The initial six-month
period for the state of
emergency in Plateau State will expire in November this year. Will Joshua Dariye return as the Governor of Plateau State? Will his Deputy rather than himself return as the Acting Governor? Will all the democratic structures and institutions be restored? Or will the President extend the terminal date of the state of emergency?
These questions agitate the minds of all those committed to constitutionalism and the rule of law. These are not academic issues but practical constitutional and governance issues. These are the immediate questions that confront us as we stumble blindly towards the terminal date of the state of emergency.
It is a matter of common knowledge that civil society groups, political parties and the Plateau state House of Assembly have suits in court challenging the state of emergency. But the Supreme Court may not likely deliver its judgment on the constitutionality of the state of emergency before November.
If those that imposed emergency rule restore democratic institutions before the Supreme Court reaches its verdict, that judgment will simply represent a guide for the future actions of the President and the National Assembly. Those that opened the floor and fistfights in the Old Western Region and those that engineered the fight might not have envisaged its outcome and consequences. They might not have contemplated that a state of emergency would be declared and some of them would be banished, exiled, placed under house arrest and jailed.
The situation in Plateau is not identical but not necessarily dissimilar. A state of emergency has been declared and that is a fact. The overriding challenge now is how to resolve the deep issues thrown up by the declaration and those that informed the declaration. This is because, in the heat of the annihilation occurring in Plateau and the consequent refugee exodus to other parts of the country, many people did not properly analyze the speech of the President and the deep implications of its content for the restoration of democratic institutions on the Plateau. If they had, they would have been more careful in calling for and supporting a state of emergency on the Plateau. They would not have been blinded by considerations other than the national interest in analyzing the Plateau situation and its implications for constitutionalism and the stability of the polity.
The President informed a bewildered nation in national broadcast and letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the crisis in Plateau State was a product of age-old differences relating to cattle grazing, stealing of cattle, and at times religion. He posited that some of the differences were over economic matters that easily found expression through ethnic and religious divisiveness.
He also stated that “as at today, there is nothing on ground and no evidence whatsoever to show that the state governor has the interest, desire, commitment, credibility and capacity to promote reconciliation, rehabilitation, forgiveness, peace, harmony and stability. If anything, some of his utterances, his lackadaisical attitude and seeming uneven-handedness over the salient and contending issues present him as not just part of the problem, but also as an instigator and a threat to peace.
Based on the “proven inability and incompetence of the Governor to maintain security of life and property generally in the state,” and the fact that “constituted authority in Plateau state is incapable of maintaining law and order, giving confidence to the people, managing religious, ethnic and social pluralism, and protecting lives and property of all citizens or determinedly unwilling to do so.” President Obasanjo found it necessary and inevitable to declare the state of emergency in Plateau state effective the 18th day of May 2004.
There are three dominant issues in the position of the President. The first is that the crisis in Plateau State is age long. The second is that the Governor of Plateau State is part of the problem and the third is that the political leadership and system in Plateau has also failed. It seems impossible – if the problem of Plateau state are age and old and have political, ethnic, religious, economic and other connotations and colorations as the President contends – that a sole administrator will be able confront and resolve them within the period of a six month mandate. If only such seismic changes were so easy! In other words, a deep rooted and complex problem such as that in Plateau is not something that emergency solutions can resolve, and certainly not in six months or even a year. It is something that requires articulated programs, strategic planning and action. A period of six months is therefore sufficient only to gain some understanding of the contending issues.
The second issue is that the picture painted of the Governor of Plateau State is so damning that no reasonable person could again entrust the Governor with the mantle of leadership.
The only evidence that is emerging is Dariye’s perceived submission of his faith to God. This does not, I believe, make him any more competent, even-handed or suitable for managing of the crisis in Plateau. So which indices will the President use in measuring whether the Governor has mended his ways for him to be qualified to lead Plateau State once again?
The tragedy in the grandstanding of the president is that he is part of the problem of Plateau state and not really part of the solution. The President and his Party never allowed the people of Plateau State the freedom to make informed choices on whom to govern them. The President and his voodoo advisers conjured up all serving Governors and imposed them on the electorate. This they did to preserve and maintain the political party status quo in the states and guarantee the election of the President for a second term in office. The evidence is clear that given, genuine democratic system, the people of Plateau State would have elected a Governor other than Joshua Dariye.
The third issue is that, in the process of declaring the state of emergency, the President also indicted the entire political leadership of the state as a failure.
The lesson for the Nigerian people is that the moment we see events, people and situations only from ethnic and - religious perspectives, we remain part of the problem and not part of the solution. Some of the people that supported the declaration of a state of emergency in Plateau State and the removal of the Governor and House of Assembly knew the action was unconstitutional in both letter and spirit. They knew the President went too far and they knew he did not exercise due care and attention before using his last constitutional weapon or option. They took positions based on religion and ethnicity and supported an action that ought to have been condemned.
Neither was it done because it would resolve the conflict or enhance democratic processes. It was not even done because there were no other alternatives. It was done because the President was under pressure to do something in the face of the violence and the glaring incompetence of his until-then political ally. But, as a military man with little vision, lacking understanding of the’ complex competing issues and considerations, and bereft of the kind of statesmanship, willpower and stamina necessary for solving difficult problems, the President chose to employ an authoritarian mechanism as his reaction. He chose to be seen to act rather than to act well and in the process damaged democratic development, clouded the real issues at stake in Plateau, created a dangerous precedent in the new ‘democratic’ era and kept Plateau on its rocky road. Effectively, he placed a plaster over an open wound and hoped it would staunch the flow. It has not.
The options open to the President and the people are now perhaps more difficult than they were in April. When November arrives, the state of emergency will not have achieved anything more than to temporarily stop the violence, something that should have been achieved by far less dramatic means than extreme executive action. The only realistic option for attempting to address the problems in Plateau state – though it may be long, complex, challenging and require sacrifices - is for us to return to the path of constitutionalism and solve problems of governance by exercising the democratic institutions with due care and attention. A fire brigade approach cannot work. Exercising those institutions will strengthen them and set a precedent for democratic problem solving that is unfortunately still a little understood process for our nation’s leaders.
Festus Okoye, Esq.
Executive Director Human Rights Monitor
