Democracy's Bullies
By Sonala Olumhense

Last week, Olusegun Obasanjo did not appear before the House of Representatives Committee currently probing the power sector. The former President had been invited to testify on Monday.

For months, the entire nation had been calling for him to be probed. One would have thought that a leader as convinced of his contribution as Obasanjo claims to be would have been panting for the opportunity to tell any part of his story.

Not Obasanjo, who took objection to the manner of his invitation by the Ndudi Elumelu Committee, since the letter had not been signed, at the minimum, by Chairman Elumelu. He even lectured the Committee about good breeding and African culture. I completely agree with Obasanjo on this point.

Since the Committee had not met such high standards, Obasanjo decided he would not honour it. But he decided to do us all a favour: he drafted a sermon rebutting the allegation that in his eight years in office, he contrived to procure continuing darkness for the people of Nigeria for over $16 billion.

In the rambling, self-contradictory statement, the first thing he does is to attempt to re-establish his democratic credentials. So he begins by identifying himself as a democrat. Of our democracy, he reminds the Committee he was "a key participant and nourisher between 1999 and 2007."

He rounds up, on his own behalf, the usual slogans: good governance, good leadership, the rule of law, due process, accountability and transparency. "Your task must be to enhance these pillars of democracy and good governance and I am here just to assist you in doing that as a means of continued nurturing of our young democracy," he tells the Committee.

There is heavy artillery, in the form of his customary platitudes, but no claims of accomplishment. Here are two samples: "If South Africa, with a population less than one-third of Nigerian population, has a power generation of some 40,000MW and yet still only an industrialising country, Nigeria will need close to 100,000MW of power generating capacity to become a serious industrialising country."

And this, as though the discussion was not about him: "Without power, transportation, Vision 2020 'll be a mirage."

But then, finally, the man admits he has no idea how much money he actually squandered on buying darkness for us. "Various figures have been bandied around ranging from US$4 billion to US$16 billion," he writes. "They may all be right or they may all be wrong depending on what anybody takes as expenditure most of which is constant no matter what amount of power is generated, transmitted or distributed, your figure can be as high as you want to make it.'

If you thought you did not understand what the man was talking about, he was just getting started. "I have been told that the figure in this regard from 1999 to 2007 is in the region of $6.5 billion including outstanding letters of credit," he continues. "But whatever figure you choose to take, to say that there is little or nothing to show for it is the greatest understatement of the year which will tend to portray inadequate knowledge or ignorance."

And then he offers as his punch line the following five sentences that I hereby recommend to every Social Science classroom: "From what I have said above, there are results to show for the expenditure. What is required is serious, adequate and committed follow-up and sustenance from where we stopped. If the total expenditure has not translated to power availability at our homes and for our industries, it is because the little additional expenditure that is necessary for completion or for sustenance has not been made. For example, if you spend $200 million on a power station and the switch gear costing less than half a million dollar is not installed, you will not get the benefit of the $200 million already invested. For the uninitiated, nothing has happened."

There, briefly, is the six (or sixteen) million dollar theory for our power conundrum. Basically, I think he was saying he did not spend enough, and had he got that third term...

Anyhow, having relieved himself, the Emperor dispatched his words to the contemptible plebeians.

Where, meanwhile, was the former Vice-President? Atiku Abubakar did not appear at the House, either. He sent word he was in Dubai (Ah...Dubai, what a lovely playground!)

Yes, he had been invited to the hearings. But no, he said, that was impossible because emm...there were no flights. Yes, there were no flights to bring him to Nigeria for the event.

Neither did Iyabo Obasanjo appear before the law last week. The Senator, who is jumping fences in her nightgown for her alleged role in the sharing of Ministry of Health funds, continued to send high-priced lawyers to dredge the law to keep her away from the law.

This means Iyabo is a fugitive, an outlaw. She has not been going to work, or representing her people. And while she is being paid for work not done, the long-awaited National Health Bill was passed last Thursday. She is becoming an afterthought.

As important as Nigerians think that the National Health Bill is, self-preservation is obviously of Iyabo's only concern. Her behavior has brought tremendous embarrassment to the Senate. Were her family a little different, it might even have brought them some shame as well, given that her father was instrumental to setting up the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. He preached the rule of law for a living.

It is interesting to reflect on how muddled our democratic and legal values really are, and how the law may be taken up to beat up the law. But all this will continue to be very interesting, because the future is not going away. The past has a way of burying with it some of the biggest names it can find.

Obasanjo's disastrous first attempt at explaining his tenure, Atiku's disrespect of the House, and Iyabo's conduct, are excellent proof that 1999-2007 must be probed. Obasanjo may not be guilty of anything, but the real scandal is that despite his bluster, he does not know what he is talking about. Nigeria will not know what it is doing until it knows what it has done.

Robot  Villager

# 1 Democracy's Bullies By S...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 18.05.2008 01:17

gwobezentashi  Villager

# 2 Obasanjo's disastrous first attempt at explaining his tenure, Atiku's disrespect of the House, and Iyabo's conduct, are excellent proof that 1999-2007 must be probed. Obasanjo may not be guilty of anything, but the real scandal is that despite his bluster, he does not know what he is talking about. Nigeria will not know what it is doing until it knows what it has done. Now we know why the chicken crossed the road. Aluta! Gwobezentashi Posted by gwobezentashi| 18.05.2008 04:27

Mikky jaga  Villager

# 3 I do not know why Atiku was invited in the first instance. All those that testified before said it was Obasanjo that bypassed due process to award the contracts. I never recall any of them mentioning Atiku as having approved anything. If Atiku was invited just to balance an equation, it was good he ignored the invitation. People handling serious responsibility ought to show more seriousness than that shown by the committee here. Posted by Mikky jaga| 19.05.2008 11:45

tonsoyo  Villager

# 4 =Mikky jaga;4295044308>I do not know why Atiku was invited in the first instance. All those that testified before said it was Obasanjo that bypassed due process to award the contracts. I never recall any of them mentioning Atiku as having approved anything. If Atiku was invited just to balance an equation, it was good he ignored the invitation. People handling serious responsibility ought to show more seriousness than that shown by the committee here. So in your own opinion those testimonies of co-accused persons should be taken as sacrosant and the Vice-President of that administration need not be asked any question even as a witness or an intrested party, right? To jolt your memory, maybe you will recall that Atiku was the defacto ruler between 1999-2003 while Obasanjo was busy jetting all over the world? Maybe you will recall that a bunch of the money was spent under his (Atiku) direct leadership? So in your own judgment the committee has not shown seriousness by having the audacity to invite your hero Atiku? To you that invitation is an automatic sentence of guilty on your "divine" Atiku? What a sacrilegious act of unseriousness? And you still wonder and complain about why Nigeria is not working? Posted by tonsoyo| 19.05.2008 11:56

Mikky jaga  Villager

# 5 =tonsoyo;4295044314>So in your own opinion those testimonies of co-accused persons should be taken as sacrosant and the Vice-President of that administration need not be asked any question even as a witness or an intrested party, right? To jolt your memory, maybe you will recall that Atiku was the defacto ruler between 1999-2003 while Obasanjo was busy jetting all over the world? Maybe you will recall that a bunch of the money was spent under his (Atiku) direct leadership? So in your own judgment the committee has not shown seriousness by having the audacity to invite your hero Atiku? To you that invitation is an automatic sentence of guilty on your "divine" Atiku? What a sacrilegious act of unseriousness? And you still wonder and complain about why Nigeria is not working? With all respect sir, I cannot make any sense out of what you wrote above. For one, Atiku is never my hero, I have no hero among all the politicians ruining Nigeria as at today. The only politician I have any form of respect for as at today is Tinubu. And that does not mean a blind support. The question is: What is the committee investigating? The 16billion dollars money spent on the power sector that only generated darkness. The committee started well by inviting those in charge of the award of the contracts, payment of the contractors and those in charge of the due process office. These people gave their testimonies that all tallied to the fact that it was Obasanjo that overruled all due process and gave the go ahead to pay for jobs not done; even when contractors have not mobilized to site. NONE of the witnesses mentioned Atiku as having anything to do with the awards and payments. It is therefore very futile for the committee to start inviting Atiku, just because he was the "defacto ruler" for a period in Nigeria. They should have invited IBB and Abdulsalami too so we can knoiw they they are doing some work. If Atiku has a case to answer, let him be invited for questioning. But, as things stand in the power sector as at today, the bulk stops at the table of OBJ. He should tell the world how he spent over 16billion dollars to generate darkness. He should also tell the world why he should be preaching due process while bye passing same in such hypocritical manner. From evidences adduced before the committee, in the open, so far, inviting Atiku to testify is quite irrelevant. The committee deserves all the contempt the former VP have given them - if that is what he did. Posted by Mikky jaga| 20.05.2008 03:17