he first installment (Part I) of this discussion was published in the Nigeriaworld Saturday August 15, 2009. The family was invited to the Igbo "Iri Ji", annual Yam Festival set aside within the Igbo community as celebrated on the 15th day of August every year. One way to explain the significance of the celebration to the kids was to talk about "Thanksgiving" in America, telling them it was in honor of the gods for the harvest of Yams and other produce received from the fields. Though those yams sold in the African stores are not produced here in America, most of them are however imported from Africa including Southern Nigeria, home to the indigenous stock of Ndi-Igbo. Surely there is a lot more about Iri Ji; with great deference to those experts who know more in culture and tradition, delving into the real meaning of "Ahia Njoku" and why chicken-n-yam pepper soup is always the staple appetizer essential to the festival menu would require some dexterity. Explaining the details to the inquisitive, exuberant young "fellas" the typical Nigerian-Americans would be anything but an exercise in trivia-pursuit. Like every Teachable Moment, this one was a little challenging, certainly not funny; invariably the opportunity was cherished to the extent it lasted. Imagine being saved by the bell just as all the questions were coming in from all corners, the kids wanting to know everything "right now". The august visitor from Nigeria stopped by at the nick of time; it was a desirable rescue from the "Now gang".

advertisement

Angus is a professional accountant, and currently a branch manager to one of the prime banks in Nigeria. Obviously the news of the day before, the "Tsunami Friday" August 14 announcement from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) was equally as fresh. As if in a scheduled caucus meeting, every little group within ear-shot distance milled closely and there the young man was, easily crowded into an impromptu press conference. It was definitely far from a formal lecture on Nigeria's financial crisis, certainly not for those cursorily familiar with the vicissitudes of the banking industry in that troubled country. The listeners were all ears, not quite sure what to make of the developing stories. One fact was however evident. Charles Soludo, the former CBN governor, while in the circus might have seen one elephant; the new CBN boss, Alhaji Sanusi entered the same circus; apparently he seems to be seeing the same elephant but from a different stand. Both men have seen the same animal but each the size of a different beast. For the first time in the annals of One Nigeria, the historical archives of both written and oral tradition, and for all the reasons possible, the CBN governor has the power and authority to fire managing directors of constituted banks with or without reference to the consent of their respective board of directors. One particular question was asked. Were the same power and authority at Soludo's disposal but never invoked or were they recently manufactured and conferred on Sanusi by the Imperial Majesty at Abuja? Angus made reference to the CBN Act but not quite sure of the details. Would the difference in details amount to a bowl of fried Dodo beyond the unfolding circumstances of the moment? Hardly!

Soludo may have been a brilliant professor of economics, whose capabilities both proven and unproven have been hitherto acknowledged in high and low places. With all the testimonials, he was still an ordinary servant lacking the stature of his master's son. Lamido Sanusi, the crown prince from Kano has had his own back covered and strongly so, enough to seize the opportunity offered by his appointment. He was deployed to CBN from First Bank where he served as the MD; he surely knew where all the hidden vaults were buried; no remote sensing was required. Therefore when he ordered stress auditing of his former colleagues and competitors, there was no illusion Jimmy Hoffa's grave would be located somewhere in Nigeria. The surprise was certainly not how the owners, the upper echelon bank managers and their highly placed friends including the self-advertized Billionaires were stealing from the banks. The heist was always disguised by way of huge unprotected loans. The firing of a few bad men and one woman could be making the news but then what else? Soludo may never have had such irritable balls as to confront the so-called gang of five. If he did, there would be so much blood on Bank Avenue. He had to let the sleeping dog lie even if on its own bones until the coming of one and only Baba with "Bulala" the horse whip. The other question was also asked. Is Lamido Sanusi really acting in the best interest of the financial market? Angus parried that one.

The real story behind the story, perhaps the real teachable moment arrived before the close of business Friday August 14, 2009. By injecting a whooping sum of over $2.6 Billion, the Nigerian government acquired five sick banks whose outstanding toxic assets in the form of unsecured loans amounted to $7.6 Billion. The currency conversion into US Dollar makes it easier to fully understand the degree and extent of this imploding crisis. The banks are said to be under-performing, under the yoke of "debilitating debt profile", operated under very "weak corporate governance". With all the reasons known and unknown, Sanusi has assumed the responsibility, creating a huge asset management portfolio totaling over $10.2 Billion with no known oversight governing body. It is certainly not quite clear the justification for the relevant CBN Act also envisaged such an enormous power being vested on one man; it is equally unclear "Our Man Flint" is Lamido Sanusi, someone whose capacity and capability have yet to be tested in the handling of such a deepening financial crisis with its growing pains. Seemingly, Sanusi is tearing the old ban down to erect a new one in its place; but for some reason, the same wolves are still going to be watching the hen houses. Thus firing these chief executives may yet become another Boko Haram experience for Nigeria. What is wrong with the Nigerian financial system and specifically the banking industry cannot be fixed through a precipitous summary action, certainly not if doing so, closes all possible avenues for full disclosure; sending the wrong message to all stakeholder interests would not be the cure either. These embattled CEOs know so much; if they are part of the problem, they should equally be part of the remedial action plan. They must not be disposed too quickly, too early, the way of Alhaji Yusuf before all the evidences and facts are in. Singling them out for public exposure as celebrated culprits, thus making them the fall guys of the banking fraud and syndicate would be counter-productive.

The fact remains for instance that Erastus Akingbola, while as MD of Intercontinental Bank would not have performed worse than Alhaji Lamido Sanusi as chief executive of First Bank. Are there outstanding and still non-performing loans issued by First Bank under Sanusi's watch? Surely there must be; the banks and their patrons have the same provenance, operating within the same environment with the same common cold. Short of telling Nigerians what they do not already know, the difference is now clearer; one man was appointed governor of Central Bank of Nigeria and the other ultimately became subordinated in function, power and executive privileges. Would a CBN governor in the person of Erastus Akingbola have found any cogent reasons to fire Sanusi as MD of First Bank with everything considered? You bet your last onion! The justification for doing so would never diminish the same for which Sanusi's actions in the prevailing circumstances remain valid. The big picture is that the culture of corruption remains embedded in the fabrics of what former President Obasanjo used to refer to as the Nigerian "System and its political milieu". Given all the powers vested on one man, the big question is being asked and must be asked. Does Lamido Sanusi have an agenda? Yes he does. Would these actions solve and resolve the Nigerian financial mess? Not quite sure with the growing loss of confidence in foreign interest correspondence support! Does Sanusi have a northern agenda? If so what? Not quite sure how the North Country alone leads Nigeria out of this thicket! Obviously there is a green snake on the roof. Nigerians will soon find its victim laced in venom.

The other tutorial on the Rule of Law came with that July 27, 2009 letter from Governor Babatunde Fashola of Lagos to Alhaji Umaru Yar'Adua, the President of Nigeria. The governor was responding to the presidential order demanding the immediate reversal of the statute creating additional 37 local government authorities in Lagos state. The president and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are insisting Lagos state must not have more than the 20 local government councils as provided for by the 1999 Military Junta Constitution. Unfortunately this latest salvo is part of an unfinished business handed over by former President Obasanjo to Yar'Adua. Incidentally Fashola inherited the same from former governor Bolaji Tinubu. Lagos state vs. Nigerian Government is essentially a settled matter, having been adjudicated by the highest court in the land. At the time, Obasanjo refused to honor the order of the Supreme Court by withholding funds accruable to Lagos state even for the 20 local government councils recognized in the constitution. It was never clear whether Obasanjo was punishing Tinubu for outwitting the PDP and its foot-soldiers keeping Lagos state out of the control of the ruling party during the 2003 elections. For some reason Lagos managed to weather the storm in three consecutive election cycles; still the PDP is hell-bent on changing the situation come 2011.

Governor Fashola, knowing what he knows, preferred to choose his words very carefully, articulating a valued response with precision. His letter read in part: "Mr. President, after declaring a public amnesty with regards to the Niger Delta crisis, which was intended to bring peace to the country and calm frayed nerves in order to set a platform for meaningful development, the receipt of your letter signed barely 24 hours after an unprovoked attack on Lagos on 13th July 2009, in which officers and men of the Nigerian Military lost their lives came as a shock to me. As Commander-in-chief your silence in spite of this attack and the timing of this letter heightens my concerns and causes me very deep apprehension about the motive behind the advice on Your Excellency has acted in this matter and the intent of the entire letter at a time when all levels of Government must be working towards promoting peace and stability".

The matter between Lagos state and the Nigerian unitary government rises to the fore, the real challenges facing Nigeria and the drive towards a constitutional democracy. Those challenges also reveal the imperfections in the 1999 Constitution as currently applicable. Does Lagos or any other state have any rights and privileges assigned to it from which it derives its powers to govern the people? Are such state rights limited; if so what are those limitations? Does the Nigerian president have the power and the authority to impose an administration of such rights and privileges to the exclusion of other branches of government, namely the legislature and the judiciary? If the president is determined to enforce the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, doing so would seem to be most effectively addressed through the power of the purse. Lagos state is not insisting the Abuja central government remit accruable funds in excess of what is duly allocated to the original 20 local government councils so recognized. Why then should Yar'Adua be concerned about how Lagos state reallocates its receipts to serve the best interest of its people? Why would the creation of additional local government areas in Lagos constitute an assault on the 1999 Constitution any more than the establishment of Sharia Enclaves and Hisbah Militia in Kano and other places in the North Country? There are too many questions raised herein and perhaps a lot more are being asked by right-thinking Nigerians who are not as misguided as the Boko Haram but no less aggrieved by what is happening. With the president still questioning the status of a settled matter, acting with unbridled temerity and arrogance, the imposition of imperial privilege with an ultimatum towards vacating a court order means the Rule of Law is under siege. Unfortunately, this potential breech cannot be settled over "Beer " at the Presidential Villa, certainly not when Yar'Adua is interpreting the constitution, reading the Supreme Court order from the Obasanjo "Political Solution" template. The President is the leader of his party, the PDP; it might sound politically expedient to push hard enough towards consolidating one party-state structure for Nigeria.

A few weeks ago, the governor of Imo state, Ikedi Ohakim abandoned his former party, the Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA) and became a card-carrying member of the PDP. The PPA has gone to court to challenge Ohakim's defection to PDP. The party is praying the court to address two issues (a) "whether a sitting governor and deputy governor of Imo state who were sponsored by the plaintiff's party and elected into office under the plaintiff's platform can dump the party for another one during the currency of their term without losing their position", (b) "whether by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in Amaechi vs. INEC & Others (2008) which held that it is a party that wins election, the 1st and 2nd defendants who have dumped the plaintiff's party that sponsored them to win election have not abandoned their offices of governor and deputy governor". The issue here is not whether or not Ohakim has the right to join and associate himself with any political party of his choice. But what does the law say? The legal opinion deriving from such a position presupposes the 1999 Constitution is clear in defining such association relevant towards executing the proper functions of any elective office in a participatory democracy. It is too simplistic to argue that dumping one particular party for another happens elsewhere even in the United States. There has to be some distinction between rules and regulations designed for political party organization as different from the constitutional provisions giving fiat to the establishment of such political parties. A situation where the party zoning formula for instance is considered paramount towards selecting candidates for political office the value and true meaning of the Constitution becomes negated. A particular party's zoning formular fails to provide equal protection for all other qualified and willing candidates who might choose to be independent of any party affiliation. If by precedence the Supreme Court has established that a successful election is won by the sponsoring party and not the nominal candidate leading the ticket, then the constitutional interpretation so implied to fulfill intent in one case cannot be vacated in another within the same judicial system. Obviously the politics of the Nigerian court cannot be allowed to continue eroding whatever constitutional provisions there are for the Rule of Law to stand. While the arguments are being heard, it is quite unclear how the fortunes of Imo people would change for the better any more than was the case with the former governor Achike Udenwa, who served 8 years as a PDP stalwart and currently serving as minister in another capacity.

On the other hand, the story of Lagos is uniquely different. It is arguably the richest state in Nigeria and most recently the most progressive. Governor Fashola has demonstrated in very simple terms and in no mean measures that the problem of Nigeria is essentially in part, "Mediocrity in Leadership". Individuals who have the knowledge, expertise and intellectual development required for statecraft never get the chance to occupy the position of responsibility. The unfortunate rise of the underclass boosted the ranks of the rubble rousers, pushed too many undesirables into position of authority either as military dictators or civilian cohorts. Nigeria has since disintegrated into the oblivion of "Anything goes". In just two years, there has been a flicker; it has been just that. The one person making a difference in the life of an ordinary Nigerian whether resident or mere visitor to Lagos is no other than Governor Fashola. He is doing so by first rebuilding the infrastructure to accommodate the sprawling dimensions of Lagos as a mega city in the making. His administration has embarked on public policy initiatives that tend to ease the pains of the ordinary folks giving them some reason and hope to continue living. The same approach cannot be counted in any other part of Nigeria, certainly not if the unitary government has anything to do with it. Every other government in Nigeria conducts projects on television screens and pages of newspapers. There is nothing to show on the ground for all the "Grammar and truenchi" spoken at the weekly Executive Council Meetings across the land. It has always been talks about talks, meetings after meetings until the arrival of Governor Fashola.

The presidential order can only serve one purpose, an attempt to distract and harass the governor, a member of the opposition party, the Action Congress (AC). Obviously, if Fashola should play the Ohakim league and decamp to the PDP, Yar'Adua would cease and desist from overreaching his authority. Those still bent on "Political Solution" for every problem of any coloration in Nigeria, might gain additional foothold. Unfortunately, the people of Lagos would be the losers. The prevailing tenure in declining productivity, lack of vision and scope in development would continue. Unfortunately for Nigeria, those with great workable ideas die young, never get the chance to make the desired difference. Yar'Adua would definitely be pleased to keep to the same play book even with the game closing on extra time heading into a sudden death. The Lagos vs. Abuja does not provide an ideal teachable moment for anybody, certainly not the champion of the Rule of Law for which constitutional democracy still holds hope and promise.

May be the last teachable episode is the one many Nigerians still concerned about the image of their country have already addressed. Sometime in July 2009, the Vanguard Newspaper reported the case of a seemingly embarrassing public spectacle. On July 11, 2009, the Greek Ambassador and his wife attended a reception at the Transcorp Hilton in Abuja. The prevailing circumstances were not quite clarified; however, Mrs. Ambassador found a wrist watch belonging to an unknown hotel patron who probably might have checked out. She made a decision not to deposit the watch at the front desk for lost and found custody and identification. Her conviction was that "Nigerians were habitual thieves" and therefore would not entrust the safe-keeping of the watch to a third party, not even the security desk. She remained adamant and insolvent to all appeals, refusing to acknowledge the position and responsibility of the Security Manager on duty. The matter came to a head when the real owner of the watch returned to the scene to find his property had become the subject of a late night controversy. Proof of identity to justify claim of his watch had to await some soothing moment for the heat of passionate argument to abate. The fuse had been lit up and all adults had lost all measure of composure including any decorum reserved for their Excellencies of the Foreign Mission. It was no longer a matter between Mrs. Ambassador and the rest of them, the lowly Nigerians so vehemently accused. Mr. Ambassador himself joined in the free for all celebration in "Trash-talk"; still supporting of his wife, convinced the said owner was fake, he emptied whatever remained of his guts: "Nigerians are thieves. Can anyone of them deny that? What is the assurance that you guys did not connive to bring this fellow as the rightful owner of the wrist watch?" Mr. Ambassador was obviously too animated to hear his own voice or anybody else's. Mrs. Ambassador and her husband had created enough scenes, perhaps one unbecoming of the dignity of their status. Almost at the point of exhaustion, Her Excellency finally succumbed to appeals and harsh exchanges gave in to reason and handed over the watch to the fellow, the same rightful owner who stood the grounds watching the animal display.

Judging Nigerians is certainly not about finding the difference between how Nigerians see themselves and how foreigners see Nigerians. Mrs. Ambassador was more interested in protecting the wrist watch than caring about the integrity of an innocent Nigerian, most of whom would never visit Abuja in a lifetime. Like Professor Gates of Cambridge, she might have been reacting to the memory of events or incidents that had little or nothing to do with the night of ugly experiences at the Hilton. Being right once would not guarantee not being held accountable for wrong doing at another time and place. Taking the high road does not always minimize the impact either. However, did the Nigerian security operatives do their job that night? The answer is emphatically no. There is certainly no reason why Mrs. Ambassador would not have been arrested politely and later released on bail for causing a public spectacle and being a nuisance. The issue would not be about insulting Nigerians in their own country if free speech is allowed enough latitude under an assumed universal principle. The other reason for justifying such an arrest would be in consideration for any repressed reciprocity. Even under the existing compact reserved for diplomats, the wife of a Nigerian Ambassador would not be spared the slammer if she caused a similar raucous scene in any theater near the Acropolis in Greece or any other part of the world for that matter. The sad commentary in this regard was definitely not the opinion of Her Excellency, what she still thinks of Nigerians, her reasons notwithstanding. Not having any regrets and not being remorseful after the fact surely diminished the value and spirit of her country's Chancery in Nigeria. The problem for Nigeria was not necessarily that she remained an impenitent; the disappointment for the innocent Nigerian so accused in a class action condemnation was the fact that Mrs. Ambassador was rudely vocal, defiantly disruptive and was still allowed to get away unpunished.

Consider for one moment Mrs. Ambassador was detained that night. Her husband would have been forced to get on the horn to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and there upon the matter would have gotten to the highest portal in Abuja. The most likely scenario would be an order from the Inspector-general (IG) of Police harkening to his master's voice. Seagent Popoola would have been called in by the SSS; before the second cock he would be passing gas in the dungeon. All the powers controlling the instrument of government would have been brought to bear on the poor policeman certainly doing all he could to preserve and protect the integrity of his country. Seagent Popoola would become the villain and if he was on any shaky ground, would likely lose his job. He would be lucky to get a demotion to the rank of Corporal.

This incident demonstrates succinctly how Nigerians see themselves in relation to deliberate efforts towards refurbishing or rebranding the country's image. Compare that same scenario with Gates vs. Crowley. President Obama did not call on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to go after the lowly Sergeant for arresting his friend and buddy, Professor Gates. Instead Officer Crowley was invited by the most powerful man in the world for a friendly get-together with the person he arrested. Mr. Crowley wore a pair of suit to the "Beer fest"; it would not be a surprise if the world came to know it as one rare opportunity the officer had to be so dressed. Then take a stretch and imagine Alhaji Yar'Adua and Ojo Maduekwe seated at a round table with the Greek Ambassador and his wife, Sergeant Popoola and the IG to talk about the "Goodness of Nigeria and its Peoples". That occasion would not only be one important "Teachable Moment" but also the most significant "Rebranding Moment" sister Dora would ever know.

The American Secretary of State, Her Excellency Hillary Clinton has concluded her seven country visit to Africa. While in Nigeria, she spoke her mind, conveying a clear message from the American government to the people of Nigeria and the owners of Nigeria. Mrs. Clinton said in very simple words, exactly what many Nigerians have articulated time and time again, to the point of sounding like a broken vinyl record. She told Nigerians and to the hearing of the rest of the world, that "Lack of transparency and accountability has eroded the legitimacy of the government and contributed to the rise of groups that embrace violence and reject the authority of the state". The ruling party and its mega phone would not take Mrs. Clinton's candor kindly. She is being condemned to the point of denying the obvious. The Secretary has said what she said; those still pretending that all is well with Nigeria are free to continue pounding on the chest.

Imagine point A at the edge of the precipice where Nigeria is currently positioned and situated, point B is the place of cure where Mrs. Clinton would like to find the country even if it is the convalescent home. Getting from point A to point B would surely require so much horsepower for a reversal, including redirecting that flood under the bridge. Nigeria must first pull the lever to engage the gear; that lever is the institution of law and order; its operating mechanism is codified in the Rule of Law without which there is no Constitutional Democracy. Mrs. Clinton's "Teachable Moment" in Abuja could be lost in translation, to be repeated ten years from now during another similar official visit when Nigeria would be drowning in its own sludge pit. Where Nigeria will be ten years from now is perhaps one unknowable. That fact has not stopped many Nigerians from postulating. One opinion was rather very interesting; it was deeply profound and analytical in perspective. I seek the personal indulgence and permission to mention Mr. Aduba in context. According to him Nigeria and its peoples are joined to the hip. There is so much social, cultural and assimilative penetration to the extent the country would have to stay together against all odds. According to him, "Nigeria will not break up because the forces against the breakup are stronger than the forces that want to break it up. The outcome would be a wobbling Nigeria for as long as the eye can see."

Unfortunately the so-called patriotic Nigerians benefiting from "Business-as-usual" are really the same trying to break Nigeria by insisting on One Nigeria in their own image and likeness. If the breakup of Nigeria is contemplated by way of another 30 month or more civil strife, where one section of the country conquers and takes over the territorial entity of another, count that option out. If the breakup of Nigeria is envisaged to be an arrangement conceived to allow for and create room for the emancipation of sectional interests along existing ethnic fracture plains, count that possible. But why would such an arrangement by implication constitute a breakup of Nigeria? It would pass as a breakup in terms of preserving the original framework for curing the ills of One Nigeria. It would be an acknowledgment that the present structural setup has failed to sustain the continuing existence of the country as is. If that option fails, Nigeria can still fail by imploding internally to the extent of being abandoned by the outside world in its own drain. Such a Somali model would ultimately result in the devolution of controlling power in the hands of ethnic militias and Islamic fundamentalists; the central government and whatever remains of its military would be fighting in all fronts. With the oil wells rendered inoperable and the multi-national companies out of the country and unable to return to scene of hostility, the place once known as Nigeria would become part of world history. Prospects for such modifying influences at the lower limit or destabilizing forces at the uppermost end, exist and could be internally mobilized or externally driven by circumstances currently ignored. Whatever makes it impossible for Nigeria to continue functioning as a unitary appendage, serving the interest of the few on behalf of the many is likely to create consequences and corresponding impacts not easy to be assessed at this moment. One thing is clear; the abiding culture of "no education, under-education, stack illiteracy and mediocrity" cannot continue to sustain Nigeria as a functional civil society. The Boko Haram principles can no longer suffice in preserving the environment even for those who detest the value of education at the expense of over-the-counter piece of ideas and innovation.

The truth is that what could break Nigeria is as difficult right now as what could keep it going. However, One Nigeria certainly cannot endure under a centralized platform that breeds more losers than winners. In reality nobody knows what could break Nigeria. Another civil war is out of the question. The best guess would be a combination of what Nigerians do and what they fail to do with all the opportunities presented; the challenge remains how to cope with the contingences and vulnerabilities that expose One Nigeria to enormous stresses and strains. Either way continuing along the path of centralized structure as opposed returning to true federalism is sure to create that wobbly Nigeria with two feet forward and four backwards. A very weak Nigeria is more likely to diminish the value of humanity for which the promise of One Nigeria would have become relevant to all the competing interests. In the end, darkness will come when it will come; but when it does, will Nigeria be awake at dawn?

Continued from Part I ----------