2007: Only Zoning to North Can Guarantee Peace - Tafida
Senator Dalhatu Tafida learnt the ropes of politics as a personal physician to President Shehu Shagari in the Second Republic. He has since taken a flight from the stethescope profession to become a full-time politician. A high ranking senator from the North-west geo-political zone, Tafida is the Senate Majority Leader. In this encounter with Kola Ologbondiyan, he spoke on the zoning of the presidency in 2007, the state of the Senate, among others. Excerpts
You have been around in politics, the second, third and fourth Republics, how would you assess the present politics, compared to the past? Are we playing democratic politics, the kind of things encountered these days, were they part of politics in the Second Republic? And if not, how would you advise our current politicians?
Well you said Second Republic, Third Republic and now Fourth Republic. First of all, I have to correct you, I was around during the Second Republic, I was working with the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria then, but I was not a politician, but I was around, and I took a keen interest. Third Republic, yes, I was around and then this one. There are definitely differences, marked differences, one, the issue of money has grown, the importance or the place of money has grown from bad to worse. During the Second Republic, money was not very important, if it was important, President Shehu Shagari wouldn't have become a President, then slowly during the third republic, everything money, but not as bad as now when you have people who maybe even during the second republic we didn't know them in politics, yet they came in because they had money, they are everything now, so really things have grown in terms of the place of money from bad to worse. Secondly, party supremacy has also totally changed. During the second republic, party was supreme, they could decide that this is the man who will stand an election and if the party is popular there, he would win without spending anything, now is not the case. The party will say this is the fellow we want, but the man will say no, I don't agree, some others will even connive and more or less go against the party and stand an election, you could see that during the beginning of this republic, that is 1998/1999, the party decided that the position of the president should go to the South, but still, some one or two Northerners vied for it inspite of the decision of the party to zone this thing to the South, that was 1999 and the same thing I think also in 2003. These are not in tandem with what people knew during the second republic, the party was supreme and nobody could have the guts to come out to say he would vie for an office, inspite of the fact that the party has zoned the position to a particular area, but still it happened. There is also general indiscipline of participants this time, I think this indiscipline has arisen because the parties do not have standards, maybe if since 1978/1979, when the second republic started, the system has continued, we would have a standard, we would have disciplined parties and the place of money will be totally minimised or even will not be there. You see what happens in other countries where they work with experience, with hierarchy, with providence in the operation of their parties, you can know that if this man is not there, the next person is this man to occupy that position and so on and so forth, but we don't have it here, maybe because of this short history, maybe this period of instability, but certainly I think we should begin to think of that, we should begin to think of that otherwise we are going to fail, these are some of the differences.
I am surprised that you did not talk about violence.
Well, even during the Second Republic we had violence, as you know we had violence even in the north and some places, but more essentially in the South-west, we had violence also even during the Third Republic, even though the military was seen there, I wouldn't call it a republic, but the military attempted to make it a fourth republic, but they were not sincere, so it didn't work out, there were violence here and there, but the violence now is much more certainly, people are desperate and this again boils down again to the same scenario that there is no party discipline, the question of money is all important, even if you are an armed robber, known and you have the money, you can still mobilise people, thousands around you and even win an election in this era, so the question of money and violence and so on are related.
You said that indiscipline has affected the party. You also pointed out that in 1998/99, some members, inspite of the fact that they knew that the PDP has zoned the position of the presidency to the south, went ahead in the north to contest. There is this argument over where the presidency should go after the reign of President Olusegun Obasanjo. In the face of what you have narrated where do you think the presidency should go in 2007?
Very, very clear, infact it is a simple matter. You know as much as I do that the north really mean the 19 states in the North, of course Abuja if you like, can be said to be in the north, by share location, that is the north. While the south includes those three zones, making up south-west, south-east and south-south, these are the south and the party, PDP, as we know it made pronouncement about zoning, rotation between north and south, so when you are talking of south, you are talking of those three zones, south-west, south-east and south-south, when you are talking of north, you are talking of north-west, north-east and north central, that is all I need to say and I think the presidency, from the party's pronouncement and I think if we want peace, it should move up north, after 2007.
You said if we want peace, the ticket should go to the north, how does that now match up with the position in 1999, where people like Abubakar Rimi contested PDP primaries against Obasanjo in 2003?
No, no, I didn't say that people who still insist they want to contest from the south will not, I will be foolish to think that there will not be any person that will want to contest, but I also earlier on said about party, I spoke about party discipline, if we have party discipline, Abubakar Rimi and maybe one or two others should not have contested, the same thing, if the party is supreme and there is discipline and it is zoned to the north, nobody from the south should contest, that is all I am saying, but if the indiscipline is there and the party is not considered supreme, some people from the south will attempt to contest.
You said if we want peace, that it should actually go to the north. How do you mean? Is it peace in the PDP or the entire country?
No, I am talking of the party, even this zoning, north side, I am talking of the party, our party, I am not talking of the whole country. The PDP is not the whole country, PDP is one of the parties, but of course, it is the party in power, it is the largest party, it is the most influential party and being the largest, being influential, being in government, you want to have harmony, you want to be stable at the party to win future elections, that is what I mean by that.
If it comes to the north, where do you think the slot should be? Does it go the north-east, the north-west or the north-central?
No, this idea, our people should not begin to brood this idea, if it is going to the north, when it goes to the north, the northerners themselves I am sure, I am very sure, will see where best it should be, we should not think of personality, we will think of the north as an entity. When we go there, we will look for the people who we think should lead us better.
You were in the last senate and you are in this one, there is a perception that this present senate is rubber stamping the president's decisions and desires, would you agree with that?
I will totally not agree, we have given facts and figures to show that this senate has been most responsible, this senate has been active, this senate have been most productive, we have given examples of instances where the executive wanted something and we say we do not want and we either make changes on the request of the executive or we even decide not to take the request. For instance, during the 2004 Appropriation, they made a budget, we looked at the thing and we thought of the general interest of the masses, we changed the budget, in the final analysis, even though initially the executive was not in favour of what we were doing, but in the final analysis, when they looked at the thing, the content of the work, they praised us, they said it is the best budget, from the mouth of the Chief Executive of Nigeria, he said it is the best budget ever made. Secondly, the president sent in request for emergency, he declared a state of emergency and he sent a request for confirmation, you know it is a difficult thing, 2/3rd within two days, we looked at this request, we agreed with the president for the evidence we had before us, but we felt the request were not clear enough and we made some amendments on the request and those amendments were upheld, for instance it wasn't clear whether the deputy governor was part of the suspension or not, and we made it clearer, infact we felt the Federal Executive Council should not be making laws for an entity that is a state and that should have had its laws passed by a state assembly, but because the state assembly was suspended, we felt we should be the ones to be making these laws, we made that amendment and the executive accepted it and we can go on and on and on, everything the president brings, we will have one or two inclusion or deletions and the president has magnanimity to accept. Do you call such a group a rubberstamp? We are not like, well, people say I don't talk much, but at least the state legislatures, they don't oppose their chief executives like that, but we do that, not because we want to uphold, but because we said we should do the best we can for this country. We are a group of matured men and women, we are group of men and women who have achieved a lot in our chosen careers, some have been governors, some have been ministers, some have been chief executives of very serious government or private companies and some are senior lawyers in practice and I think we have our own image to protect, so I don't believe that we are rubberstamps, I believe that we have been working in complete harmony with the executive and this is how it should be, we know that we are different, we are aside them, but we also know that aside them, we will not function well or at all not function if it does not relate with the other arms, this is where you know we are doing what we are doing, we are doing that because of the lessons we learnt from the mistakes of others, there were mistakes during the last senate, even the National Assembly and we thought we should learn from those mistakes and improve on this particular National Assembly.
In the course of the debate on the state of emergency, there was a position by Senator Tokunbo Afikuyomi, particularly in the area of amending a proclamation by the president. He said it is constitutionally illegal, but the senate went ahead to make those amendments that you are talking about.
First of all, the idea of proclamation of emergency is constitutional because it is the constitution, it is there under section 305, so what do you want us to bring in or what did we bring in that is unconstitutional?
Those amendments that you mentioned, like the deputy governor was not listed, the senate included the deputy governor's suspension?
Of course this is a democracy, everybody has a right to disagree with others, even if he is the only one, he has a right to disagree, it was good, Senator Afikuyomi is an intelligent person and I am sure he knew what he was doing, but you see, in democracy, you may be the only person speaking the correct thing, but if the rest are not with you, even if they are wrong, you are wrong in the final analysis.
Another pertinent question now making the rounds in the society is why the sudden turnaround of the Senate to clear Aborishade? What is the justification of the senate's reaction after previous rejections?
Dr. Babalola Aborishade was brought in to be cleared and confirmed as a minister, we looked at his past records, including his relationship with members of the National Assembly, we thought it was bad or it could be better, we tried to find out if there were instances of corruption in the operation of his ministry, we did not find any, that is one, secondly, the president, even after we have rejected his nomination still resubmit, we have seen that a number of times in the United States that we are copying, you could reject the nominee of the president of the United States of America, you can resubmit, he can resubmit, maybe in the final analysis we will see wisdom in doing it. In the case of Aborishade, we felt because there was nothing corrupting, nothing criminal about him, his relationship with the legislature was poor and there were promises that these things will be put right and the senators felt, let's give ourselves time to think and meditate, the senators gave themselves time, meditated and felt that well, since the president is the one that would work with this man, and he has resubmitted the name of this person the third time, we felt we are okay, that is all, nothing else.
There are feelers within the Senate that the leadership is slow in taking Senator Mamora's report for consideration because asking Nzeribe to apologise has a boomerang tendency. Do you agree with this?
No, I don't believe so, I believe that the report is well produced, is well researched, they have done a good job and the Senate knows itself, it knows each and every person in the senate and it knows what any other senator can do or cannot do and I believe that report is the best under the present circumstances. You have of course listened to the confessions, how the whole thing started, the various confessions and the place of Senator Nzeribe in the whole saga and I think we will leave it at that.
In the Port Harcourt retreat there were quarrels among senators. In the National Assembly there were quarrels over the sharing formula and the rest of that. What is your leadership doing now as the Senate ends this session and go into another, to ensure that we have a more cohesive senate after all these quarrelling?
I assure you after the latest saga, the Port Harcourt saga, I assure you there will not be any more problem, regarding disbursement, not sharing, disbursement of funds to senators. We felt every senator should be entitled to something to run his office. People think when a senator is allocated some money, that money is meant for his pocket and it is not so, that money is meant to run his office and to pay his staff, to also go to his constituency and do so many things and you know our system, today if you are opening a school an Islamic school or a Western school, till tomorrow, they are doing this, they are doing that, they expect you to go there and contribute and this is what keeps the whole system going and of course you also see that a number of people in your house that will require some assistance. Rainstorm destroyed houses, you have to assist and so on, or fire, these are some of the things, apart from your own staff that you rent and people think that there is need for the members of the National Assembly to at least be assisted to take care of these things, there is no amount, if you are given a hundred million naira every quarter, you find that you will not be able to handle the problem you have, there is no senator that is not spending much more than he is given out of the National Assembly, so we have now found that formula, every senator, based on his responsibility in the senate is going to have something and generally, people have agreed to that particular formula, so we shall not have any more quarrel.
As the majority leader, how will you describe the senate that you are leading?
I hope I will not be selfish, but I think generally, the senate, we are trying to build because it is not just leading, we are trying to build, we are trying to set a standard for others, when they come, they meet a standard and they enjoy and maybe they build up on the standard we tried to build. I think we have not done badly, we met a senate that had no standard, we have been trying to set a standard, as you can see from the number of bills that we are able to pass, as you can see from the other activities that we are able to undertake, for instance the issue of ministerial screening, the issue of ambassadorial confirmation, the issue of confirmation of chairmen and members of government commissions and so on, all these things are not easy, but we are able to do them to the best of our ability, in this short period of just 12 months and I believe the intention and objective of the Senate is that when we come back, by the time it is another June 2nd, or whenever we start with another 12 months, it will be a better result and that is how it should be, we are doing that because we have learnt from the mistakes of others and when you learn from the mistakes of others you are avoiding those areas where there are mistakes and Alhamdulilahi, things are moving fine in the Senate.
|
