Daily Independent Online.
*
Wednesday, June 16, 2004.
Obasanjo told me not to criticise him in
public -Shinkafi
Is it true that you have dumped ANPP?
I would like to correct an impression that I have
dumped the party. I have not dumped the party. I am still a member, but what I
have said is that, I would be more useful to the party, for now, as a floor
member. So much has happened and is happening to the party that I felt I should
disengage from two institutions of the leadership of the party (i.e. the Board
of Trustees and the National Executive Council).
Floor membership is a potent weapon of contribution
in any political arrangement. You don’t need to belong to the Board of
Trustees or National Executive Committee to contribute. Ronald Reagan, of
blessed memory, was a floor member of The Republican Party, so was Abraham
Lincoln, so was, more recently, Bill Clinton, and so was Eisenhower. In fact,
the latter was even drafted into the presidential race, on the eve of
convention; so this business of Board of Trustees is not what makes the fun and
glamour of politics. The fun is to assist in producing a virile and effective
party, whether in or out of the Board.
The insinuation in some of the reports that I dumped
the party as a protest against the emergence of General Buhari as the
presidential candidate in last year’s election is very unfair because I
played a very critical and central role in crafting the consensus arrangement
that produced Buhari as the candidate. That accusation ignores the fact that I
had the opportunity to produce a different outcome at the convention by
collaborating with a southern aspirant to form a ticket, a more electable ticket
for the party, but my own reading of the convention was to make sacrifices
because I already had leadership thrust upon me and it would not be decent if I
had turned into a contestant under that circumstance.
The 2003 convention was not where the party wronged
me. It was the one that was to produce a new chairman, particularly as it
concerned Senator Dan Saidau, whose “crime” was that he was too
close to me and because of that he would not be a fair chairman. And in the
end, the party was the loser because it exposed a lot of things. If I wanted to
leave the party, that would have been the opportune time because my person was
made the issue at the convention.
Those
that decamped from the PDP and other political parties are occupying all the
key positions including the chairmanship of the BOT and that of the party
itself, among others today. What does that say of the original founders of the
ANPP?
You started with a good description of the prevailing
scenario within the ANPP and now you’re trying to suggest that this state
of affairs is the fault of the founding fathers. I don’t think that is
fair. You have to look at the dynamics of the ANPP, which makes it possible for
this kind of things to happen. And in any party, whose dynamics make for the triumph
of those that decamped from other parties, then some thing is fundamentally
wrong; not necessarily with the founding fathers, but maybe as a result of
infiltration, that is, somewhere along the line, the party was infiltrated.
That’s a better area of enquiry than to start looking for the explanation
from the angle of desertion of some of the founding fathers of the party or why
those who remained have decided to take the back seat.
The
governors also played a crucial role in the previous conventions. As it is
right now, what influence do they still wield bearing in mind that they have,
largely, run their second term?
Where did you get this idea that they have run their
second term and are not likely to play any other significant role in the party?
Well,
the rumour is that many of them are nursing the ambition of crossing over to
other parties especially the PDP.
They don’t have to. There’s a debate
about third term generally and you don’t expect the governors to sit and
watch. If there is a debate at the federal level, it’s going to have
ramifications at all levels. But
let’s come back to your question. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)
governors committed the original sin of influencing elections and conventions.
It was at the PDP convention where Chief Sunday Awoniyi was aspiring to lead
the party that the bad example of State governors controlling delegates first
became manifest. And later, our own (ANPP) governors, consciously or
unconsciously, bought the idea, and even worse, the AD, where they ended up
having two conventions because of the influence of state governors. So, let us
always look at the origin of these things. Don’t forget that all of these
were happening at a time the governors were just governors-elect or had just
received the mandate of their people. And naturally, anyone who has been in
government for four years has his influence on the party at state and national
level and that influence is bound to increase with time because these are
parties that depend a lot on government for their funding, sustenance and
patronage. So, all you would probably plead is for there to be civilised
behaviour and democratic notions of fairness in the manner this tremendous
influence of the governor is exercised on the party as the vehicle through
which he is governing but more importantly, through other sympathisers of the
party, who voted for him, whether members of the party or not.
There’s
an army of younger elements emerging for the presidency in 2007. What’s
your opinion about their emergence in the context of the likely tie that may
result from the clash of the former military President Ibrahim Babangida and
the current vice president?
Well, you were an eyewitness because you were a
prominent member of our campaign; you were an eyewitness to the doctrine of new
breed in Nigerian politics. I don’t think it was sincere. It was merely
meant to use the new breed to overthrow the old breed, so that the new breed
would be available directly to the military instead of through the
instrumentality of the old breed. And like most of those things, it
boomeranged. When these young men were encouraged to disrupt their loyalties to
the old breed, and were dealing directly with the military authority in power,
they learnt the ropes from the military officers, who in any case were their
age mates. The new breed learnt very quickly and saw through the tricks of the
military and decided to become their own masters. So when, especially in the
late 1990’s after the unfortunate death of General Sani Abacha, another
opportunity presented itself, the new breed had become very virile, very
wealthy, and very skilled and, here and there, they assumed various positions
of tremendous influence and assisted in installing some of the pillars of
governance nationwide, whether as governors or President or Speaker of the
House of Representatives or President of the Senate. And I think now those who
engineered the mutiny, if I may use that word, have realised their mistake and
I am glad they are going to give those who thought they could use them against
other people an extremely tough time. They are going to use the tricks they
have learnt to manipulate, to infiltrate and out-manoeuvre … and I think
the chances are that they would spring surprises.
All we should insist on is for them to respect our
positions and rally together to ensure that the new leadership comprising
fundamentally of the new breed politicians behave and move the nation forward.
That
sounds like a vote of confidence on the new breed. Are you saying that having
learnt the ropes they have also become adroit and politically skilful?
Yes, they are skilful, very skilful and let’s
face it, people thought it was enough if you disrupt the loyalty patterns in
the Skinkafi group, for instance, and take away the younger elements and dump
Shinkafi. Okay, you could have done that and it was not so easy in our group
because those group loyalties were shattered and the new breed elements were
available to be used as indiscriminate canons against threats from the old
breed. But we are luckier because we have kept our political family together
because from the beginning, it was genuine and there was a lot of free air,
there was a lot of respect for supremacy of ideas, whether from the young or
old. At one time in 1999, we even agreed to allow members of the group to go to
whatever political parties they wanted and that didn’t stop us from
coming together once in a while, to the surprise and astonishment of others in
the polity.
That
brings up the issue of Dr. Peter Odili, the Rivers State governor who is
obviously a member of the “Choice Group” and a product of the new
breed playing a key role in the current administration. When he was given a
chieftaincy title in Ile-Ife, the Choice Group, under your leadership, played
an active role. What does that suggest?
In offering the title to him, His Royal Majesty, the
Ooni of Ife used Dr. Hameed Kusamotu as a vehicle of communication. Yes, Peter
is a genuine and authentic Choice Group man and the western zone of the group,
felt that since he is coming from the South-south to the western zone to be
honoured by one of the most prominent traditional rulers of the zone for what
he (Peter) has for the indigenes of other zones in his state (Rivers), they
decided to rally round him and ensure that he was giving a rousing welcome. The
idea was conveyed to me and I willingly consented to it and also participated
in some of the major arrangements.
I
was going to say that because of the roles your group played in the
arrangements, the newspapers are speculating that there is a possibility that
you’re going to run with…
I know where you are going, in fact, one newspaper,
quite imaginatively was finding a nexus not just as in a ticket but as two friends,
or two people who are in the good books of President Obasanjo. The thing with
me vis-à-vis President Obasanjo is that at his worst moment, I rose up
to speak favourably of him. Now, he is president, once in a while, I find
reason to criticise him and in his characteristic manner, he despises public
criticism from people who have access to him. In our private moments, he says I
shouldn’t criticise publicly but I should come and force his door open
and make such suggestions privately. Recently, he appreciated that in my
position; there must be a blend between fiercely going public and contributing
in private.
The
incessant hike in the price of petroleum products is creating a lot of
instability in the economy. Right now a strike called by the Nigeria Labour
Congress is on going. What’s
your comment?
The strike has been called off today, but in the
course of that strike, a lot of information came out, which if it had been
harnessed skilfully, would have led to averting the crisis. In the persons of the
Minister of Information Chief Chukwuemeka Chikelu at the ministerial level, and
at the level of the Presidency, Mrs. Remi Oyo, who is a professional and Femi
Fani-Kayode, who inherited the skills of politics and communication, which is
in his lineage, the president has a good team. So if you combine these
resources skilfully, they can communicate with the nation adequately on the
positions of government. And some of the information that came out during the
strike, such as that the refineries have restored capacity by up to 42%; such
as the effect of deregulation on prices; such as the changes in the policy of
suppliers between the NNPC and the marketers and so many things, the government
could have sat down with the marketers and labour to agree. They shouldn’t
have waited for the courts to force agreement between them. So that, in the
end, you’re not going to need the near-anarchy situation of labour
officials patrolling petrol stations and forcing prices on the distributors, or
using the police as an enforcement. It should have been possible to work out a
voluntary arrangement concerning pricing between NNPC and marketers and between
them and labour. And then tell the nation. As I said, all these information
were available all the while, but unfortunately, the ordinary person may not
even be the one who watches television, yet all these information came out
during the strike on television. There’s a good team of information
managers available to government, which it is not using effectively.
This
strike was a very popular one. When I was at the National Assembly, I noticed
that even the workers there were supportive.
Again, as I said, we are in a situation where
salaries are not promptly and regularly paid and where the average worker is
therefore in the kind of situation in which the slightest whisper of strike
offers its own attraction and that was what happened. But as I said, if there
are good information on NNPC, marketers and buyers and all these are put out in
detail, a calendar of price changes can be agreed upon. That way, this and the
previous strikes could have been avoided.
The same mechanism of talking and dialogue, used in
ending the strike was available all the while. Why do we have to wait until
there’s this odium of strike and all its negative consequences before we
start talking?
The
President has a lot of special assistants, personal assistants, etc, leading to
some form of duplication of roles. Is it helpful that we are having so many
employees who are not being adequately utilized?
The tradition of presidential system is that when an
elected president comes into office, he comes with his programme, his campaign
programme, the party’s programme and he meets with the national
bureaucracy. This bureaucracy had served regime after regime in the past,
including the one that lost the election. So, the new president comes in with
the anxiety to ensure that he makes input of his campaign programme into
governance, which he may feel, invariably that the established bureaucracy may
not be up to the task. So he may resort to his advisers etc.
In the specific situation about the current
information management, what I was saying was that we are lucky we have a
minister who instantly summons credibility and confidence in the bureaucracy.
In addition, we are lucky also, with two other people in the presidency, one of
whom is a thorough, professional and the other a gifted communicator. So, with
these three, if state policy encourages these three to convey information about
governance to the public, there’s nothing that prevents them from making
a success of communicating with the public. But the problem seems to be that
they are not having enough to say or some of the most serious things they
should be saying, they are not the ones saying them; other people are the ones
talking; so in the end, it doesn’t add up to the good of the
administration.
You
earlier mentioned Ronald Reagan, who had just passed on. What would you say of
his era?
Like most of the obituaries and tributes have
attested to, he was a man of firm convictions. Again, that’s the beauty
of the presidential system. He was able to execute his convictions, and
policies within, sometimes, a very reluctant bureaucracy. But he was the
elected president and the system is mature, he was able to carry, even those
who doubted his purposes, along in making those laudable achievements as
president of the United States.
One of the tributes to him said that, even people,
against whose advice he was acting came round to see his point of view and to
support him on major issues like attitude to communism, and how to end the cold
war. He knew the CIA was there, he knew the State Department was there and of
course that the Pentagon and the armed forces were available; but fortunately,
it was one-to-one contact with Gorbachev that he used most effectively, in
fighting the menace of the cold war. And in one of the tributes, I think, it
was that of Margaret Thatcher, who said that what he did was to end the cold
war without firing a shot. She also said that Reagan, not only ended the cold
war without firing a shot, but he asked his enemy to come out of his fortress,
so that “two of us can talk”. And it does happen in confrontations,
you stop the shooting, come out of the trenches and talk.
Obviously,
from what we’ve said this evening, you are a strong advocate for dialogue
in all circumstances. Would that be a correct assessment of your person?
I am a strong advocate of dialogue and communication
because that is the only way of resolving human conflicts, even wars, including
the Vietnam War and some of the lesser conflicts in the Third World. At the end
of the shootings and confrontations, dialogue has always been the instrument of
stopping carnage and destruction.
Talking
about carnage, Iraq is in turmoil right now. Are we likely to see that
confrontation ending in dialogue?
Yes, dialogue in the classical sense, not dialogue
under occupation because Iraqis are a very, very proud people; occupation by
whomever, whether America or Saudi or Jordanians, or Iranians would never work
in that area. They have a very proud history; all through their history, they
have resisted invaders. No one has ever had it easy with them including Saddam
Hussein. So, there can only be dialogue in freedom not dialogue under
occupation.
