A FAILED MISSION

President Buhari failed to utilise his rare visit to the Southeast, argues

Last week President Buhari visited South-eastern Nigeria. The mission was not prompted by any altruistic reason. It was prompted by a narrow selfish political motive - to win new party loyalists and to capture electoral votes in Anambra State. For the umpteenth time, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu has drawn the attention of President Buhari to the phenomenal sufferings and genteel poverty in Nigeria. But President Buhari appears not to listen. The president travelled to the South-East not to seek ways of alleviating the sufferings and poverty in the area but to canvass for political patronage and electoral votes. Simply put, the president primarily visited the Southeast to campaign for Tony Nwoye, the gubernatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the just-concluded Anambra gubernatorial election.

Since President Buhari came to power he had refused to visit the Southeast until last week. When the Biafra agitations in the Southeast assumed a frightening proportion, Buhari did not deem it fit to quickly visit Anambra to reassure everyone there that he stood for one Nigeria (Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo visited the Southeast at some time). Shortly after his ministerial appointment and the last NNPC appointments, the Igbos complained to President Buhari that they were being marginalised in Nigeria but again Buhari did not deem it fit to visit the Southeast to reassure the Igbos that he loved them and was not out to marginalise them in his government.

But just last week, precisely two days to the Anambra election, it dawned on President Buhari that he should visit the Southeast. And off he went. He was in a hurry to go because he was so keen on endorsing Tony Nwoye as the candidate to vote for in the Anambra election. But fortunately or unfortunately Nwoye lost the Anambra election. APGA’s Governor Willie Obiano is back in the saddle. For Buhari, it was a failed mission, a mission unaccomplished. The rest is now history.

One would have thought that President Buhari would take advantage of his visit to the Southeast to seek new solidarity and understanding with the people of the Southeast who have been complaining of marginalisation in his administration. One would have thought that on getting to the Southeast the president would have regretted the murder of protesting Southeast civilians by the Nigerian military if not for anything else as a symbolic gesture that he values human lives. You will recall that on February 9, 2016 the Nigerian soldiers shot and killed countless defenceless civilians who were peacefully holding prayers inside the football field of Ngwa High School, Aba in Abia State. On May 30, 2016 over 30 civilians were killed and many injured by the military after several clashes involving the military, police and some protesting civilians at Nkpor-Agu, Niger Bridge, Onitsha and Asaba. As if those heinous crimes were not enough, in September 2017 the Nigerian military, contrary to section 217(2)(c)(d) of the 1999

ONE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT PRESIDENT BUHARI WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS VISIT TO THE SOUTHEAST TO SEEK NEW SOLIDARITY AND UNDERSTANDING WITH THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTHEAST WHO HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING OF MARGINALISATION IN HIS ADMINISTRATION

Constitution, was deployed to invade the Southeast in what was tagged Operation Python Dance 11. During that invasion, several civilians were either murdered or badly injured. Shortly after that invasion the same military also invaded some Anambra schools and started administering unsolicited dangerous vaccination on Anambra school children to the chagrin of their parents.

Really it was unwise for President Buhari to have kept mute about the aforesaid killings in the Southeast. In her incisive essay titled: An Inquiry into the Persistence of Unwisdom in Government, Barbara Tuchman, eminent American historian, twice winner of the Pulitzer Prize, wondered why most leaders had accomplished less in government. After a painstaking comparative study of empires and countries such as Greece under Pericles; Rome under Ceazer; France under Napoleon; Germany under Hitler; China under Mao Tse-Tung; United States under George Washington, Tuchman attributed the poor performance or the outright failure of most leaders to, among other things, unwisdom, wooden-headedness, incestuous narcissism and stupidity. I think President Buhari’s failure to empathise with the people of the Southeast over these killings could be attributed to wooden-headedness. If the president had humbly shown that he understood the people and shares their feelings, their joys and sorrows; if he had humbly empathised with the people over their sufferings and the injustices meted out against them he would have probably won the hearts of the people of the Southeast especially the youths comprising the bulk of the population. You will recall that when Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo visited the Southeast he was very much received by the people. Why? Because he showed empathy, love and affection for the people. But when Buhari came visiting last week he showed no such understanding with the people. He talked tough. His only concern was to make Tony Nwoye the Governor of Anambra. In fact, maverick governor Rochas Okorocha had urged President Buhari to do everything possible to ensure that Nwoye won the Anambra election. During the visit Buhari was surrounded by political sycophants and a few cash-and-carry Igbo red cap chiefs who had thrown tradition, decorum and respectability overboard and constituted themselves into praise-singers and chieftaincy awarders. The Obi of Onitsha who still guards his integrity jealously stayed away from the charade.

All said, the Anambra voters have affirmed their identity as the sovereigns in our constitutional democracy. They have shown that they are no fools to be easily deceived with empty political talks. Representative democracy, in contrast, to direct participatory democracy, simply means government with the consent derived from the people. Power belongs to the people. And the people are free to wield this power in the way that suits their fancy. No power drunk politician has a right to dictate to the voters the candidate they should vote for at periodic elections.