There are some Nigerians who, even in the face of irrefutable evidence that proves the contrary, believe that former president, General Olusegun Obasanjo, is not only a patriotic Nigerian but also an incorruptible leader who meant well for the country. But how can a leader who brought his country’s political advancement to its knees and whose self-serving policies stunted socio-economic growth mean well for the country and the citizenry? Is it true that Obasanjo is a misunderstood leader who really meant well in the eight years he was president? Those who eulogise him say the hallmark of leadership is the ability to take hard decisions without minding whose ox is gored. And because Obasanjo, according to them, took very hard decisions, he therefore qualifies to be inducted into the country’s hall of great leaders. But isn’t that too simplistic an argument to make? Nothing could be more fallacious. If the ability to take hard decisions – whatever that means – is the trademark of leadership, then General Sani Abacha also qualifies as a great Nigerian leader. Or who could have taken harder decisions than acclaimed African villains such as the late Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, etc? In recent times, the argument has changed. If you dare criticise Obasanjo for dragging Nigeria back in an era when the resolve of most world leaders, even those in the Third World countries, seem to be ‘forward ever, backward never’ his apologists accuse you of being intellectually lazy. They ask if there is no other issue to discuss. If you suggest that the man should be made to account for his eight years of ruinous administration, they counter that the man is no longer the president and therefore should be left alone. But how can we leave him alone when the ghost he unleashed on the nation haunts us daily? How can we forget the man when the evil that he did while in office continue to dog our every step? How can we leave Obasanjo alone when we have not left the likes of General Sani Abacha alone, almost a decade after his death? There is no single day since he was forced to quit power on May 29 that new facts are not emerging concerning the level of corruption in the eight years that Obasanjo held sway as Nigeria’s president. Little wonder that most world leaders who, indubitably through their intelligence network knew how rancid things became in the country even when the man was busy lying to himself and all who cared to listen that he was taking Nigeria to the next level, are treating him like a leper. While other African leaders who served their people selflessly are being rewarded with continental and global awards, Obasanjo, the man who sees himself as the best thing that happened to Africa after Nelson Mandela, has been ignored. The former leader of the most populous black nation in the world, a man who hugs international limelight as if his life depends on it, is today no longer invited to any gathering of world and African leaders even when he makes overtures. Who says the evil that men do does not live with them? Today, Obasanjo looks up to the Ogun State governor, Gbenga Daniel, for hollow leadership awards and for company, Lamidi Adedibu’s Molete home has become a sanctuary. Of all the crimes Obasanjo committed against Nigerians, perhaps the most heinous is the unconscionable sale of the country’s patrimony to himself and his cronies. How could a man who claims to mean well device a scheme- privatisation programme – through which, in eight years, he divested Nigerians of their stake in almost all their strategic assets? Arguably, the worst of these cases was the sale of Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL) to Trans National Corporation of Nigeria Plc (Transcorp), a company Obasanjo is a shareholder, on July 3, 2006. In selling Nigeria’s strategic telecommunication asset to Transcorp, all the rules were bent because of Obasanjo’s interest in the Transcorp which became the core investor after Nasir el-Rufai’s attempt, as head of the Bureau for Public Enterprises (BPE), to impose Pentascope on the company failed. It is heart-warming that at long last, stakeholders in the industry together with the government and the Senate have agreed to review this vexing exercise. In a communiqué issued after a closed door meeting of the parties involved on November 19, and read by Chief Sylvester Anyanwu, chairman, Senate Committee on Communications, the stakeholders observed that Transcorp which claimed on the day it’s team signed the Sales Purchase Agreement with BPE that its sponsors had secured one billion Euro facility from an agency of the European Union, “had not substantially implemented most of the post-acquisition plans and agreements.” In order not to allow NITEL die, they decided that “there is imperative need to look into the memorandum and articles of association and details of contract between Transcorp and the BPE on the sale of NITEL/Mtel.” The Director General of BPE, Irene Chigbue, upped the ante of controversy the same day in an interview with The Punch newspaper. Agreeing that “Transcorp failed to live up to its responsibilities,” Chigbue lamented the fate that had befallen NITEL since it was privatised. “We are more than embarrassed by the fact that Transcorp, after they took over, could not pay the $250 million.” As usual, some people are calling for the sack of the BPE Director General for having the courage to tell them the truth. She has been accused of defending the sale of NITEL when Obasanjo was in power only to turn back now to admit that the sale was in error. Curiously, not many are agitating that Obasanjo, a shareholder in Transcorp should be probed for orchestrating the sale of NITEL to his own company. Those calling for Chigbue’s head on a platter are refusing to acknowledge the fact that it is not the responsibility of the BPE to manage sold companies. If anybody should be held accountable for NITEL’s fate, it is the owners of Transcorp who lied about their financial strength and preparedness to transform and rehabilitate NITEL. Those calling for Chibgue’s sack have not asked themselves why BPE under her did not prove to be different from the BPE under el-Rufai in executing the NITEL deal. Why did she succeed in selling the National Aviation Handling Company (NAHCO) but failed in the NITEL matter? Could it be because of the former president’s business interest which obviously conflicted with national interest? Rather than vilifying Chigbue for admitting that BPE erred, albeit unwittingly, in handling the sale of NITEL, won’t it be better if Nigerians asked those who deceived them, including Obasanjo, in order to buy their strategic telecommunication asset for an explanation? With the revelations from the Willbros and Siemens scandals, the time to carry out a comprehensive probe of the Obasanjo administration is now. Re – My Take On The Kano State LG Polls Crisis Dear Mr. Amaechi,Welcome back from the United Kingdom.I read the above piece in theDaily Independent of Tuesday November, 25, 2007. Thepiece was nice no doubt but with all sense ofresponsibility, I beg to disagree with your views onwhether or not Iwu should resign citing the violencethat attended the Kano LG polls as the basis for yourconclusion. Yes, it is true that the Kano LG polls were conductedby Kano State Electoral Commission but when the headis rotten does it not follow that the whole body isalso rotten?. The behaviour of the state electoralcommissions is a carry over of the fraud perpetratedby Iwu at the National level more so when it seemsthey have almost gone scot free with the crime. I believe the story in the state electoral commissionswould have been different today if the INEC led by Iwuhave not colluded with the ruling party to massivelyrig the polls in April. Or if Iwu and co are by nowlanguishing in prison, state Independent Electoral Commissions would have beenmore careful.The earlier Iwu steps aside the better for ourdemocracy.Thank you and God bless.
Hakeem Jamiu.
