Poor Yar’Adua, Poor Nigeria! 

So much has happened in the short but unacceptably long time Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua seized the reins of power that the luckless Nigerian populace can be best described as having been compelled to endure extreme emotional torture in addition to the unrelenting physical suffering that is their lot. From the shame of the rigged elections of April 2007 to the highpoint of Yar’Adua’s voluntary assets declaration and the on-going saga over the EFCC coincident with the trial of ex-Delta State governor, James Ibori, I doubt that many will fault my description of the corresponding havoc wreaked on the psyche of the Nigerian people. The list, I must hasten to add, extends to Yar’Adua’s contemptible willingness to toy with the security of the nation and the entire continent in exchange for a modicum of recognition by the United States evident in his double-speak about the planned US military occupation force to be known as AFRICOM. Yet, not so long ago, the populace seemed primed to give conditional legitimacy to Yar’Adua’s incurably tainted presidency. His emphasis on servant-leadership and personal example, on making Nigeria a contender in the global scheme of things by paying deserved attention to the economy at home and the socio-political issues that bedevil it, and on the rule of law, announced the false hope of a new dawn, however much one seethed and raged against the infamy that brought him to power.

Indeed, it was this very possibility, a danger to me, that formed the crux of my piece, “The Supreme Court and Yar’Adua” in The Guardian of 25 June 2007. As I re-read that article shortly before beginning to write the current one, I could only laugh for having permitted myself to entertain any such fear.  I do not know what Yar’Adua’s popularity rating is currently; what I do know, however, is that not many in the camp that I addressed then now lose sleep over the prospect of that danger. And this, not even if the Supreme Court were to studiously fail to conclude the petition against Yar’Adua until his tenure is over in 2011 or if it were to succumb to judicial timidity and return a familiar verdict confirming him as fraudulently but validly elected. The moment to mitigate the crime of Yar’Adua’s insufferable selection as president has passed and, as we now see, every day marks the return in a more naked form of the irresolvable contradiction that installed him in office.

In expressing my fear in the cited piece, I was not unmindful of this great contradiction. But history, as the human beings who make it, is funny and you can never rule out the implausible as that which will govern the day. No, not in Nigeria. And certainly not when the subject is politics, which by one cynical definition is merely the art of the possible; not of the perfect or the plausible. It need not be so, but such is what the greed and the inexorable logic of rule by the moneyed minority have made of it, all in the mistaken name of democracy. And talking about moneyed politics, you only need to reflect for a moment on the central role that one James Ibori  —  multi-billionaire by dint of eight years of public office  —  played in the emergence of Yar-Adua to acknowledge the Machiavellian truth in the words of that character drawn from the suffering masses in Soyinka’s play, The Road: “Make man talk true, man wey get money get power!”

It must be a matter of negative satisfaction to any one with the foggiest notion of social justice to note that the contradiction dogging Yar’Adua’s self-righteousness as a reforming president springs from the trumpeted cry-word of his governance: rule of law. Whether as sword or shield, this concept increasingly abused by Yar’Adua himself and his acolytes proves to be of dubious value to any hope of transforming illegitimacy through popular ratification. If in the case of the contract scandal that rocked the House of Representatives last year Yar’Adua got away by pleading rule of law as justification for a clear dereliction of duty, he could hardly hope to do so in the case of Ibori, principal financier, it is believed, of the machinery of corruption that manufactured his purloined mandate. Is it mere coincidence or sheer bad luck, then, that the resolve to “display zero tolerance for corruption in all its forms” has progressively weakened the closer the EFCC got to the most corrupt and, so, untouchable? What was it that turned Yar’Adua’s Attorney-General and prosecutor-in-chief of crimes against the realm into Ibori’s defence counsel off-the-record in the matter of his trial for money laundering in the UK? How did the rule of law prove to be of such comfort to those who steal from the public with such confounding brazenness that whole forests have to be brought down to pulp enough paper for their charge sheets?

But just as General Olusegun Obasanjo was mocked by the contradiction of the sacred cow status he awarded his friends, especially Ibrahim Babangida  —  incidentally a major financier of his equally rigged mandate  — so is Yar’Adua derided by electing to declare, by conduct, Ibori as untouchable by the withered hand of his rule of law. For whatever he or his well paid spokespersons might say, an ineradicable perception has formed in the public mind: Yar’Adua and his AG are set on undermining the war on corruption if it cuts too close. The public notes that it was the moment the anti-corruption searchlight fell on Ibori that Aondokaa and his boss revved up their rule of law rhetoric, the result of which was breathing room for the accused and almost no elbow room for the EFCC. In the interest of the rule of law, it became necessary for Nuhu Ribadu to undergo a meaningless course in administrative and policy matters. Obviously, Ribadu’s lack of that vital training was what gave him the temerity to compile the very long dossier of Ibori’s kleptomania and to co-operate with the British government. It need not be stated that it was this temerity, above every other sin, that unmasked Aondokaa and showed him the way to the courthouse where Ibori might be tried in Nigeria. And, so, far from hearing more of the thinking that led Yar’Adua to say in his inauguration speech as follows, “We are determined to intensify the war against corruption, more so because corruption is itself central to the spread of poverty” and that “Its corrosive effect is all too visible in all aspects of our national life,” all we hear now is the empty phrase, rule of law! And thanks to this charmed phrase, Ribadu heads to the classroom in Kuru, Jos.

It is now time to ask Yar’Adua to bring this magical concept to bear on himself. Time to make it clear to him what the rule of law means with respect to his unlawful ascension to office. For whatever private meaning he ascribes to the phrase, it surely means that the constitution and the electoral laws ought to have prevailed on 21 April 2007; that is the only condition for a president to claim the right to lecture the world about its admirable benefits to a polity. It means that any outcome of that day that did not conform to the said constitution and the electoral laws ought to be abominated by the would-be chief apostle of rule of law. Consequently, Yar’Adua’s avowed readiness to abide by the decision of the tribunal currently hearing the petition against his selection is neither a tribute to the rule of law nor to democracy. If Yar’Adua truly believes in his own rhetoric, then he must renounce forthwith a mandate that came through the most blatantly rigged election in a country that boasts an unspeakable record of electoral fraud. Rigged elections and the rule of law are incompatible; indeed, one is a rude assault on the other. In the time it will take Yar’Adua to lead by personal example in accepting this truth and the only honourable course of action it prescribes, we can only watch him thrash about in the sturdy net of contradictions he has woven around himself by insisting on profiting from a crime and an immorality. Though it is no comfort, all we seem to be left with in the time being is the lament, Poor Yar’Adua, Poor Nigeria!

Ifowodo can be reached at ogaga2@yahoo.com