Opinion I 2019 Guber: If I Were Rochas Okorocha

2019 GUBER: IF I WERE ROCHAS OKOROCHA

      

The last time I checked, the 2019 general elections were fast approaching. In view of this fact, every political platform is seriously preparing or putting its house in order towards winning the attention of the electorate, and the ruling party – the All Progressives Congress (APC) – isn’t exceptional.

       

It’s noteworthy that both at the federal and state levels, the APC is obviously in charge. And, considering that power is insatiable, the greatest pleasure of the said party come 2019 would be to remain at the helm of affairs. This is invariably the desire of every sane and rational individual or entity.

        

The subject matter is solely interested in the ‘2019 guber’; that is, the gubernatorial aspect – Imo precisely – of the awaited political race. And we are not unaware that presently, likewise in the past, several highly placed Imolites have directly or indirectly indicated interest in the race. The truth is that, every bona-fide Imolite is legible to aspire for the governorship position.

        

It’s equally worthy to note that an aspirant is completely different from a contestant. The former has to do with anyone within a certain political party that is nurturing interest to vie for any post; whilst, the latter is that person, among other aspirants, who has been eventually chosen by members of a particular party to represent them. A contestant is also known as the party’s flag bearer.

       

This piece is actually informed by the compelling need to discuss the APC in Imo State as regards the forthcoming 2019 guber. In the APC as a political family, currently, various stalwarts of the platform have disclosed their desire to vie for the number one seat in the state under the party’s auspices.

       

I have painstakingly earlier mentioned the names of the aspirants in question. However, their names remain: Prince Eze madumere, Chief Uche Nwosu, Sir Jude Ejiogu and Senator Ifenayi Araraume. In all ramifications, each of them is well qualified to acquire the party’s ticket or better still, emerge the state’s governor come 2019.

       

But the problem with the party at the moment is the obvious one-sidedness of its apex leader, Governor Rochas Okorocha. It’s not anymore news that the governor had publicly indicated interest to throw his weight behind one of the aspirants, Chief Nwosu. This open gesture of his person had tremendously raised dust and mixed feelings among onlookers and the party’s faithful in various quarters.

       

It would be recalled that Gov. Okorocha, upon his assumption of office in 2011 as the Imo number one citizen, disclosed his administration’s determination to end the lingered era of godfatherism in the state’s political terrain. In addition, he vowed that over his dead body would such syndrome resurface in Imo. The avowal of the governor implied that he detested godfatherism with passion.

       

Nevertheless, considering the present move by the governor, political spectators cum analysts are tempted to brand him a ‘chameleon’. In other words, they have found it difficult to believe that he could keep his words. Surely, the recent u-turn made by the Okpoko-born politician is enough reason for Imolites to become jittery or perturbed.

        

It might amaze you to note that the foreseen fate of the APC in the nearest future necessitated this critique. As a political analyst and rights activist, I have thought it wise to present what the true picture of the APC would look like soonest as well as to inform the need for every bona-fide member of the party to be treated as equal.

         

Believe it or not, no sane leader would like an association in which he leads to go into extinction or become moribund, and Gov. Okorocha is not an exception. Against this backdrop, it is highly consequential for the governor to do the needful towards averting any unfortunate fate that may befall the party’s structure. And, his Excellency mustn’t delay in doing this, because time is apparently no longer his friend.

         

The governor is required at this moment to handle the APC as a father. A true father is expected to treat all his children equally regardless of the circumstance. Even the prodigal son, as we were told by the Holy Bible, was eventually welcomed back home by his biological father having erred, and was fully reintegrated into the family. My candid advice to the father in question is that, he must be fair to all concerned for the family’s sake. Even if you love a certain son more than the other children, don’t make it open because it could spell doom for the family.

        

So, as an apex leader in the state, for the sake of the APC’s future, I urge Gov. Okorocha not to undermine the prowess of any member of the party. That individual who we think does not possess any political structure might be the major reason the party would reclaim power come 2019 as being eagerly anticipated by its overall members. When a group of persons are in a circle, they must acknowledge that everyone is important, though no one is indispensable.

       

At this juncture, if I were Rochas Okorocha, I will cuddle every dick and harry in the Imo APC with a view to giving each of them a sense of belonging. I must ensure that an all-inclusive administration is carried out henceforth toward gaining victory at the polls, which is the prime goal of every true affiliate of the party. No divided house has ever achieved anything tangible in the history of the human race. And, this is where my worry lies.

        

It troubles me because whatever affects any political party won’t augur well for the awaited general elections. We need all parties to remain healthy, to enable them compete vehemently and favourably for the good of the Eastern Heartland. Think about it!

 

Comrade Fred Nwaozor

Executive Director, Docfred Resource Hub (DRH) - Owerri

___________________________

frednwaozor@gmail.com

Twitter: @mediambassador

     

Opinion I Dissecting Buhari's Fascinating Amnesty Proposal

DISSECTING BUHARI’S FASCINATING AMNESTY PROPOSAL

        

History could be made at anytime and by anyone irrespective of status or background. But it’s only brought to the public sphere when made by a remarkable figure. Notwithstanding, it’s noteworthy that a historic event could be commendable or condemnable.

        

On Friday, 23^rd March 2018, the Nigeria’s sitting President, Muhammadu Buhari made an obvious history. In the period in review, the number one citizen disclosed his plan to grant amnesty to members of the dreaded Boko Haram sect who were ready to drop their arms and embrace peace. By that avowal, he has become the first political leader across the globe to consider granting amnesty to a terrorist confraternity.

         

President Buhari, who revealed the plan at the Presidential Villa, Abuja while receiving the abducted Dapchi schoolgirls released on Wednesday 21^st March 2018, stated that his administration had thought it wise to extend pardon to the members of the Boko Haram who were truly willing to repent of their evil deeds.

       

Our inability to aptly define the Boko Haram’s activity is unequivocally the reason we could react wrongly. Years back when the sect was noted as an insurgent group, I personally decried the description. In consequence to the outcry, I categorically did a piece informing that the said sect was rather a terrorist group.

        

Perhaps our actual plight is inability to contrast between insurgency and terrorism. The former is the act of carrying out a just cause, though might involve the use of firearms or any form of weapon; whilst, the latter is simply the activity of brutally fighting against a certain government or the citizenry without any justifiable purpose.

        

The rudimentary difference between insurgency and terrorism is that the former is often necessitated by a just motive whereas the latter isn’t. Something that is ‘just’ is rational and fair. Hence, if you are into a fierce physical battle that isn’t justifiable, it is simply terrorism; it suffices to say that you are a terrorist, because you are unleashing terror unto the people’s existence for no just reason.

       

For instance, the Niger-Delta militancy could best be described as insurgency. The militants are insurgents owing to the fact that they are fighting because they felt maltreated or marginalized by the government. You would notice that each time they stage any combat, they only concentrate on properties or establishments owned by the Nigerian state, rather than directly unleashing violence on the people as it is done by the Boko Haram.

         

In a nutshell, terrorism and insurgency are two parallel lines that possess no meeting point. The persons involved in either cause have no similar ideology with those carrying out the other. So, making effort to equate the Boko Haram’s activity with that of militancy is uncalled for. War should on no account be equated with rebellion. Read my lips.

         

Since inception, the Boko Haram have murdered millions of Nigerians, maimed thousands as well as displaced countless of dwellers. On their part, the militants have mainly succeeded in vandalizing our common patrimony; nevertheless, this equally negatively affects the lives of the citizenry but it is on record that no direct mayhem is usually cast on them. Although no sane and rational being is expected to advocate for the prevalence of militancy, it’s worthy of note that the prime purpose of the cause is arguably just.

        

Besides, we are not unaware that the Boko Haram is a faceless group. No one knows the real identities of the individuals involved in the cause, or where actually they are coming from. Thus far, whatever identity they have been crowned with remains a mere speculation. In other words, no one could authoritatively state what or who they represent.

       

Hence, thinking of granting amnesty to the Boko Haram members isn’t unlike treading without caution, which is apparently unwholesome for the country at large. Amnesty, according to BBC English Dictionary, is a “period of time during which people can confess to a crime or give up weapons without being punished”. One may ask; which real terrorist would be willing to confess to crimes committed by him/her, or truly accept defeat?

        

Someone might claim to have repented of his or her sins but in the real sense, is up to something more deadly. This is the reason the Presidency must have an urgent rethink as regards the proposed move. We can’t consider having a talk over repentance with a group whose actual identity is yet to be revealed. Unless there’s something we aren’t being told.

        

It’s, however, mind-boggling to realize that this is coming from a government that vowed, on its assumption to duty, that all forms of terrorism would be tactically crushed headlong. It becomes more disturbing and saddening when acknowledged that it came just a few weeks after the army boasted that the Boko Haram had been completely defeated. How do we reconcile these?

        

With all due respect, as Mr. President thinks in this weird direction, I deem it fit as an activist to disabuse him of the impression that the Boko Haram is an insurgent sect, and not terrorist. Think about it!

 

Comrade Fred Nwaozor

Executive Director, Docfred Resource Hub (DRH) - Owerri

__________________________________

frednwaozor@gmail.com

Twitter: @mediambassador            

      

Opinion I On Danjuma's Intriguing Security Counsel

DISSECTING DANJUMA’S AVOWAL ON SECURITY

        

My recent written analysis on the state of the nation as regards security, which I titled ‘averting reprisals over herdsmen massacres’ as was published in this revered tabloid on Thursday 25^th January 2018, was actually informed by my panoramic view.

        

I truly foresaw that if apt measure wasn’t taken by the concerned authorities, Nigerians as a people might resort to self-defence or worse still, reprisal. Hence, I use the medium to decisively warn the governments at all levels on the dangers inherent in docility thereby urged them to expedite action towards putting the said societal menace to an obvious end.

       

Intriguingly, Lieutenant General Theophilus Danjuma had in his capacity openly advocated for self-defence. The aforementioned retired security personnel, who had in different occasions served as the Nigeria’s Chief of Army Staff and Minister of Defence, on Saturday 24^th March 2018, enjoined Nigerians to defend themselves from killers across the country instead of depending on the Armed Forces.

         

In the statement, which he made at the maiden convocation ceremony of the Taraba State University in Jalingo, Gen. Danjuma frankly opined that the army and other security agencies “colluded with killers to attack Nigerians”. Having accused the army of being bias, saying it had failed in its responsibility of securing the country from attacks, he equally insinuated that there was an attempt at ethnic cleansing in the state as well as some rural localities in Nigeria. Hence, he further stated, “We must resist it. We must stop it. Every one of us must rise up.”

        

In the Nigeria’s extant laws, likewise other countries’, it is only in the course of self-defence one is permitted to commit murder. It suffices to assert that the former justifies the latter. It’s noteworthy that such form of killing can be classified as manslaughter.

       

The above constitutional clarification indicates that anyone could deploy any means towards defending him/herself in the course of any battle that befell them, even though no one is legally allowed to have arms or ammunition in his/her possession unless he is licensed to do so.

        

But going by Gen. Danjuma’s counsel, every Nigerian had been encouraged to possess arms and other forms of weapon. It’s more confusing that it took place at an era Nigerians were mandated by the police to return all firearms and ammunition in their custody or possession, as may be the case.

       

Besides, it’s mind-boggling that the advice came from no other person than a supposed security expert; from a retired security chief; from a Nigerian who is meant to know the nitty-gritty surrounding state policing; a man who ought to realize that illicit handling of arms is criminal, hence unacceptable; a man who should comprehend the best security tip-bits to tender in a public sphere.

       

If Gen. Danjuma was of the view that the President Buhari-led administration wasn’t doing enough towards ending crimes in the country, he should have realized that it is his duty as a renowned security figure to help in boosting the government’s capacity rather than inciting the people against the constituted authority.

       

As an erstwhile army boss, he has all it takes to demand for an explanation why things aren’t being done as expected. It’s his civic responsibility to assist the Armed Forces, and even the police, in carrying out their lawful obligations. Thus, conscientizing the people to take to arms was enough reason to assert that he has equally failed the country he vowed to protect many years ago; needless to say that he isn’t living up to expectations.

         

Even if such counsel was really consequential or unavoidable considering the current state of the Nigerian nation, it shouldn’t have been given by a citizen like Gen. Danjuma. If at all it ought to be tendered by his person, it never deserved a public hearing. And, if it must be made public, it shouldn’t have emanated from such an occasion comprising individuals of diverse backgrounds, or sense of reasoning.

         

Though he had claimed that he is not a politician, this statement of his person has made me to be of the notion that he’s an affiliate of a certain political party; that he belongs to one of those oppositions that are fond of employing sentiments while discussing issues of public concern. He has by that step communicated to me that he is not neutral, thus merely making effort to lure the electorate into his net.

        

I don’t really comprehend how we arrived at this point that a supposed patriotic Nigerian who had meritoriously served in one of the country’s reputable security outfits could publicly suggest to civilians that the best alternative way they could fight or repel crimes is to be fully armed as a people in their respective localities. If at this age, a full-fledged Nigerian could think in such direction, then I’m afraid, we are headed for doom.

         

Inasmuch as I own Gen. Danjuma’s gray hairs an explicit respect, I also want him to note that the Armed Forces are mostly in need of his wealth of experience at this time; hence, the need for him to think as an expert, and not like a mere dweller.

        

The leaders, on their part, must equally take into cognizance that securing the people’s lives and property is one of the prime constitutional responsibilities of the government, thus at all times remains non-negotiable. Think about it!

 

Comrade Fred Nwaozor

Executive Director, Docfred Resource Hub (DRH) - Owerri

__________________________________

frednwaozor@gmail.com

Twitter: @mediambassador