advertisement

nonso@nsu.edu Norfolk, VA, USA

ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR FRIENDS

RULE OF LAW, POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, AND NOBEL PEACE PRIZE:
ANALYSIS OF THE OBASANJO PRESIDENCY 1999-2007

Background and Issue

n December 2006, Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo traveled to the USA. There, at a reception for him, his friend and associate, Andrew Young, a former USA representative at the United Nations, along with one Carlton Masters and other individuals and corporate groups, declared that the Norway-based Nobel Prize Committee should award a Nobel Peace Prize to Obasanjo because of his peace roles in parts of Africa, such as Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia, Togo, and Sudan. President George W. Bush of the USA sent a tribute to Obasanjo stating that he (Bush) appreciated Obasanjo's commitment to peace and freedom (see Laolu Akande, "Andrew Young, others canvass Nobel peace prize for Obasanjo", Guardian online, December 21, 2006). After reading the newspaper report, I decided to suspend my ongoing book project to write an essay on Young's and others' proposition, which is very important to the whole world but especially important to Nigeria. The sum of my reaction, which I suspect many Nigerians and others share, is as follows.

The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary uses the following phrases to define "peace": "a state of tranquility or quiet; freedom from civil disturbance; a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom; freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions; harmony in personal relations; a state or period of mutual concord between governments; a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity". I will now attempt to tie the phrases together.

It seems from the cited Merriam-Webster's maxims that true societal peace can only be established and maintained where a fair, reasonable, and verifiable interpersonal and inter-group relations standard prevails, for instance in a country. Thus, a peacemaker or peace guarantor, such as a president, must be fair, reasonable, and accountable to the citizens. Equally important is the need for the president to scrupulously abide by the laid down rules and procedures for dealing with issues that come up in the country. And the president should avoid favoritism (of self, relative, friend, associate, etc.) because favoring one side necessarily means denying another side its due; the leader should avoid changing the rules, procedures, or standard to achieve a selfish end; the leader should always be guided first and foremost by the best immediate and long term interests of the country. How does a leader create and ensure peace in society?

The best way to create and ensure societal peace, for instance in a modern State, is to devise and follow a fair system of laws to extract compliance from the citizens and reward them as well, for their actions and inactions. Therefore, in a modern democratic State, such as Nigeria professes, law and its proper application and enforcement, not the wishes and commands of a maximum ruler, is the foundation of peace. Good law (that is, firm, fair, predictable and yet reasonably flexible, generally accepted, progressive law) evolves or is made for the general population or a substantial portion thereof, not a specific individual or special interest. Good law comes into being to prevent or correct a social, not private, problem.

advertisement

Because of its public character, law should be reasonably certain and ascertainable. There should be allowance to change aspects of the law that are at variance with the common expectations of the population. Even then, the law should never be changed to soothe the whims and caprices of an individual or cabal at the expense of the general citizenry. Nor should the leader take advantage of the aspects of the law that s/he likes and suppress those portions of the law that are not so appealing. A leader who selectively complies with preferred aspects of law is fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy. No excuse can be made that such a leader is merely complying with those aspects of the law that are good. An honest leader would follow constitutionally laid down procedures and work to change bad law instead of taking selfish advantage of the bad law.

Still on how best to create and ensure societal peace, it is impossible to overemphasize the importance of transparency in the law making, application, enforcement, or amendment process. This is because law is only as good as its capacity to compel compliance. However, law's compelling authority need not be based on violence (or threat thereof). Indeed, maximum social control derives from the citizens' confidence and belief in their society's laws, as well as their exercises of free and voluntary self-control to regulate themselves, even if the official system is incapable of detecting and punishing transgressors. Therefore, a law system, to be effective, needs to have the quality of wide acceptance by the citizens (good law).

Now, this question: How does president Obasanjo measure up to these standards?

Making a Case for a Nobel Prize for Obasanjo

Can a reasonable case be made to award a Nobel Peace Prize to president Obasanjo? Some people think so. For these individuals, including Andrew Young, Obasanjo deserves a Nobel Peace Prize because he has not only positioned Nigeria well for further development, he has contributed greatly to reconciliation efforts toward peace, especially in Africa's Liberia, Sudan (Darfur), Somalia, and Cote d'Ivoire. Indeed, Obasanjo has performed well in peace efforts in these countries and deserves credit for the efforts. In the circumstances, he has for the most part done what he should as Nigerian president, which is to use as much influence and resources of Nigeria as possible to assist other African societies and countries. However, Obasanjo is not the first Nigerian leader to demonstrate this responsibility. Even some of Nigeria's most hated military dictators, such as Generals Ibrahim Babangida and Abacha, made similar efforts. Again, their efforts deserve commendation. But does that justify the awards of Nobel Peace Prizes to General Babangida and General Abacha?

Regardless of president Obasanjo's performance in international circles, it seems that any Nobel Peace Prize award to him should be predicated primarily on his performance at home (Nigeria). But, before I return to this point, do Young and the other advocates of a Nobel Peace Prize for Obasanjo have selfish interests in promoting the idea? Perhaps, Young in particular had been Obasanjo's friend before Obasanjo took over as Nigerian president in 1999. Thus, Young may just be promoting his friend (Obasanjo) regardless of the latter's record as president. Another relevant question: Is it not curious that the promoters of "Obasanjo for Nobel Peace Prize" are mostly, if not all, non-Nigerians? It is peculiar but not unexpected. After all, Obasanjo spent a greater portion of his first four-year term (1999-3003) traveling around the world and re-acquainting with friends and associates, such as Andrew Young, instead of sitting down in Nigeria to solve Nigeria's problems. Whatever value foreigners place on president Obasanjo's peace dossier in international circles, his suitability or otherwise for a Nobel laureate must be determined, first and foremost, by his performance as Nigerian president within Nigeria. After all, charity begins (or should begin) at home.

Perhaps the proper context for measuring president Obasanjo's suitability for a Nobel Peace Prize needs elaboration. It is logical to expect an assessment of Obasanjo's peace efforts to concentrate on his achievements or lack thereof in his native Nigeria for which he is primarily and ultimately responsible. Indeed, if the Nobel prize committee were to award the prize to Obasanjo based on his achievements in foreign lands without regard for his performance in his homeland, the committee would further confirm what intelligent people around the world have long suspected: that, even if Alfred Nobel did not intend it, his estate and the dominant Western governments have hijacked the Nobel Prize process and sometimes use it to reward some privileged rogue leaders around the world. Rather than champion their citizens' best interests, these rogue leaders tend to promote Western interests. The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the then-Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, raised questions about apparent Western manipulations of the Nobel Prize process. The Nobel Prize committee appeared to reward Gorbachev for his destructive policies toward his homeland, the USSR. The USA, in particular, lauded Gorbachev's policies as promoting peace because those policies led to the destruction of USA's archenemy and fellow "super power" (USSR). Similarly, a case study of the Obasanjo presidency (1999-2007) shows that the promotion of Obasanjo for a Nobel Peace Prize based on his performance in his homeland (Nigeria) lacks credibility.

Case Study of the Obasanjo 1999-2007 Presidency on Peace

Obasanjo's presidency continues through May 29, 2007. Nonetheless, he has been in office long enough (94.79+% of eight years) for a reasonable assessment report to be turned in on his regime's attitude to peace. In his congratulatory message to president Obasanjo at the New York celebration, USA's president Bush correctly identifies the (Nigerian) home and foreign fronts as the two fronts on which Obasanjo's presidential performance should be judged. According to Bush: "You [Obasanjo] have worked to promote hope and opportunity at home and abroad. You have helped the people of Nigeria understand the blessings of liberty, and your good works in places like Liberia, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Togo and Sudan has(sic) helped spread peace to millions of people" (see Laolu Akande, Guardian online, December 21, 2006). Akande's report goes on to quote Andrew Young as stating that the "non-violent power push that someone like Obasanjo has made several times to resolve African and other international conflict issues is significant and should be recognized". As I stated earlier in this manuscript, Obasanjo's efforts at managing conflicts in parts of Africa other than Nigeria deserve commendation even if several other Nigerian leaders have made similar efforts. However, the fatality of Bush's and Young's arguments for awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to Obasanjo lies in the fact that Obasanjo's failures and shortcomings within Nigeria far outweigh his positive international efforts.

For instance, why has Obasanjo refused or failed to replicate his reconciliatory successes abroad in Nigeria's Niger Delta? If he were a man of peace, would he not use his vast presidential powers these last seven to eight years to ensure that peace rained in the Niger Delta? Of course he would. His failure to do so is a grave error considering the critical role of the Niger Delta in Nigeria's economic viability. Because Nigerian leaders have failed to develop Nigeria's other economic potentials (other than crude oil), the country as presently managed will likely die economically without the Niger Delta region. Obasanjo's refusal to correct the unconscionable exploitation of the Niger Deltans and their lands, which exploitation Obasanjo entrenched during his military rule (1976-1979) with his Land Use Decree, is offensive. The Nigerian State, led by president Obasanjo, continues to use various means, such as armed occupation, imprisonment, isolation, harassment, and theft, to deny Niger Deltans their basic human rights of ownership, use, and control of their lands and other properties, as well as self-determination. Any wonder the region is not peaceful? So, what kind of leader works hard to ensure peace abroad, while working hard to deny it at home?

In addition to his government's oppression of Nigeria's Niger Deltans, Obasanjo's two terms as Nigerian president (1999-2007) are replete with fundamental errors and illegalities in the management of other Nigerians' affairs. These transgressions are too numerous to mention here. However, Moses Ochonu ("Celebrating Disaster in New York", SaharaReporters.com, December 22, 2006), in condemning the December USA reception for Obasanjo, has provided a succinct account of the illegalities and contraventions by the Obasanjo presidency. The following is Ochonu's summary:

"… one must ask what the president and his foreign friends were celebrating. Were they celebrating the recent revelations that Mr. Obasanjo and his cronies turned the PTDF [Nigeria's Petroleum Tax Development Fund] into a cash cow for personal projects and profit? Were they celebrating the Obasanjo-ordered massacres at Odi and Zaki-Biam? Were they celebrating the unprecedented level and insecurity and the failure of Obasanjo's government to provide basic human security? Were they reveling in the knowledge that basic social infrastructures are in worse shape than they were in 1999 when Obasanjo became president? Were they celebrating Mr. Obasanjo's hypocritical and highly selective war on corruption whose most remarkable insignia is the convenient bypassing of corrupt acolytes of Mr Obasanjo on the way to harassing the latter's opponents and inconsequential expendables? Perhaps they were celebrating Mr. Obasanjo's transformation from a bankrupt chicken farmer in 1999 to a billionaire in 2006. Or Mr. Obasanjo's illegal purchase of 200 million naira shares in his government's favored corporate front, Transcorp. Or the rumored acquisition of several "privatized" government corporations and companies by Mr. Obasanjo's late wife. They may have been celebrating with perverse relish Obasanjo's role in the Anambra political crisis and in the enthronement of Mr. Adolphus Wabara, the ex-president of the senate who never won an election. They were probably celebrating Obasanjo's undemocratic imposition of [presidential candidate] Mr. Yar'Adua on the PDP. Or the monumental failure of the recent voter registration exercise, which has sparked fears of a botched 2007 election. Or the failure to intervene in the unconstitutional removal of Oyo State's Governor, Rasheed Ladoja, in deference to a chummy self-confessed thief of government funds, Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu. Were they celebrating the fact that under Mr. Obasanjo, Nigeria's aviation sector is in shambles and has taken in its collapse hundreds of promising Nigerian lives? They may have been congratulating Obasanjo for managing to transform the ruling PDP into a personal political estate. Or for presiding over a period of unprecedented political assassinations, the most prominent victims of which were, curiously, those who stood opposed to the dictatorship of the PDP under Mr. Obasanjo. Perhaps they were celebrating Mr. Obasanjo's achievement of third term through the back door-the recent PDP constitutional amendment which virtually assures Obasanjo of overarching power if he hands over to a PDP government in 2007."

The reader should add to the foregoing account the fact that the grimness of Obasanjo's conducts as president led Chinua Achebe to reject a national honor that Obasanjo awarded to Achebe. Achebe rejected the award to protest the administration's errors in general and Obasanjo's protection of the ruling PDP criminal gang that has committed numerous illegalities and rapes of, and thefts from, Anambra State under Obasanjo's watch.

As these highlighted presidential transgressions show, there is abundant evidence that on multiple issues and occasions president Obasanjo has broken the Nigerian law that he is charged with upholding. On other occasions he has condoned and encouraged law breaking by protecting his friends at Nigeria's expense. In short, Obasanjo has consistently frustrated, emasculated, and debased the rule of law in Nigeria.

In view of the enumerated illegalities and transgressions of the Obasanjo presidency, we are left with no logical conclusion except that the USA president Bush's commendation that Obasanjo has "worked to promote hope and opportunity at home [and has] helped the people of Nigeria understand the blessings of liberty" (Akande, Guardian online, December 21, 2006) is baseless and fictitious.

Implications of the Obasanjo Presidency for Rule of Law and Peace

The implications of Obasanjo's illegalities, transgressions, and other failures for the rule of law in Nigeria are startling. "Rule of law" - the idea that law (good, just, progressive, generally accepted law), not a person or group, should regulate relations in a society - is lacking in Nigeria. Most of the country's leaders view themselves as the citizens' lords and thus above the law. Instead of rule of law, these leaders have entrenched rule of personality. One of the most dangerous aspects of rule of personality is that it is too unpredictable to guarantee social control and stability in a society. Rule of personality standards are subjective and vary with a change in the mood of the personality in charge. The demise of the personality in charge further highlights the variations because when a new personality takes over from the defunct personality, (fundamental) changes have to be made to suit the new personality. It seems undeniable that since the advent of human society, with its attendant interpersonal and inter-group interactions, which led to the building of modern States, the idea that objective, widely accepted law, not a person's or few people's wishes, should regulate a society is one of the most important theses formulated. A society that lacks good law - along with the stability and peace that would result from its proper application and enforcement - will not make significant progress.

Obasanjo's declarations prior to 1999 and his criticisms of the repressive General Sani Abacha regime (1993-1998), together with Obasanjo's imprisonment and near-death experience under Abacha, fooled many people in Nigeria and other parts of the world into thinking that Obasanjo, on returning as Nigerian leader in 1999, would take definitive and positive steps to move Nigeria from a country of personalities to a nation of laws. Instead, as Nigerian president (1999-present) Obasanjo has sought to entrench, and has succeeded in many ways in entrenching, himself as Nigeria's civilian dictator in the present and the future.

Even as an advertised elected civilian democrat, Obasanjo has taken numerous steps, some of which I have highlighted in this paper, to destroy or emasculate Nigerian laws that he finds inconvenient or as obstacles to his wishes. One of the most egregious displays of lawlessness is his brazen, crude, utterly selfish, and gluttonous "third term" project by which he sought to illegally change the 1999 Constitution so as to remain in office as Nigerian president in spite of the Constitution's two-term limit for a president. His elongation scheme did not work out as he planned, but he continues to devise alternative ways to realize his goal. President Obasanjo has appropriated the ruling PDP into his personal estate to be run as and by whom he desires.

As if the president Obasanjo "third term" plot was not destructive enough of the rule of law in Nigeria, the festering conflicts between Obasanjo and his deputy, Vice-President (VP) Atiku Abubakar, recently culminated in president Obasanjo and the ruling PDP announcing that they had removed Abubakar from his VP position. It is worth noting that neither the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria nor any other law gives the president or the PDP the power to remove the VP from office. President Obasanjo's and the PDP's purported removal of VP Abubakar from office is another show of naked power without any legal foundation whatsoever. As in other instances, such presidential brazenness has no regard for the fact that the purported removal of the VP without legal authority would undermine peace and stability in Nigeria. This presidential and party action is highly irresponsible and deserves strong condemnation. The Guardian newspaper recognized this when in its January 7, 2007 editorial comment titled "The Purported Removal Of Vice President And Abia Governor" it stated as follows:

"That the PDP and the President not only plotted the removal, but actually pronounced the removal (impeachment) of, the Vice-President and the Governor of Abia State is the height of illegality and smacks of bad judgment, arbitrary rule and miscarriage of justice, verging on criminality, if not on a coup d'etat…the purported removal of the nation's Vice-President and an elected Governor of one of the federating units of the Nigerian Federation represents arrant illegality and a reckless flight from due process and constitutionality. It also represents a common thread of illegality and dictatorial tendencies that has run through the behavioural pattern of the Federal Government and the ruling party, the PDP, almost since the inception of the Fourth Republic…In the interest of peace, order and good government in this nation-space, the PDP and the President should tread warily and on the path of justice, the rule of law and due process."

It is worth restating that this form of presidential egregious lawlessness can only lead to uproar, not peace. The reader must also consider this. In the spirit of independence of the three arms of government in Nigeria (Executive, Judiciary, and Legislature), it is rare for a court judge to openly chastise the president or his office for attempting to destroy the rule of law. Lawal Uwais, during his tenure as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and since retiring from office in 2006, has warned the Obasanjo presidency against its shows of lawlessness by ignoring court orders that the regime does not like and enforcing those that advance its partisan interests and for generally taking the law into its own hands. Notwithstanding, the Obasanjo regime's disregard for the rule of law has persisted. This has prompted the current CJN, Alfa Belgore, to follow former CJN Uwais by again warning the Obasanjo government against its illegal and lawless acts and omissions, because of their implications for law and order in Nigeria.

Conclusion: Nobel Peace Prize for a Lawless President?

Are president George Bush, Andrew Young, Carlton Masters, and the other "American enablers of dictatorship, corruption, and incompetence" (Moses Ochonu, "Celebrating Disaster in New York", SaharaReporters.com, December 22, 2006) blind to these Obasanjo's atrocious assaults on the rule of law and peace? How dare they even suggest that this lawless president deserves a Nobel Peace Prize? In Akande's report (cited earlier in this paper), Young seeks to strengthen his case for awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to Obasanjo by stating that Obasanjo was in the class of such past winners of the award as Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and Jimmy Carter. Considering Obasanjo's record as Nigerian president, to cite him as belonging with Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and co. and their great contributions to humanity is to insult these distinguished men and trivialize what they have contributed and continue to contribute to human development.