Yar’Adua’s silence, Etteh’s strength  

By Levi Obijiofor 

Friday, 26 October 2007 

When President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua insists he won’t intervene to end the political logjam created by Patricia Olubunmi Etteh in the House of Representatives, he casts himself as the chief apostle of the principle of separation of powers and the rule of law. But is Yar’Adua truly what he presents himself to be? Is he a true guardian of the rule of law? Are his obtuse references to the rule of law a well conceived plan to exaggerate his public persona as a respecter of the Constitution?  

Unfortunately, when you deconstruct the underlying reasons for Yar’Adua’s dishonourable silence on Etteh’s pig-headedness, you will find that Yar’Adua is using the so-called “principle of separation of powers” and “respect for rule of law” as a cover to allow the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) members in the House to use their majority vote to save the shameless Speaker from her suicidal behaviour. Yar’Adua’s silence is a double-edged sword. By his silence, he has set a benchmark on which his future performance would be evaluated.  

No one has asked Yar’Adua to use his executive powers to intervene in a bullish way to end the riotous situation in the House of Representatives. To do so would imply a violation of the principle of separation of powers and a breach of the Constitution. What the nation expects Yar’Adua to do is for him to use his high office and his influence as leader of the PDP to advise Etteh and her partners in crime to step aside in the interest of transparency in political leadership and as a mark of respect for other honourable House members.  

Public requests for Yar’Adua to condemn Etteh’s behaviour have so far been based on Yar’Adua’s position as the leader of the PDP. Etteh is a member of the PDP but, even as Speaker of the House of Representatives, she is still subordinate to the political and moral leadership of Yar’Adua in the PDP. There are different ways that Yar’Adua, as party leader, can influence the exit of Etteh without flexing his executive muscles. This is the point that Yar’Adua and his spokespersons in the presidency have cleverly avoided.  

Whenever Yar’Adua and his official servants parrot the idea that the president must respect the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers, they deliberately skew the discussion to imply that Yar’Adua’s influence over Etteh rests only on his power as president. That is not the case. As party leader, Yar’Adua has avenues through which he can call Etteh to order, particularly if her activities continue to undermine the business of parliament and government, and if her behaviour continues to pose a major threat to national security interests.  

Yar’Adua must keep in mind that any party member whose public conduct is capable of undermining parliamentary business or capable of inciting the public against the government, is also capable of undercutting the authority of the federal government. Etteh represents that threat to the government and the PDP leadership is capable of disciplining her but only if it has the will to do so.    

At another level, Yar’Adua’s silence over Etteh’s intransigence constitutes his official and unofficial endorsement of corruption in high places. Yar’Adua’s tame commitment to the fight against corruption has been noted right from the moment he stepped into the presidential villa. For instance, it is public knowledge that he received in audience some former state governors (he calls them his former colleagues) who are currently on trial for corrupt enrichment. A president who is genuinely committed to the anti-corruption campaign should not be hosting or dining with people who are charged with official corruption. 

I am aware that everyone should be deemed innocent until proclaimed guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. But I would argue also that it is highly unfitting for a president to host former governors who have serious allegations of corruption swirling over their heads. Yar’Adua’s excuse that he has the right to meet with his former colleagues on the ground that they are Nigerians is a flawed argument. Here is another analogy. Would it be appropriate for Supreme Court justices to meet with their former classmates if those classmates have been charged to court for serious allegations of criminal conduct?  

In Etteh’s case, Yar’Adua’s silence has far more consequences. His silence has provided the Speaker with a much-needed oxygen bag with which she could resuscitate herself from apparent suffocation by her angry colleagues in the House. Additionally, Yar’Adua, as president, has the right to exercise his freedom of speech and to condemn corrupt practices and abuse of office by Etteh, the number four citizen of the country. Yar’Adua’s condemnation of Etteh’s behaviour should be based strictly on the findings of the David Idoko panel of inquiry. There is nothing secret about the Idoko panel. Idoko and his colleagues sat in public and took evidence in public. Etteh was granted the right to respond to accusations that she abused her office and was involved in corrupt practices. The panel found Etteh guilty on various counts.  

On the basis of the panel’s findings and Etteh’s insistence that she must preside over the debate on that report, Yar’Adua should have expressed his disgust over Etteh’s behaviour. That’s what a responsible political leader should do. The longer that Yar’Adua remains silent, the quicker Nigerians would draw conclusions about Yar’Adua’s moral character. No matter the forces that bind them together, Yar’Adua and Etteh are no more important than the rest of Nigerians. The national interest matters more than the protection of one woman.  

I have no problem with Yar’Adua’s technical argument that debate on the Idoko panel’s findings against Etteh should take place on the floor of the House. Surely, yes, but shouldn’t Etteh also step aside to allow an independent Speaker to preside over the debate? This is what makes Yar’Adua’s silence somewhat bizarre. If Yar’Adua has nothing to say to Etteh, he should at least point out to her in a blunt manner that it is inappropriate for her to sit in judgment over her own trial. After all, this is the source of the bad blood that has been spilt on the floor of the House in recent days and weeks, leading unfortunately and indirectly to the death of a House member.  

Nigerians elected members of the House of Representatives so they could carry on with the business of making laws for the good governance of the country. In this regard, Nigerians have every reason to be concerned about the behaviour of their political representatives, in particular the fact that House members have not performed any meaningful business since this session of parliament was inaugurated nearly five months ago.  

For emphasis, Yar’Adua’s silence has emboldened Etteh to thump her nose at her colleagues and indeed at everyone else. Etteh’s contemptuous actions are capable of leading to public disorder far beyond the imagination and anticipation of everyone. If and when public disorder erupts over this crisis, no one can predict the extent to which miscreants would hijack the riotous situation and use it to achieve their sinister objectives. Already, the leadership of the Nigeria Labour Congress and the national association of Nigerian students have threatened to lead public protests to the House of Representatives if Etteh remains defiant and if she continues to damage the House and make the business of government impossible.  

The more I reflect on Yar’Adua’s reasons for keeping silent, the more I fail to agree with him. There are significant questions that invalidate Yar’Adua’s decision to remain apathetic. If Etteh’s activities increasingly threaten national security interests, would Yar’Adua fold his arms while the Constitution, which he swore to defend, is scorned? Would Yar’Adua choose to defend and protect Etteh over the collective interests of the nation? Was Yar’Adua elected to serve Etteh or to serve the people of Nigeria? In fact, when would Yar’Adua see reason to speak out on Etteh’s behaviour? Would he speak only after the Idoko panel report has been thrown out by members of the House? 

Here is one implication of Yar’Adua’s silence: a nation dies when political leaders see evil behaviour and certify it as legitimate conduct.