Jonathan Would’ve Been Reelected If He Were From North Or S’West -Osuntokun

FORMER Political Adviser to for­mer president Olusegun Obasanjo, Mr. Akin Osuntokun believes the country must be restructured if it is to move forward. He also spoke on the President Muhammadu Buhari-led administration, former President Goodluck Jonathan and what the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) must do.
The screening of ministerial nominees have been going on with some controversies, are you satisfied with the way it has gone?
I can’t find any conspicuous flaw in the process of screening the nominees, but in any case, you know that time is of essence, the nation has waited long enough for the formation of the federal execu­tive council . I don’t think there are contentious issues as such for any of the nominees except for the former governor of Rivers State, Rotimi Amaechi.

Are you satisfied with the han­dling of the Amaechi’s matter ?
The process of the screening is to look at the nominees and it is the Senate that will come to the conclusion whether a nominee is qualified after screening. You don’t presume a man guilty until it is proven.


So, it is the Senate itself, that in the process of screening him, should come to a conclusion whether there is ground for him to be disqualified or not. You cannot stop the man prior to his screen­ing. Whatever it is, the author­ity lies with the Senate to uncover whatever it is that the public is say­ing makes him ineligible.
The PDP is alleging that Presi­dent Buhari’s anti corruption war is targeted at its members . What do you say to that?
On the surface the argument of the PDP seems valid . Whether it is a coincidence or it is deliberately selective, I don’t know. It could be a coincidence but the statistics speak for themselves. It has the appearance of it being lopsided against the PDP members . But I am saying that it is also open, no matter how inconsiderable, it is open to another interpretation. And that is the fact that it could be a coincidence. The EFCC should be in a better way to respond to the question.


The normal process is that the EFCC moves after they receive petitions against a particular public official. Is it the case that they have not received petitions against APC office holders or what?
What I am saying is that the question should be addressed to the EFCC , ask them why is it the case? The objection that the PDP has raised is legitimate. From the surface it seems as if it has the ap­pearance of being selective. Now as I said, it could be a coincidence, it could not be, the whole thing may also be in good faith, but it is open.


Is it also possible that it is be­cause PDP has been in power for a long time?
No. I don’t believe so. I don’t think there is any governor in the past four years who doesn’t have al­legation against him at the EFCC. I doubt if there is any. And don’t forget that quite a number of PDP governors moved over to APC. So, if you say that it is because the PDP has had more governors you have to take into consideration that at least five of PDP governors moved to the APC. It is now left for the EFCC to come out with what they have done and the pro­cess in order to reassure the public that whatever they have done, they did them in good faith.


This is because the allegation is repetitive. It predated this ad­ministration of APC. I remember when President Obasanjo was there, when the issue was raised, the (EFCC) chairman at that time, Nuhu Ribadu responded. After he responded, I think he took about 30 of the governors in submission to the Senate at that time. He did mention that 30 governors were being investigated or something along that line. So what I’m say­ing is that EFCC is duty bound to respond to any such allegation; because it is open to that interpre­tation, the interpretation of being selective or witch-hunt.


The EFCC suddenly woke up from its slumber , are you sur­prised?
I am not surprised. Well, the EFCC may want to impress the new administration that it is up to the task. Wrongly or rightly, the tag of corruption has been at­tached to the former president and his government. People also say that the EFCC was at that time being barred from performing its duty. It seems then as if there was a lull in the activities of the EFCC.
Now the new President came with the credibility of being a fairly corrupt free President, some­body who takes a distance view of corruption and could go to any extent to curb it. When you have that kind of President, it is not only the EFCC, I think every aspect of Nigerian governance one way or the other, seems to take a cue from what they believe of the reputation of the new President and acting to justify your existence . It is a re­sponse to what they believe will impress the new President.
The change in government ex­plains what you are seeing. Again, the EFCC is in better position to respond.


Is it right to say that Jona­than was not ready to fight cor­ruption as being alleged in some circles ?
I think yes. If you give fighting corruption a punitive position, in a manner of catching thieves and punishing them. But there is also another dimension to fighting cor­ruption and that is the pre-emp­tive measures like what the then Minister of Finance did in cleaning up ghost workers. There were a lot of leakages in the payment of salaries and all that and the Min­ister of Finance came up with e–payment to clean up the mess. In that regards, a lot of leakages were eliminated. The same thing hap­pened in agriculture, which is a big sector of Nigeria’s economy. The former minister also elimi­nated the fertilizer syndicate. That is fighting corruption from a pre-emptive measure.
It is not as glamorous and con­spicuous as catching people and punishing them. So, in the aspect of taking pre-emptive measure, I think the former government did fairly well but in catching and pun­ishing offenders I think there is a deficiency in that.
But what we should note is that Transparency International, a body that tells how corrupt a country is, scored Nigeria under Jonathan higher than leaders before him in fighting corruption.
Nigeria used to be the most corrupt or the second most cor­rupt. I think last year, Nigeria was better than about 20 countries or so, which was a considerable im­provement.
Chief Elder Edwin Clark came out recently to say that President Jonathan was a weak leader, do you see him from the same light?


He was in a position to know whether Jonathan was weak or not. I think that Jonathan was not asser­tive enough. He was too tentative in terms of tackling the problems of the country. Nigeria is quite a wild country that need to be tamed in any aspect. Any president that is not assertive will give the im­pression of being weak. There are instances, personally I felt that the only explanation he could give about those instances is that he is a weak leader.
Being aware of all these flaws, why did you campaign for his return?
There was no presidential can­didate who was flawless. The po­sition I took was ideological. It was principled. First, I think that a president from the Niger Delta de­serves to have a go at another term.
Even if such President is not doing well?


Well, when you say he was not doing well, it is relative. And in any case, when you look at the country, the question is relative to what? Apart from the President Obasanjo’s regime, I don’t see any other government, you can say has performed. But like I said, it is ide­ological and the reason is that what sustains the country comes from the Niger Delta. And I feel we should give them some semblance of priority. Nobody from there had been president before. The rest of us, what is it that we bring to the national income? If anybody should speak from the position of fairness and equity, I think he should have gone for another term, that was my position.
You asked that even when he was not doing well, I don’t know the yardstick for that, but I have said the basis for my support. If you look at Nigeria strategically in a long term effect, if he were to come from the Yoruba or the North, I am almost certain that nobody would have stopped him from going for second term. The thing is the balance of power equa­tion in Nigeria doesn’t favour them. My position fundamentally is about that.


Secondly, what is paramount should be solving the problem of Nigeria . For me, it is not about leadership change, it is addressing our structural problem . If we have this same structure it will keep on producing the same kind of presi­dent. The structure is against the logic of federalism. Nigeria is in­herently a federalist country, if you put anything there, you are going to have disequilibrium and that is what we are having.  The kind of president we have is ill-suited. We have an all-powerful president, behaving as if he is op­erating a military constitution.
If you want to begin to address the problem of Nigeria seriously, you are going to find out a way of taking power away from the centre and devolving it to the zones. So, as long as it remains the way it is now, there will always be despera­tion in terms of who gets there. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.


People who go there now, it seems you are there first and pri­marily on behalf of your people, which is what the logic of zoning is about. Of course, you see what is hap­pening, without prejudice to the office of President Muhammadu Buhari-look at the composition of his presidency. I am not talking about the ministries. These are the things that will make you say okay, it is their turn. That is why he ap­pointed almost 90 per cent of his personal aides from the North.


So, if you want to resolve the problem of Nigeria, if you look at it from the leadership stage you are just looking at the symptom. The more fundamental problem is structural. You have states that should not be states, states that cannot pay salaries, that in itself is a statement of the non-viability of the structure we are operat­ing.
I have heard one or two governors talk about what they were giving them for bail­out. If you are giving them money, are they not still going to find themselves in the same situation?
Would you say, like some people have argued, that Obasanjo went too far in at­tacking Jonathan before and during the election?


You are being unfair asking me a question about Obasanjo. You know my relationship with him. He is a father figure. So, you can­not indulge me, I don’t want to talk about him publicly. I do mention him in my col­umn, a situation that gives me control over what I say .
However, everybody is entitled to his po­sition and prejudices, he is a Nigerian. He is free to express his opinion, so long as no law is being violated.
He took a political position that was very critical of Jonathan, so long as no law is vio­lated, he is entitled to it. There are people who also hold extreme positions on all sorts of issues, so, I don’t know what you want me to say in that.


How did you find himself at that time walking at cross purposes with your for­mer boss and somebody you regard as a father figure. Did your campaign for the reelection of Jonathan soil your relation­ship with Obasanjo?
I’m 53 years old, so, I am a self accounting adult and should be able to take positions in­dependent of President Obasanjo. And I am sure that is what he expects me to do. If you have a son who is 53 years old, I am sure that you will expect from that son to be able to take his own position independently. If you have a 53 years son, who is still taking clue from you on what to do,that means there is some retardation in his development.
But as a father figure, I owe him to be cir­cumspect, respectful when I’m dealing with him in public discuss. But on the issue of taking a stand, he asked me after the elec­tion, why I took the position that I took, and I told him that it was ironical, while serving him, that my position on Buhari became al­most inflexible.


I was the director of his re-election in 2003. Buhari was his opponent. So, it was my duty to know Buhari, to study him more than most Nigerians. It was actually one of the reasons I supported Jonathan. I felt that what I knew of Buhari, he was not the best choice for Nigeria. Now, God has given him another opportunity to rectify that er­ror. He was saying things in the cause of that election . You recall the Sharia crisis. I don’t need to be a critic of Buhari to recall the po­sition that he took on the Sharia crisis. It cer­tainly was not part of the solution, far from it, it was part of the problem. He took a very partisan position on an issue that was capa­ble of causing serious crisis in the country. He did not take the position of a statesman. The statements that are still quoted till today were things that he said. At the same time he went to Sokoto to address a Quaranic cer­emony, which was subsequently transcribed by Daily Trust and he did say that Muslims can vote for those who can protect their faith. That is not a position that a statesman should take.


Now again, we are talking about this Fu­lani thing, you will recall when he went to then governor of Oyo State, Lam Adesina, that he came on behalf of Fulani nomads.
He has had enough time and might have improved on those things. But for me, with the knowledge of those flaws, I thought for me as a person that Jonathan was better.
As I said, President Obasanjo asked me and I recalled these things to him. There was a time at a Council of States, at the height of the Sharia crisis, not the regular meeting they had, after the meeting, the vice presi­dent at that time, Atiku Abubakar met with the press and said that National Council of States resolved that all party to the Shar­ia crisis should go back to the status quo henceforth to facilitate efforts at resolving the crisis. Buhari went on air the same day to say that Atiku was lying.


You spoke about the lopsidedness in the key appointments he made, would you say those who accuse the President of being narrow-minded are right?
Now listen, before I go further, when I laid all these things before President Obasanjo, he said the problem of Buhari was mis-perception, that the perception we have had from what he had done, do not actually portray the kind of person he is. That he has a broader vision and more nationalistic out­look than what those actions suggest. This was what President Obasanjo told me and he is in the position to know him very well.


Now , for everybody, we are prone to er­rors. I don’t want to be seen as his critic, not at all. Nigeria has made a choice and I owe Nigeria the obligation to, sort of, leave him to apply himself. But again, I will ask a question, maybe he was prone to errors.


He went to US and said that people who voted for him 90 per cent will receive more favour from his government, how else can you interpret that kind of statement? Look at the composition of his presidency. I will say this for him again, to a certain extent your close associations is a very strong factor to people who will be with you at all times. May be his appointments of aides was based on that . There is a theory in security study that the closer a man is to you in terms of kinship, the more the person is likely to become loyal to you. If he appoints all of them from Daura or Katsina State I will not bother. But you have the Chief of Staff, the State Chief of Protocols and all that.


If you look at the 10 closest aides around him at all time, maybe it’s only one of them, who is a person from the South and that is Adesina from the press.
Again, it could be an error of omission, but this kind of decisions that he has taken help the perception that people have had earlier of him. But as I said, corruption is a big issue in Nigeria and for most Nigerians it weighs more heavily than those things that I have said about him that made me not to support him.
The Sun.