|
PDP has not zoned presidency
for 2007-Venatius Ikem
Venatius
Ikem, is a lawyer and national publicity secretary of the People�s
Democratic Party (pdp). In
this interview with Correspondent
Chuks
Ehirim, Ikem speaks on Ojukwu/SSS face-off, Asari Dokubo�s parley with the
Federal Government, agitations for a Sovereign National Conference and the
contentious power shift in 2007,
among other national issues.
Excerpts:
You
were quoted recently to have advised Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu to
report to the SSS because, according to you, nobody is above the law. But
what a lot of people are quarrelling with is the fact that the invitation
to the man was verbal and up till this moment they have not explained to
him why they want him to come. Probably your party has some information
that Nigerians don�t have. Are you aware of why they want
him?
Definitely,
not. We don�t interfere with security issues. We are strictly a political
party and our major concern is to aspire to govern, not to, directly as a
political party, interfere in the operations of government
agencies.
Having
said that, we are only making a general statement. With due respect, even
if it is not President, subject to whatever other official immunities that
office enjoys, we expect that if the SSS invites him, he will respond. I
imagine that apart from dramatising this, many leaders of his stature have
been invited in the past.
And
I am sure nobody usually dramatise it before the press and everybody. I
mean, how else do you know why they are calling him? Apart from reporting,
I expect that when you report, that you will be confronted with
information available to the SSS. So to my mind, we are turning round the
same issue. You report, you get informed why you are invited.
Some
people quarrel with the fact that the SSS, in spite of the fact that we
are in a democracy, has continued to be secretive in its mode of
operation.
The
SSS, by its establishment, is a secret intelligence outfit. Of course that
is why it is not uniformed. It is not the police, it is not the army
either. Even in the police, their secret arms still operate covertly if
you like, because of course, to unearth security information, you don�t
have to be so overt in your operations. So I mean, it�s begging the issue.
All over the world, security agencies operate secretly.
Others
are equally saying that there were people in the past who had committed
what they regard to be crimes against the state but the SSS looked the
other way. For example what happened in Anambra State where the governor
was kidnapped.
The
SSS does not get involved in overt crimes. That is the job of the police.
It is the job of other agencies. They get involved in, well, I don�t know
much about security, let me concede that. But my understanding, my
impression of the SSS is that they are into more covert security than
arresting people for crimes committed and all that. And I am not aware
that they have alleged that any crime has been committed by, with due
respect, Dim Ojukwu.
The
issue is that probably they have information that he needs to clarify one
way or the other. Probably it could even be in his own interest, for his
own security. I said refusing to go does not solve any problem. Now it is
becoming a national affair that somebody is invited. May be because he is
a national figure?
And
the popular speculation is that may be what he is being invited for has to
do with corporate existence of the country, with regard to the interview
he granted NEWSWATCH. But another school of thought is thinking that what
is happening now in Rivers State will affect more the corporate existence
of Nigeria. And I want to find out from you, as the spokesman of this
party, the two groups fighting in Rivers State, Ateke Tom and Asari
Dokubo, are both members of your party. What is the party doing to resolve
the crisis going on there?
I
am not aware that they are members of the PDP because membership of the
party is based in the ward. We can only verify that from whatever ward
they come from. Having said that, this crisis in Rivers, we must see it as
such without mixing it up with any other issue.
Talking
about what the party is doing, definitely that is not a party crisis. It
is crime and we expect that the agencies responsible for that will handle
it. I think that is the much I can say, because we don�t have to. If a
party member is committing murder somewhere, the party doesn�t need to go
there to interfere because the man is a member of the party. If a party
member is committing one traffic offence in another place, the party
doesn�t get involved. I think definitely that is not party affair. We
manage issues as they relate to the party, not members in their individual
capacity or individual endeavours. That definitely is out of our
scope.
But
in his various media interviews, Asari has been alleging that he worked
for Governor Peter Odili and that the point of departure came after the
2003 elections which were rigged for President Olusegun Obasanjo and that
the agreement was that the election should not be rigged for the President
in Ijaw areas. But that this was done. That was the point where they
disagreed and Odili started chasing him. Do you have any comments on
this?
I
can�t comment on that. It (Dokubo case) is like playing the Baba Fryo coin
all over. Everybody knows that who gets out of hand begins to drop some
big names here and there or big issues for protection. I think we must be
very discerning here when we begin to analyse information from people who
are obviously committing heinous crimes. We must actually be discerning,
particularly when they are dragging names of highly placed government
officials in the mud.
The
truth is that not only PDP members worked for election. In an election, in
a general election situation, different interests get involved. People may
be in public service, in the academia, whatever, they usually get involved
in politics. May be the criminals too. But that does not provide the
platform for everybody to say eh, we have a point of negotiation with
either a governor, a president or a point of departure. I think we are
taking these things too far. Having said that, we appreciate the peculiar
problems in the Niger Delta, especially because we are aware that some of
these problems have direct relationship with economic survival.
And
bunkering and so many other illegalities are going on in the Niger Delta.
From the briefings we have got, we understand that much of it have to do
with territorial control of criminal groups and all that, may be some of
them dove-tailing to some bit of politicking and all that. So to most of
us, the summary of what we see is that some people are looking for some
attention.
May
be they have some involvement in general issues like politics, not
definitely as political leaders because we would have known them as people
holding leadership positions in the party, which they are not. So if you
just played role like any other card-carrying member, if you acquired one
in your ward, it doesn�t promote you to the level of negotiating major
government issues and power sharing like they seem to be
claiming.
But
the thing appears to be getting out of hand. A few days ago, it was
reported that the President of Ijaw National Congress alleged that
security agents sent to get rid of these people are employing the use of
chemical weapons. I suppose that is a very serious charge. I don�t know
how the party sees it.
Like
I said, there are things that are security matters. I mean, on that we
could comment, but I don�t see, there is no such escalation of hostilities
that would ever warrant the use of chemical weapons in a thing like this.
Sometimes, people just want to raise alarm, to attract attention and we
have seen a lot of that in the Niger Delta. I believe Nigerians are more
discerning than that.
So
what has been the effect of chemical weapons on the people there? Or are
they immune to chemical weapons so far? Because we have not heard any news
or anything that suggests using chemical weapons anywhere in this country.
You don�t just use chemical weapons and expect that the effect would not
be felt immediately.
I
think sometimes we wonder too far on issues that we know we are just
raising so that we can attract attention, may be even international
attention, forgetting that it is not even good enough for ourself as a
country.
Of
late, your party had waged a number of battles to save its highly placed
members, especially those in government, from embarrassment. El-Rufai is
one of them. He came to the party, pleaded for forgiveness from the Senate
and the National Chairman (Audu Ogbeh) equally did the same, even before
him. But in doing that, the Chairman praised the work of the Senate�s
Public Accounts Committee, in the probe it carried out on El-Rufai�s
tenure in the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE).
He
commended them and that committee found El-Rufai guilty but he still went
ahead to plead for the man to be forgiven. Doesn�t that amount to double
standard, for a party that claims to be fighting
corruption?
Definitely
not. I think you are mixing up issues. There are two issues here. One, the
committee report, but the critical issue that brought about the stand-off,
though arising from this issue, was his comments on the report.
Yes,
the party got involved because I think that is the role we expect the
party to play, a role the party has been playing whenever there is such a
friction that could affect the operation of government as it concerns the
two critical arms of government, the executive and legislature. It is the
responsibility of the party to always harmonise the interests, play
fatherly role and make sure the crisis is resolved.
That
is what the party did. But the substantive issue of the report is not
subject of that controversy. It will go through its normal process. Of
course, the chairman had to commend the legislature because we expect them
to do their job, that nobody is beyond certain checks and balances. They
seem to be living up to their responsibility of oversight functions on the
executive and all that.
So,
definitely that is commendable and so the chairman did commend them. The
political dimension that led to the party�s involvement, of course, may be
it was unexpected from the minister, may be it was just a flippant comment
that he thought would go like many of such talks.
It
was unfortunate because it went beyond the committee and was taking on the
entire democratic institution to the dust bin and we frowned at that.
In-house, we frowned at it but it is not enough to hold the government to
ransom while demanding the head of anybody because he may have erred. It
is the same way we offend God. If God who has the power of life over all
of us has to hack down everybody when he sins once, then probably there
will be no human beings alive. So constant forgiveness in every religion
is what keeps us going and we apply that in our normal life. Like me, as
Christians say, God forgive us as we forgive those who offend us. So it is
important that we learn forgiveness.
So
have they (Senators) finally forgiven him?
Well,
I don�t know that but I think that now that the thing is lying low, you
journalists should know better.
But
if such thing happens, you should hear first.
No,
you tell us. Now that the thing is no longer being played up in the press,
we take it for granted that he has been forgiven. Again, government
business has continued since then unabated.
I
had to ask this question because in the past, once the party puts its foot
down, its members at the National Assembly are automatically whipped into
line.
That
is why I am assuring that that exactly is what happened because we have
not heard from the press again that there is still such crisis.
May
be they want to continue with the war secretly?
(Laughs)
There is no war that is fought in secrecy, certainly not a political
war.
Another
minister, after El-Rufai, became engrossed in another controversy. Mrs.
Ngozi Okonjo�Iweala, minister of finance, came to your party�s
headquarters. During that visit, she denied reports in the media, that
part of the excess crude oil money had been spent. Ironically, a few days
later, she was at the National Assembly, House of Representatives, to be
specific, where she owned up that part of money had been spent. How do you
reconcile that?
Well
I was not in the House of Representatives. I was in her briefing.
Information she gave us, which was categorical, was that no money had been
spent. I rather stand by what I heard from her. We are billed to meet with
the President soon where we will be taking further briefing and some of
these clarifications would come out.
But
I think she was very candid. I don�t know what else happened in the House
or Representatives. In any case, they have a lot of money so there is no
pressure to spend the excess revenue. Since I was not present at the
National Assembly, though I saw the report, I would rather believe that
may be we are not talking of the same thing. Definitely, she was very
candid the day she briefed us.
And
the party went on to issue a statement. We don�t do that frivolously,
accepting that, for the information available to us, we were convinced
that money from the excess crude oil sales had not been spent.
But
if at the end of the day, the party discovers that what the minister said
does not represent the true picture of things, what would
happen?
Well,
may be we would want to understand the disparity. I think that question
should go to her. Why the double standard, if you call it that? But I
would rather we get to that first. After that, we will be in a better
position to understand.
Now
on the state of the nation. A lot of people are alleging that the country
is drifting. So many crises here and there, in spite of the stronghold the
party has in governance. And a lot of people have offered solution in the
way of a Sovereign National Conference, as a panacea to these series of
crises in the country. What is the position of PDP on the
SNC?
The
PDP is for democracy. We believe you cannot play double standard here. We
are either in a democracy or we are not. Inasmuch as we know that there is
a sitting National Assembly, we don�t know whether that conference you are
talking about will have national issues to address, and if we do so within
the confines of a democratically elected National Assembly, that is quite
representative.
Bringing
another conference or how do I call it, conjuring another conference that
would talk sovereign or no sovereign, when we all accept that at least we
have moved a few steps forward in terms of attempting, no matter how odd
it is, to democratize our governance, is to request that we take several
steps backwards.
As
far as we are concerned, if there are national questions to be addressed,
they should be addressed by our duly elected representatives.
So
what you are saying is that those who are clamouring for it are not making
any sense?
They
are making a lot of academic sense, but I don�t think they are making any
political sense, in terms of what we have going for us in this
much-fought-for democracy that we have.
What
is your position on power shift?
Well
I think this is healthy politicking. I like to see it as the level of
interest that Nigerians have shown in their political affairs, which is
quite commendable. That some of our very experienced people in the
military, in the industries, in politics are beginning to show deliberate
and concrete steps towards saying they want to lead, to me it is quite
positive.
In
1999, people were too skeptical to come out. Those who came in, may be in
the local set up could not expand too much of the opportunities in 2003.
We expect that by 2007, there will be larger room because the incumbency
factor was too strong in 2003. In 2007, I see more people showing
interest, many more credible people if you like, showing active interest
and participating in public affairs and all that.
To
me, I think is quite positive, retired generals all over the place
agitating, demanding to have a voice in the affairs of this country, I
think that we can�t have it better. So rather than seeing it as a threat
to 2007, I see it as what will lively up our politics, throw up more
issues for debate. Already, they are talking about North-South power
shift. Those are the issues. When we critically examine them, what exactly
are we talking about power shift here? Does the mere transmission of power
from North to South and South to North alone amount to true representation
or does that alone guarantee us the sustenance of this democracy? There
are those who said that in whatever condition, they were thinking of a
situation where power could go round the � not even the federating units�
but what they created and called geo-political zones.
Now,
in the true sense of going up North, does it satisfy that? Or are those
who are marginalized still as marginalized as they were before we started
this process? So the debate is, how are we going to do it as many people
hope that the South-South zone is going to have its turn? We have never
had a shot at all, at it. So if you throw up the issues for debate, I
believe that in debating them we will come with solutions to our
problems.
So
the party has not taken a stand on it?
No,
the party has said that at the appropriate time, it will take a stand. I
think that is the language that you have consistently heard because
officially, it is too early for us to take this kind of decision and we
have never done that before. When we get closer to that we will sit down
and say, �where are we going?� I am sure we will soon do that.
| 
