President Buhari’s recent visit to Iran, in more ways than one, marked a substantial departure from his previous foreign outings. Not only were the issues he raised during the trip very clearly contextualized, they were largely devoid of the usual controversy that dogged his earlier foreign trips.
Those visits saw his media team sweating profusely to clarify ambiguities or possible sources of misinterpretation of what their principal actually said. His visit to the United States of America shortly after he was sworn in stands out very distinctly in this regard.
During that visit, Buhari’s response to reporters’ question on how he intended to treat those who did not vote for him, in which he said those who gave him 95 per cent votes cannot in all honesty be treated on the same issues with those that gave him five per cent had generated intense misgivings. So also was his prepared speech at the United States Institute of Peace in which he said “Unwittingly and I dare say, unintentionally the application of the Leahy law amendment by the US government has aided and abetted the Boko Haram terrorist group…”
He was severely criticized on the first for inappropriateness in admitting at such a gathering he would discriminate against the areas he got little votes. And on the second, he found himself mired in unmitigated conceptual error for stating that the Leahy law was aiding and abetting the Boko Haram insurgency.
The fact is that the Leahy Law does not in any way aid and abet the Boko Haram insurgency. The effect of the Leahy law in the fight against Boko Haram is only in the form of the constraints it imposes through its stipulations on strict adherence to the rules of engagement. This applies to the fight against terrorism the world over, Nigeria not an exception.
These were evident in his speech to the Nigerian community on the fight against corruption and improvement in power supply in the country. He had said in respect of the fight against corruption that unlike in his first coming as a military head of state when he could arrest and detain alleged corrupt officials to prove their innocence, the dictates of the rule of law and due process cannot permit of such now. He said those accused of corruption would have been prosecuted before now, but for the need to investigate them and gather enough evidence to facilitate prosecution.
Keen observers of President Buhari’s posturing in the war against corruption since he assumed office, would be quick to admit that this marks a substantial departure from his previous handle and posturing on the matter. About three months back, he had told the nation that those who looted our national treasury will be arraigned in court in a matter of weeks. There have also been further statements raising hope that those who milked the nation dry have been sufficiently identified and will soon pay dearly for it.
Bogus figures representing monies said to have been stolen have been bandied from sundry sources. Public appetite has since been sufficiently wetted for the eventual onslaught on those who have mismanaged this economy. But not much progress has been made in that direction before Buhari’s admission of the difficulties in fighting corruption in a democratic dispensation.
Before now also, the envisaged battle against corruption has been canvassed in such a manner that raised eyebrows on the propriety of the adopted strategy. The twin issues of due process and rule of law were seriously canvassed by those who picked holes in the media trial and seeming conviction of people in the court of public opinion even when sufficient evidence of their alleged misdeeds was yet to be gathered.
Ironically, these reservations were the major concerns of Buhari as he spoke to his Teheran audience. It was the same reasons that were often adduced by the Jonathan regime to defend allegations of tepid approach to the war against corruption. It would appear Buhari is gradually coming to terms with the reality of the war against corruption in a democratic setting and that mob justice or media hysteria will prove inherently deficient in dealing with official thievery. How much constraints the new reality will impose on the campaign against corruption will depend on the amount of credible evidence available to the authorities and the disposition of the judiciary to the fight.
Only last week Buhari had lamented the level of corruption that has permeated the Nigerian judiciary. He had urged that arm of government to fight against the perception and reality of growing judiciary corruption that imposes serious constraints on efforts to hold public officers accountable to their constituents.
When we pair both statements, the reality of the current war against corruption begins to dawn on us all. It is increasingly getting clearer that the trial of alleged corrupt public officials and recovering of whatever they might have stolen can only be achieved through the gathering of sufficient evidence that will aid prosecution and conviction in the courts. That is the reality Buhari has just admitted and it holds the prospects for whatever progress that will be recorded in the war. If our experience with such high profile trials is anything to go by, the war should be viewed with subdued optimism.
Buhari should focus more efforts in building strong institutions so as to make the brazen looting of our collective patrimony by sundry buccaneers nigh impossible. There is a limit beyond which we cannot go when these monies have already been stolen and the tracks of the thieves cleverly covered.
The other aspect of his speech that deserves mention for its larger heuristic value was that on improvements in power supply. Buhari was honest to admit that he was yet to give any directive on the power sector before the improvements in power supply lately. Hear him, “We have not said anything to them yet. I think they only find it sensible or appropriate for them to try and improve on power supply”
It is obvious Buhari did not want to appropriate the credit for the improvement in power supply contrary to what some of his supporters would have desired. That is the way to go. Before now, we have seen overzealous supporters of the regime seeking to downplay some of the achievements of the previous government. The impression often created when a new government takes over is that the previous one achieved little or nothing.
Ostensibly, this posturing is propelled by the vaulting desire to seek legitimacy. But, it has been the bane of governments on these shores. That has also accounted for the plethora of policy discontinuities that have brought in their wake little or no progress and monumental wastage of public funds. But a government does not operate from a zero point. It operates incrementally in the sense that each policy is only an addition to an existing one.
Incremental change recognizes that meaningful progress is better made when successive regimes improve on extant policies. That is the issue that was brought to public focus by Buhari and he should seize that momentum to ensure that epileptic power supply is consigned to the dust bin of history during his regime. But then, if he has not given any directive on the power sector and some progress is being recorded, somehow, he shares in the success. That is the lesson from Teheran which all leaders should internalize.
NATION
END
Be the first to comment