On the Kogi Conundrum

Wada & late Audu... before it all went down

I’m worried about this Kogi matter. I know we always disagree on political matters but don’t you think, like me, that my party the APC is wrong? I just want to pick your brain if you don’t mind.

Pick the brain of a clueless man? Hahahaha!

No, wailer, it’s not a laughing matter. I’ve just heard the final decision of APC. They decided to pick Bello – who did not participate in the election – to be the party candidate. Why not Faleke who participated in the election as Audu’s running mate? I think the party is wrong.

But why do you think so?

In a relay race, if the frontrunner falls down before handing over the baton, will the team give the baton to the member who was not on the line-up in the first instance?

That’s an unfortunate analogy that favours the PDP.

What’s that supposed to mean?

Simple. In a relay race, if the frontrunner trips and falls or drops the baton before the finish line, the second runner is automatically declared winner of the race! You forgot that the race was not concluded; the front runner had covered just about two-thirds of the track before dropping the baton.

Haba! But this is not a typical relay race. I’m using it only as an analogy.

And I say to you that it’s a poor analogy. Don’t promote that idea or you’ll end up strengthening the PDP position. Even if we take it as an individual race, which I consider a better (but not the best) analogy, you will still see that Faleke or whatever his name is will not be considered at all.

How is that?

In a typical competition, the final runners (flagbearers) are chosen from the individual heats (party primaries). The heat champions are the final runners. If the heat champions then decide to go with training partners (running mates), this will have no effect on the race. If for any reason any one of the heat champions fails to run the final race, the selected partner will not step in and run, as long as that partner did not participate in the qualifying heats. If a heat champion started the race as front-runner but drops the baton before getting to the finish line, the runner in the second position wins the race.

You are saying INEC should give it to PDP, ba? Why was I expecting an objective analysis from you? Kai.

No please, Mummed, that’s not what I’m saying. Understand that my point is that your analogy gives PDP, not APC, an advantage. However, this is not a typical race because the umpire decided to SUSPEND the race and went back to ask the particular heat organizer to submit a fresh leg to complete the race. This does not happen in a typical race so we’re facing an abnormal situation. However, since this is what the umpire decided, it makes sense to pick the next best performer from the primaries, not someone who NEVER participated in any of the heats before the final race, regardless of the fact that he was picked as a campaign partner of the heat champion. Mummed, if we go by your analogy, your party is like the old ManU, enjoying unfair advantage from referee. And going by that analogy, the problem is with the umpire.

Umpire?

Yes, in a sense. My point is that (a) if we are looking at this as a track game where the frontrunner fell in the middle of the race, the PDP as second best performer is right to insist on a fresh race if it will not be awarded the race; (b) if it is a track and field game that was suspended while it was already underway because the frontrunner sustained a fatal injury, then your party is right to go back to the result of its qualifying heat and pick the second best performer to finish the race; but (c) if we are looking at it as any other game with clear rules specified, then my party is wrong to insist that it be awarded the race.

Haba! This is interesting, Wailer. You admit that my party can be right and your party is wrong? I want to hear more.

Unfortunately, Mummed, I have to go out. But I promise to visit you tomorrow so we can finish the talk.

You’re welcome to my house any day, as long as the conversation will not favour your PDP and the Wailers!

 (Smiles). See you tomorrow

The President as a Minister

The ambiguity in having a president directly supervise an MDA played out again yesterday 24 October 2015 in the National Assembly as Senators sought to summon President Muhammadu Buhari to explain the current fuel scarcity in the country.

A motion on the floor by Enyinnaya Abaribe (PDP, Abia) to invite the President to explain why the country can no longer provide fuel for its citizens was however crushed through a voice vote, in a rowdy session presided over by Senate President Bukola Saraki.

The motion, enthusiastically supported by Peoples Democratic (PDP) senators was subdued by the majority All Progressive Congress (APC) senators who told their PDP colleagues that President Buhari, as Commander in Chief, cannot be summoned at will by the Senate.

The PDP senators however insisted that since the President is the substantive Minister of Petroleum and the Senate are constitutionally empowered to invite Ministers, the President should be summoned.

Abaribe’s motion was brought in during consideration of another motion tagged “The current fuel scarcity all around the country and the need to urgently resolve the crisis” whic asked whether h was sponsored by Jibrin Barau (APC, Kano) and 23 others.

The propriety of having a president that directly presides over the affairs of an MDA first played out during Senate’s confirmation of the current ministers when questions were raised on whether the President as minister would also be screened by the lawmakers.

Akpabio's Accident and Matters Arising

"...in the business of political gamesmanship, those who pay for media spins reap what they sow, eventually, when truth rises to confront clever fabrications."

It was supposed to be a simple, straightforward story. 

Senator Godswill Akpabio (PDP, AKS), the immediate past governor of Akwa Ibom State, was running late to catch up with an international flight. Who knows whether it was on his prompting or his driver’s initiative that the unfortunate crash happened when they sought to beat an Abuja red light? 

Whatever the case, it was a costly gamble as his vehicle crashed into a diplomatic car said to belong to the American Embassy in Nigeria. According to reports, the governor was rushed to the National Hospital where he was apparently treated for shock. Thereafter, he was said to have proceeded on his journey abroad. 

We have so far seen two sides to this story. 

Those who approached the story objectively did so with facts which made it easy for discriminating people to appreciate that this sort of unfortunate accident can happen to the best of us when we are in a tearing hurry. When we think the coast is clear and we are in a hurry, some will take the risk of trying to beat a red light. There are laws in all developed countries that deal with this act of irresponsibility – which indicates that beating traffic lights is neither a peculiar Nigerian failing nor an exclusive preoccupation of our lawless “big men.” At another level, if one is a security-exposed Nigerian public official, one beats traffic lights as a matter of routine – as we deduced when President Buhari reportedly admonished drivers in his convoy to obey traffic lights. 

Those who slanted and politicized the Senator’s accident recognized the act of lawlessness by Akpabio’s driver but gave it a spin, magnifying the accident to make it look as if the ex-governor was at the point of death at the National Hospital where he was rushed to, and creating the impression that he was flown abroad (with air ambulance perhaps) as a result of his inability to get proper treatment at the hospital. They also wove in the angle about the international specialist hospital that Akpabio built but failed to patronize at his point of need – as if it was better to ignore the National Hospital a few meters (less than two minutes) away from the accident site and rather rush the man to an Akwa Ibom hospital that is over 81 minutes by air (including distance from accident site to airport) or takes about 9 hours to make the 643 Km distance. In the social media, the story also ignored the fact that the governor was discharged a few hours after and walked out, unaided, from the hospital to enter his car and continue on his journey.

My interest on this story is the communication angle. The Senator’s media handlers would appear to have successfully “killed” the story in the traditional media because there are no more follow-up stories on it. But they forget that stories are no longer killed in the digital age; they resurrect with ferocious force in the online media where gossips and fancies do a blistering jig, in the absence of facts. What is trending now is that the governor was rushed abroad for treatment and this is supported by a photo allegedly taken at a London hospital bed – all of which could have been avoided if the Senator’s media handlers followed the story with facts delivered to the public on the incident.

On this particular story, I don't particularly care how the ex-governor is being roasted in the social media - because he happens to be a master of spin himself. 

There are two lessons to learn from this.

In the business of political gamesmanship, those who pay for media spins reap what they sow, eventually, when truth rises to confront their clever fabrications.

Nigerian politicians like to gather around them men (and women) who are shrewd at recognizing potential profit that can be made every time the boss puts his foot in it,  and who survive by continually telling the big boss what he wants to hear, until the moment to make a killing inevitably arrives. 

In the Senator Akpabio's incident, it would be better for this group of media handlers to seek to “kill” the story in the traditional media than to approach this as a communication challenge that requires little or no brown envelope to meet. These traditional media handlers (as I like to refer to them) are also able to get away with it because, after all, most Nigerian public office holders are online media illiterates, so how would they know that the ugly story they paid to kill will refuse to die and be buried?

Before September Comes

Will President Buhari see through the current media battles being waged to damage the reputations of men and women who are itching to do business with his government?

In an article published by the Washington Post on July 20, President Muhammadu Buhari stated that he would not constitute a full cabinet before September 2015.

Let us hope that the likes of Babatunde Fashola and Rotimi Amaechi will survive before then.

I think the President is to be blamed for giving the impression that he is looking for “saints” to serve in his cabinet. Right from the campaign days, he had made it clear that he would not appoint corrupt people into his government. The intention is good and the politics of making it a campaign issue was excellent, but hammering on it after the elections was not strategic, judging by what has happened. There are three implications of this state of affairs, and they are not looking good for the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its new national leader.

One: At a policy retreat that preceded Vice President Atiku Abubakar's run for the Presidency in 2007, My working group advised that Atiku should carefully search out the team that he will work with should he be elected. Malam Nasiru el Rufa'i wasted little time in announcing his key cabinet members because he was ready for the job that he sought.

Two: The President unwittingly acknowledges that his party may be the change agent but is actually composed of corruption-tainted folks from whom it has been difficult to find 25 good, competent men and women of impeachable integrity. The longer this search takes, the more this notion is reinforced. The matter is not helped by stories filtering out on the recruitment process whereby quite a large number of prospects are alleged to have been disqualified on account of corruption stains found on them.

Three: This long search gives state and regional power mongers the opportunity to complete the demolition of a few good men and women who have ambitions to serve either as ministers or in other federal appointive positions. This trend began in my home state of Enugu, where the local branch of the APC fought to seal the fate of Prof. Bart Nnaji as a possible appointee, by blocking all moves to have him cross over to the party to be in contention. In Rivers State, the PDP is currently waging a noisy battle to have the immediate past governor stripped down to his corruption underpants for the whole world to see. In Lagos State, APC power mongers are said to be behind the effort to show the immediate past governor as just another ordinary Nigerian thief.  

These battles are waged relentlessly in the media which appear to have been recruited to accommodate sponsored editorials and interviews against individuals wanting to get into public office, wishing to continue doing business with government, or wishing to occupy “juicy” MDA positions. One example of the effort to stop an individual always lurking at the corridors of power to gain business advantage is the Obasanjo attack on his former protégé, Emeka Offor. One wonders when they fell out and why. Another aimed at possible ministerial appointment is the controversy on the Tunde Fashola website.

Will President Buhari be able to see through the media battles being waged by the likes of President Olusegun Obasanjo, for example, to damage the image of the men and women that are itching to do business with government - as public officers or contractors?

September will tell.

Obama's Continued Disdain for Africa

COUNTERPOINT

By Raynard Jackson

In June of 2013 Obama tried to lecture Senegalese President, Macky Sall in front of his own people on accepting homosexuality in his country.  Before his trip to Africa, Obama was sternly warned by many, “do not talk about homosexuality in Africa.”


But as is his habit, Obama never misses an opportunity to lecture and talk down to Blacks in the U.S. and Africans abroad.  To his credit, President Sall quickly chastised Obama with these words, “We are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality…This does not mean we are homophobic.”


In 2014, during the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, Obama again lectured Africa on the need to accept homosexuality and under his administration they even took it a step further.

For the first time in the history of the U.S., Hillary Clinton made a country’s promotion of homosexuality a criteria in whether the U.S. would continue to extend foreign aid.  This was a tectonic shift in our foreign policy and should have no place in our relations with other sovereign countries.


I am very proud that almost without exception African leaders have told America and the rest of the Western world to “keep your money and foreign aid, we will not sacrifice our culture and values for your help.”


So, with this as a backdrop, I was more than stunned at the blatant disrespect Obama and his administration continues to show towards Africa; specifically in the case of South Sudan.

Two weeks ago I was invited by the Embassy of South Sudan to join them in their celebration of their 4^th birthday as an independent nation.  The creation of South Sudan was one of former president George W. Bush’s lasting foreign policy achievements.


The event was a nice, festive affair with diplomats from throughout the continent of Africa in attendance.  There was a very short program with one of the speakers being Lucy Tamlyn, U.S. State Department, Office of Special Envoy for Sudan & South Sudan.  Her remarks offended everyone in the room. She said in part, “The four year anniversary of the founding of the Republic of South Sudan should indeed be a day of celebration but when we think of the difficult situation that the people of South Sudan are experiencing on the ground it’s hard to be in a celebratory mood.  Over the last few weeks, we have heard reports of abuses against civilians, including against innocent women and children.  Numerous reports have confirmed that all parties to the conflict have committed offensive military actions in violations of international humanitarian law.  With more than 2.2 million displaced and 4.6 million at risk of life threatening hunger.  It is clear that the hopes and the aspirations of the South Sudanese people are not being met.  As the government begins its extended mandate today, we call on all parties to the conflict to forge a lasting peace and work to put in place a government of national unity.”


A government of national unity?  Are you kidding me?  The last time I checked, Salva Kiir Mayardit was and is the duly elected president of South Sudan.  If and when the people of South Sudan want to change their nation’s leadership, they will do so during the next election.  It’s called democracy!


There are many legitimate areas for the U.S. to criticize the government of South Sudan.  But the celebration of their independence was not the time nor the place for such a discussion.

As an American with extensive relations and travels in Africa, including South Sudan, I was deeply embarrassed by my country.  We Blacks in the U.S. have come to expect this type of condescension  from the Obama administration when speaking to Blacks; but to display this level of arrogance to a sovereign nation is beyond the pale.


Obama would have never sent a representative to an event hosted by the government of Saudi Arabia and had them criticize the government for their treatment of women and their aggressive support for terrorism.  Obama doesn’t have the guts to do that.


But because he has so little regard for South Sudan, he doesn’t hesitate to call for the weakening of a democratically elected head of state by mandating he put a political foe in his government (Riek Machar).


How does Obama reconcile his claim to want to promote democracy around the world, with the interfering in the internal affairs of a nation?


I wish Obama would show the same amount of bravado when it came to getting our hostages out of Iran; or when it comes to challenging Putin’s aggression in Crimea; or when it comes to China manipulating their currency and hacking into our computer networks.


He doesn’t have the stomach to do this.  So, he decided to make himself feel like a man by attacking and embarrassing a developing nation that he knows can’t really fight back diplomatically.


This is not just about South Sudan; but rather the entire continent of Africa.  Africa has many friends and supporters in the U.S., but unfortunately they are rarely sought out for help in situations like these.

Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC is an internationally recognized political consulting, government affairs, and PR firm based in Washington, DC.  Jackson is an internationally recognized radio talk show host and TV commentator.  He has coined the phrase “straticist.”  As a straticist, he has merged strategic planning with public relations.  Visit his website at: www.raynardjackson.com.