court. Widely, the action is being seen as a victimization of the media for its sustained war against the third term bid.
Before the resort to the court, the AIT had once been briefly shut and some tapes seized for airing the chaotic debate of legislators at the National Assembly on the constitutional amendment bill. The television station was considered one of the leading voices against Obasanjo’s third term dream. The arrest and prosecution of one of its senior staff, as well as Durojaiye, is, therefore, being seen in some quarters as punishment for the sin of AIT and the media in general.
The law of sedition under which they are charged has been described by leading lawyers as an outdated piece of legislation dusted up mainly for the purpose of roping in the journalists. Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria said of the law last week: “It is a law that has ceased to exist. It will be wrong for the government to arraign anybody for that offence. It is a dead law. You cannot arrest, detain or arraign or prosecute any person under a dead law in Nigeria. Sedition is a dead law in Nigeria.”
Femi Falana, a lawyer and, like Fawehinmi, a vocal human rights activist, was more emphatic. To Falana, it was “a highly irresponsible political move on the part of the government to use the machinery of the Criminal Code to harass journalists.” More disturbing, the lawyer declared, “Is the desperation that led the Attorney-General of the country to go to the graveyard and attempt to wake the colonial laws of sedition that had been pronounced dead in this age and time to harass journalists in Nigeria.”
Falana revealed that 33 years ago, Justice Alfa Moddibo Belgore, now Chief Justice of Nigeria, clearly declared at the Enugu Court of Appeal that “the law of sedition, as encapsulated in sections 51 and 52 of the Criminal Code, is illegal and unconstitutional because it is found to be in violent conflict with the freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution.” The lawyer referred to the contribution of Justice Olajide Olatawura, a member of the Court, who stated that “even if the law on sedition was not unconstitutional, it has become a deadly weapon to be used by a corrupt government of a tyrant to intimidate Nigerians and harass them for speaking the truth and for holding government accountable.” Olatawura added: “We are no longer the mob society or the illiterates that the colonialists had in mind when they made the law. I do know that under the law of sedition, truth is no defense. In fact, the truer the story, the more criminal the offence. It is a very barbaric law and very primitive.”
Mobolaji Aluko, a United States of America-based professor of Chemical Engineering, viewed the whole episode as laughable. “The arrest of Aruleba - for discussing a newspaper report on TV - is even more ridiculous, and both of the arrests must stem from bad belle (malice) over AIT and the general Nigerian media’s very laudable and leading role in the demise of the third term agenda,” he quipped.
Also believed on the hound list of the president, arising from the third term defeat, are certain influential personalities in both the private and public sectors who had once been the president’s close aides but could have now become pariahs because of their opposition to the third term idea. One of such people is Chief Fola Adeola, former managing director and chief executive officer of GTBank plc. Since leaving GTBank, Adeola has been very close to the seat of power. No eyebrows were, therefore, raised when he was appointed managing director of Transnational Corporation of Nigeria, Transcorp, and chairman, National Pension Commission, PENCOM. Obasanjo’s influence over both bodies is total: Transcorp was the idea of the president although it is ostensibly owned and controlled completely by players in the private sector. Last week, Nigerians were jolted when the news broke that the former banker had been relieved of both offices.
The board of directors of Transcorp, in its letter to Adeola, simply stated that his removal from office was as a result of restructuring aimed at refocusing the corporation. No further details were given although the board promised to explain its decision later.
In the same vein, Adeola’s sack from PENCOM was conveyed to him in a statement by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Ufot Ekaette. No reason was given for the sack.
There have been several speculations on the real reasons behind the double sack letters received by the banker in a span of two days. Top among the touted reasons was the failure by the banker to openly declare his support for Obasanjo’s tenure elongation attempt. For many anti-third termers, it’s a night of long knives and Adeola is believed to be one of the victims. Unlike Chief Festus Odimegwu, the CEO of Nigerian Breweries plc and one of the big guns of Transcorp, who virtually turned a megaphone for the tenure elongation project while it lasted, Adeola not only made efforts to dissociate himself from the plan, he was also unequivocal in condemning it. “As a person, I don’t want the president to hang on. Indeed, I don’t want anybody to hang on because you can see from my antecedents, I don’t hang on. I do what I have to do and move on,” the former Transcorp CEO who retired voluntarily from his position as the CEO of GTBank noted. It was believed that the banker may have incurred the wrath of President Obasanjo and that of his (Adeola’s) Transcorp co-travelers with his comment.
In another talk, the erudite banker is believed to have an eye on the senatorial ticket in Abeokuta Central on the platform of an undisclosed political party. Incidentally, Mrs. Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello, daughter of the president and Commissioner for Health in Ogun State, who is from the same senatorial district with Adeola, is well known to similarly have interest in the same seat. This will ultimately bring the president’s first daughter and Adeola against each other. This also raises the suspicion that the president’s hand may not be entirely removed from last week’s removal of Adeola from Transcorp. This is more so when it’s realized that the former Transcorp’s boss was given the boot the same day board members of the Mega Corporation paid a visit to the president in Aso Rock. The question is: did President Obasanjo instigate the board of Transcorp to sack Adeola as a result of his political ambition? Or did the board take the action to avoid a confrontation between its chief executive and the first daughter of the president, its major benefactor?
The fact that Adeola is nursing a political ambition was confirmed by a source at Transcorp who disclosed that as the company prepares to issue an Initial Public Offer, IPO, its management would want to avoid a situation in which Adeola’s name would appear on the company’s offer prospectus, only for a new CEO to be appointed next year as Adeola’s resignation becomes imminent.
Adeola’s removal, which takes immediate effect, has brought about the appointment of Mr. Bernard Longe, former Managing Director of First Bank of Nigeria plc, as the new Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Transcorp Nigeria plc.
This is not the first time Adeola would be removed from office. As co-founder and chairman of Guaranty Trust Bank plc, Adeola was replaced in 2003 by Chief Gilbert Chikelu by the board of the bank. The decision did not go down well with Adeola, but the Tayo Aderinokun-led management insisted that Adeola must step down. Aderinokun, who did not consider the decision as a punitive measure, believed it was the only way GT Bank could be recognized as a truly Nigerian bank.
The redeployment of former Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, to the External Affairs Ministry is also being bandied about as not unconnected with her negative disposition to the tenure elongation ambition of the president. While the facade lasted, words were learnt to have filtered into Obasanjo’s ears that the economist had her own political ideas. The unconfirmed talk was that she was not only opposed to tenure elongation; she was, indeed, aligning with some elements that cannot wait to take over power from the president next May.
When the issue of constitutional amendment was first proposed in 2001, not much dust was raised, although TheNEWS would start revealing the central issue of tenure elongation for the president to the national fore two years later. The prediction of the magazine was confirmed in December 2004 when constitutional amendment to presidential tenure appeared as the main menu at the National Political Reform Conference, NPRC, held in Abuja. Then all hell was let loose.
The apprehension of many Nigerians was profound as they observed that most of the delegates nominated to the conference were Obasanjo’s close associates and political acolytes.
In spite of the complaints, however, the conference went ahead with its proceedings, most of them stage-managed. At the end, a recommendation was forwarded to the president, who in turn, passed the report to the National Assembly.
When the report got to the National Assembly, another round of intrigues began. First was the belief that President Obasanjo, using the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, had arm-twisted the legislators to favor tenure elongation. Curiously, for the period the argument raged, the president never came out publicly to deny the plot.
Meanwhile, Chief Chris Uba, the political godfather of Anambra State, Chief Andy Uba, his brother and Obasanjo’s Personal Assistant on Domestic Matters and Chief Tony Anenih, chairman of the PDP Board of Trustees, were alleged to be moving around the National Assembly, loaded with bags of money to seek the support of legislators for the tenure extension. Some legislators were believed to have gone home with N50 million each.
Initially, the president’s men seemed to be succeeding in their quest to see the bill through in the National Assembly, until some legislators began to oppose it.
Invariably, after so much suspense, the National Assembly, on 16 May, struck out the bill. In the Senate, members did not only bury the third term, they equally rejected the 115 other recommendations in the bill. In the Senate, 40 members voted for tenure elongation, 49 voted against while 17 were undecided. In the House of Representatives, 99 members voted against the project, 92 voted for it while four remained undecided.
Obasanjo’s unwavering resolve not to support his deputy, Vice President Atiku Abubakar, for the presidential ticket in 2007 is being traced to what was generally seen as the latter’s humiliation of the former in 2003 when Obasanjo was seeking a second term ticket. The vice president, with a strong hold on most of the governors who largely influenced the nomination of delegates and pattern of voting in the PDP primaries, had the president over a barrel. Obasanjo was said to have practically prostrated before his vice in his appeal for support. Eventually, Abubakar gave in and, rather than contest the presidential ticket with his boss as was urged on by the governors, he agreed that Obasanjo go for another term. But the humiliation stuck, and for a person like Obasanjo who suffers from an ego problem, Abubakar’s sin remains unforgivable.
The president’s long-term friend, Ibrahim Babangida, is currently undergoing the same experience. Babangida was actively engaged in scuttling the third term project by extensively influencing his surrogates in the National Assembly, and even beyond, to work against the constitutional amendment bill. It is one act of betrayal that the president will not ever forget. When the former military dictator later approached Obasanjo for backing in his (Babangida’s) 2007 project, the president was quoted to have told him clearly not to bank on his support.
With Obasanjo, loyalty to the third term ambition seems to have its rewards. Certain aides who rabidly urged the idea on are now being elevated in public offices. His former special assistant on public communication, Femi Fani-Kayode, for instance, has been moved up as Minister of Culture and Tourism.
The president’s proclivity for vendetta may have stemmed from the famed eulogy of the Owu people in Abeokuta where he hails from. The Owus are praised for not being vindictive; their shortcoming is their tendency to harp on a particular issue eternally. The first clause is their own defense to the accusation that they always insist on vengeance. In actual fact, the two clauses translate to the same thing: they don’t forget and they don’t forgive.googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });