.jpg)
MKO Abiola
Foremost
politician and writer, Reuben Abati has dropped his latest article on
the declaration and honour accorded late MKO Abiola by Buhari.
There are three aspects – the strategic, the political and the
legal – to the Federal Government’s decision to replace May 29 with June
12 as Nigeria’s Democracy Day, and to confer on the late Chief MKO
Abiola, the highest honour in the land.
Strategy: Long before now, the Buhari government had needed to
review its strategy of engagement with the public, move from
blame-passing, propaganda, in-fighting, enemy-seeking approach to a more
legacy-driven, result-oriented mode. It is like this: when a government
is in decline, and it is losing popularity and goodwill, then it is
time to change the narrative. That is precisely what the Buhari
government has done with the masterstroke of a special focus on June 12
and Chief MKO Abiola at a time when virtually everyone from the Catholic
Church, the opposition, prominent political figures, the media to
estranged members of the APC are carrying placards against the
government.
When you change the narrative, what you do is to divert attention
from the prevailing negative discourse; you find something else for the
people to talk about in the hope that this will give the government a
breather, and allow it to get back on traction and restore some
goodwill. Whoever suggested the June 12 and Abiola move to President
Buhari is quite smart and I commend him and the government. But the
“changing the narrative” strategy is not a deus ex machina. Its fall-out
has to be managed, and government must be in a position to manage the
gains or the challenges. This strategy can also prove to be a test of a
government’s status. An accident-prone government may even in the long
run gain nothing from such a move.
For the Buhari government, however, the June 12 move should change
the narrative for a few weeks, except there is another accident on the
security or political scene. But whatever happens, President Muhammadu
Buhari will be remembered as the Nigerian President who successfully
placed the proper historical accent on June 12, and MKO Abiola’s
contributions to the restoration of democracy in Nigeria. The Jonathan
government, which I served, had tried to do this in 2012 by renaming the
University of Lagos after Chief MKO Abiola, but the UNILAG community –
resident and alumni – reacted like cry-babies, they considered the name
of their university too sacred, and too big for Abiola, and in the face
of the overwhelming sentiment, the significance of the gesture was
over-politicized.
The political: The politics of June 12 and Chief MKO Abiola has
been a recurrent decimal in the debate about how best to remember the
struggle that led to the exit of the military on May 29, 1999 and the
role played by the pro-democracy coalition. Indeed, since 2000, the
pro-democracy coalition and supporters of Chief MKO Abiola have lamented
that the eventual beneficiaries of the struggle for democracy were the
ones most determined to deny and erase Chief Abiola’s role in that
significant moment in Nigerian history. They wanted Federal Government
recognition for MKO Abiola. When this did not happen, the states
controlled by the then Alliance for Democracy in the South West declared
June 12, Democracy Day and a public holiday. In Lagos, Ogun, Osun, Oyo,
Ekiti, and Ondo, monuments were named after Abiola, his statues were
erected, other heroes of the struggle were honoured and every June 12,
pro-democracy processions were held in these states.
The celebration of May 29 as Democracy Day has therefore been
consistently opposed on the grounds that it is wrong to celebrate the
exit of the military but better to commemorate June 12 – the day in 1993
when Nigeria held the freest and fairest election in its history – the
Presidential election of that day united Nigerians across ethnic,
religious and ideological lines. But as it happened, some military
leaders considered Abiola unfit for the office, for their own personal
reasons and therefore annulled the election. This brazen assault on the
people’s sovereignty resulted in a prolonged protest for the restoration
of the people’s mandate, and a nationwide rebellion against military
rule. For six years, Nigeria stood at the edge of a precipice.
June 12 is indeed a watershed in Nigerian history. Its formal
recognition is symbolic and instructive. This should assuage the pains
of the pro-June 12 group, and help to restore the memory of that moment
in history and the aftermath. I once wrote about how many young
Nigerians born in 1993 or after do not even know who MKO Abiola is. I
was asked on one occasion by a young Nigerian: “This MKO Abiola, what
about him?” In a country where history is not taught, that is what you
get: an emerging generation that does not know Nigeria. With June 12 now
part of the country’s calendar, the story will be told, and that
turning point in Nigerian history will be recorded permanently for
posterity.
The decision to honour Chief MKO Abiola and Chief Gani Fawehinmi
post-humously, and Alhaji Baba Gana Kingibe with GCFR and GCON is a good
move, but the question of legality with regard to Abiola and Fawehinmi
has been raised and here we confront the dilemma of a conflict between
what is reasonable and what is legal.
The legal aspect: Are the post-humous awards really illegal? I
recall that in 2014, the Jonathan administration had tried to honour
Chief MKO Abiola and Dr. Ameyo Adadevoh by having their names on the
National Honours List. Justice Alfa Belgore, former Chief Justice of
Nigeria (CJN) who has now spoken up to declare the post-humous award to
Abiola and Fawehinmi, “illegal” was the Chairman of the National Honours
Committee at the time. The advice given at the time was that the awards
could not be given post-humously, and that the law should not be bent
to accommodate political interests. The Jonathan government, with the
uproar over the re-naming of the University of Lagos still fresh in the
minds of its officials, chose to tread with caution. It is noteworthy
that this same issue of legality has again cropped up. By giving
post-humous national awards, the Buhari government has now provided us
an opportunity to interrogate the law.
The relevant law is the National Honours Act No 5 of 1964 – Section
3(2) thereof reads: “Subject to the next following paragraph of this
article, a person shall be appointed to a particular rank of an Order
when he receives from the President in person at an investiture held for
the purpose –
(a) the insignia appropriate for that rank; and
(b) an instrument under the hand of the President and the public seal of the Federation
declaring him to be appointed to that rank.”
The operative phrase here is “in person.” Can a dead person be
honoured in person? I think not. But it would appear that upon a careful
and calm reading of Section 3(3), the President is actually given the
power of discretion to vary Section 3(2).
Section 3(3) states: “If in the case of any person it appears to
the President expedient to dispense with the requirements of paragraph
(2) of this article, he may direct that that person shall be appointed
to the rank in question in such a manner as may be specified in the
direction.”
With due respect, at issue is this: assuming that post-humous
awards do not meet the conditions set out in Section 3(2), can the
problem be cured by Section 3(3)? And is there any manifest ambiguity in
the provisions or are the words in their ordinary meaning clear enough?
Or could the action taken result in any absurdity? Or are there issues
of procedure that may have been breached? Do we even have a National
Honours Committee in place and if so, what recommendations did that
committee make to President Buhari in pursuit of its functions as a
clearing house? Any public-spirited person can go to court to test the
National Honours Act and raise these issues. It is the duty of the
courts to interpret the law, and with our progressive judiciary, I
believe they can and should guide us on the true intent of the Honours
Act. Ordinarily, a national honour does not harm anyone nor is it likely
to injure the country itself.
However, the National Honours Act is overdue for review, and the
process of appointing persons to the National Orders needs to be
reformed. Should it become necessary to amend the Act, the National
Assembly can do so in a week at most. In terms of process, the area of
concern is the manner in which successive governments have tended to
give out these honours as if they were mere chieftaincy titles or civil
service allocations. Section 1(3) of the Act lists the number of awards
that may be given every year, but the prescribed total minimum number is
so large that every National Honours investiture ceremony ends up
looking like a carnival where all kinds of undeserving persons are
decorated.
Still on the legal aspect, some persons have drawn attention to
Section 2(1) of the Public Holidays Act CAP 40 LFN – while that section
of the law gives the President power to appoint any day as public
holiday, it does not grant him the powers to unilaterally substitute a
day with another as he has done with May 29 and June 12. The Schedule to
this Act as it is, recognizes May 29 as Democracy Day, not June 12. The
Public Holidays Act would still have to be amended appropriately but
since there is no plan to declare June 12, 2018 a public holiday, and
the President’s statement in its last paragraph specifically uses the
phrase “in future years”, the Federal Government has more than enough
time to seek a proper amendment of the Public Holidays Act by the
legislature. So, I don’t see a problem here.
All told, the plan to honour the Abiola-Kingibe 1993 Presidential
joint ticket and Gani Fawehinmi, the legendary human rights crusader, is
imbued with much meaning and significance even if this does not
automatically settle the matter about the results of the June 12, 1993
Presidential election. The Federal Government should take some
additional steps. First, the Independent National Electoral Commission
(INEC) should be directed to release the results of that election
officially and for Chief MKO Abiola and Alhaji Baba Gana Kingibe to be
recognized strictly as a matter of record as President-elect and
Vice-President-elect respectively. The results of that election need to
be validly declared to put a closure to the injustice that was
committed. This is the more important matter. The major legal issue
here, however is that both men can not be accorded recognition as former
Heads of State – they never took oath of office, and the Constitution
under which they were elected – the 1989 Constitution is no longer in
existence. It stands abolished. Since equity does not act in vain, what
has been done is at best symbolic.
To further heal the pains of the affected, the Abiola family should
be recognized and compensated for his arrest and detention that
ultimately led to his demise. On Gani Fawehinmi: I had expressed fears
about the likelihood that his family may reject the honour, Chief
Fawehinmi having rejected a similar honour while alive. The Federal
Government must be relieved that they have accepted the honour.
Chief Gani Fawehinmi is of course most deserving of the highest
honours in the land. For more than 40 years, he was in the forefront of
the struggle for a better Nigeria. He was committed to the progress and
well-being of the ordinary man, the rule of law and human rights as the
main pillars of good governance. He pursued this objective through the
instrumentality of the law. Of him, President Buhari writes: “…the
tireless fighter for human rights and the actualization of the June 12th
elections and indeed for Democracy in general, the late Chief Gani
Fawehinmi SAN is to be awarded posthumously a GCON.”
I can only add that there are others who were also part of that
struggle for the “actualization of June 12” whose contributions were no
less important, and pain and suffering no less, who should also be
considered for national honour. They even did more for the struggle than
Chief Abiola’s running mate, Alhaji Baba Gana Kingibe who is now being
honoured, not for his contributions, I assume, but merely for being part
of the ticket! They include Chief Alfred Rewane, Chief Anthony Enahoro,
Chief Abraham Adesanya, Professor Wole Soyinka, Alhaji Balarabe Musa,
Frank Kokori, Col. Abubakar Umar, Beko Ransome-Kuti, Dr. Tunji
Braithwaite, Alao Aka-Bashorun, Rear Admiral Ndubuisi Kanu, Ayo
Opadokun, Kudirat Abiola, Chima Ubani, Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe, US
Ambassador Walter Carrignton and all the journalists and media owners
who were lied against, harassed, shot, assassinated, or jailed. This
list is by no means exhaustive but it is representative enough for the
benefit of those who insist on ethnicizing June 12. It was a
pan-Nigerian struggle: between good and evil, between heroes and
villains, and by the way, I agree that Professor Humphrey Nwosu – the
man who presided over the election as National Electoral Commission
Chairman – also deserves recognition.
The reading of motives – all that talk about timing, the South-West
and 2019 – is beside the point. In the South-West, there were many
Yoruba anti-June 12 elements who refused to acknowledge Abiola as the
symbol and focal point of the restoration of democracy in Nigeria, and
who may still be indifferent today. Timing – it is better late than
never. 2019 – there is no strong indication that this would have any
significant effect on the voting numbers in 2019. The Nigerian voter may
not be as stupid as we often think he or she is.
-By Reuben Abati
No comments:
Post a Comment