In what is turning out to be one battle of destructive dimensions, the collateral damage that would emerge from the confrontation between the pro and anti Dariye camps in the present face-off would further muddy the waters as the two camps continue to dig in. This report presents the issues and personalities, as well as the propaganda in this dirty politics on the Plateau and where it may leave the state.
Like a well scripted play with a good plot, the drama which the declaration of a State of Emergency in Plateau State on May 18, 2004 has become, may eventually snow ball into a dangerous game, the end of which no one can accurately predict.
Perhaps, what has become obvious from the entire saga is that there appears to be a deliberate plan to stop the suspended governor of the state, Chief Joshua Dariye from returning to office after the emergency period lapses its six-month constitutionally recognised period.
Last week’s episode in London on Dariye’s alleged involvement in money laundering allegations might have helped to convince those in doubt that Dariye’s suspension from office was not intended to be temporary after all.
And as expected, the incident became a major topic of discussion within Nigeria and beyond and has produced many schools of thought on the unfolding drama.
First, there are those arguing that the treatment meted to Dariye and the publicity that it attracted did more harm to the corporate image of Nigeria than to Dariye as a person.
They contend that it amounted to “spoiling Nigeria’s bad image”, since the famed corruption of its leaders is no news to anyone home and abroad.
They further submit that whether Dariye is eventually found guilty of the money laundering allegations or not, the damage to Nigeria is far more than it could do to the man at the centre of it all.
In the second group are those who believe hat Dariye as a governor (even though on suspension) had diplomatic immunity, which should have prevented the kind of treatment meted to him.
That there was allegedly no whimper of protest from the Nigeria High Commission in London or the Federal Government back home is being interpreted to mean that some top people had fore knowledge of the incident, or that they instigated or allegedly masterminded it.
Vanguard learnt that following his invitation and questioning by the Metropolitan Police,(or is it arrest and bail?) Dariye contacted the Nigeria Embassy in London to lodge a complaint as a result of which top embassy officials got in touch with Abuja to seek direction on what should be done.
Now, this is standard procedure.
But the officials were said not to have received any go ahead to formally protest the action.
This could be a function of one of two things:
First, it could be that the federal government wanted to distance itself from the perceived recklessness of a governor.
Second, and of high calibre probability is the motivation in a presidential desire to get rid of a fellow party member every which way possible - constitutionally, diplomatically, politically, extra-judicially (at least, as the unilateral suspension of Dariye has proved, as well as the sacking of an elected house of assembly).
There are also speculations that a top politician from the state believed to be behind Dariye’s current travails was in London on the day of the incident. And this has further muddied the waters that he allegedly masterminded media reports of the 80,000 pounds found in Dariye’s hotel room.
But even reported confirmation from Scotland Yard did not mention the 80,000 pounds which remains a mere speculation. However, what remains curious about this tragicomedy is that most of the acts and scenes unfolding are not entirely strange to many followers of events in Plateau State.
The anti-Dariye group have either boasted that events such as are being witnessed now would happen and those sympathetic to him have sounded alarm that plans were on to make them unfold.
For example the top politician referred to earlier and those in his group have repeatedly told anyone who cared to listen, that Dariye would not return as governor. One of those who recently returned to the PDP along with others, some weeks ago told journalists who asked him if he would remain in the party if Dariye returned (as governor) that “it cannot happen.”
Similarly, the top politician in a bid to convince the suspended members of the House of Assembly to withdraw the suit challenging their suspension and agree to impeach Dariye has allegedly vowed repeatedly that Dariye would be arrested “constitution or no constitution” because “we” (i.e. the powers that be) have removed his immunity.
He allegedly further boasted that the National Assembly would not hesitate to by-pass the house and pass a law to remove the governor since national assembly members were vested with powers to legislate for the state during the emergency period.
All these speculations including another alleged boast that the emergency rule would be extended for another six months, had become topics of discussion in many circles in the state. The London drama, to the people of the state, was therefore a mere act out of a full-length play.
Not too long ago, a document authored by one Dr. Stan Gonet was circulated in the state and later published in some newspapers detailing the alleged plans by the anti-democratic forces to truncate the return of the former democratic structures to the state.
Among the alleged plans, as contained in the document, were that Dariye would be framed-up and discredited to prepare ground for his arrest and arraignment in court. Also contained in the alleged plot was the option to eliminate him if all other options failed, all of which many considered rather far-fetched then.
And considering the fact that there were real fears concerning the sudden assassination and assassination attempts on leaders of the PDP, the alleged option of elimination makes it an allegation enjoying the benefits of plausibility.
But with recent happenings, the feeling of ‘nothing is impossible’ and ‘anything can happen’ is setting in among the people going by reactions to the London incident.
The questions begging for answers in all these are: How did Dariye who was considered to be one of the rapidly pro-Obasanjo governors suddenly became such a ‘threat’ that must be destroyed at all cost even at the expense of the country’s image and the democracy which many fought to establish in the country?
Some of those who should know informed Vanguard that Obasanjo might have nothing too serious personally against Dariye as such, but is merely trying to use him to please some interests and personalities whom he owes one thing or the other. The concern, however, is why tactics with scant regard for constitutionality which is the pillar upon which Nigeria’s democracy stands should be employed to forestall his return. Various arguments are also being advanced to support the notion that the president might be using Dariye to settle some political IOUs, even as some people say this may not be entirely true.
According to a source which claims to know, the northern oligarchy which holds Dariye responsible for the killing of Hausa Muslims in Yelwa-Shendam have allegedly told the President that Dariye’s return was not acceptable to them. As alleged, he is to be used as a scape-goat for other minorities who might want to dare the oligarchy and this they allegedly made clear to Mr. President if he wanted to continue to enjoy their support. The second suggestion is the reported bond between the Deputy Senate President, Ibrahim Mantu, and President Obasanjo, which makes the latter do his bidding.
The feeling is that Mantu sees Dariye as a stumbling block to his desire to emerge as the new political godfather of Plateau State in addition to the alleged grievances against Dariye over which he vowed to take his pound of flesh.
Mantu reportedly told many including some prominent people who spoke to him on his problem with Dariye, that the latter had not been according him his due respect as the “Number Five” citizen of the country.
He allegedly complained that Dariye did not accommodate his candidates in the appointment of commissioners and other appointees. An Abuja source alleged that Dariye once told a fellow governor who tried to broker peace between them that his problem with Mantu started from his refusal to give him a fixed amount from the state monthly allocation as some governors are doing for some of their prominent citizens. But Dariye reportedly told him that he could not commit himself to such when he was having difficulties meeting his financial obligations such as payment of salaries.
But could this be really true? On the other hand, there are those who felt and still feel that Dariye deserved the treatment he was getting from Mantu since as they say, they forewarned him that his relationship with Mantu would be his undoing.
Many of them had said and still say Mantu could not have won the senatorial primaries for his re-selection if not for Dariye’s insistence. They claimed that in many of the local governments constituting the Central Senatorial District which Mantu represents, delegates were said to have disclosed that Dariye came personally to tell them to vote Mantu before they cast their votes. It is also unequivocal that Mantu got the highest votes from Bokkos LG, where Dariye’s people gave him block vote at his prompting.
Many therefore feel that if Dariye had heeded their warning to dump Mantu, his current travails which they see as a product of Mantu’s vendetta against him and or his alleged inordinate desire to be the unrivaled political godfather of politics in Plateau State, would have been averted.
But Mantu in a recent interview with a newsmagazine said he parted ways with Dariye because he did not take his advice on containing the spate of killings in the state and virtually painted Dariye as lacking the capacity to provide good governance. Throughout the interview, he never used the word “suspended” as Nigerians were made to believe but kept on referring to Dariye as having been “removed”.
The concern of many, some of them non-admirers of Dariye is why the constitutionally provided procedure for removing him as governor was not explored.
Another question some are asking is why those pushing for Dariye’s destruction politically are not satisfied with merely getting him suspended from office. To these people, the six-month suspension should have been enough punishment if the goal was to make him learn from his mistakes as well as serve as a warning to other governors.
But it was learnt in Abuja that the anti-Dariye forces see him as “too dangerous” to have around as to them he would be a threat to their political game plan given the political structure he has built and the crop of loyal followers that make up his political machine. This is advanced by Dariye’s supporters as the real motive for what they called the desperate attempt to get something to pin on him to possibly warrant his arrest and trial as the London episode showed.
One of them disclosed that after frantic investigations by security agencies the only provable offence so far found against Dariye were the two foreign accounts he had before he became governor but which he allegedly failed to state in his assets declaration with the Code of Conduct Bureau. He hinted that the Code of Conduct Bureau might have already prepared charges against Dariye in this regard and this may be the joker with which to nail him.
One question that many have probably not bothered to ask is what is the status of a suspended president or governor in relation to the constitutional immunity? Can a suspended governor be prosecuted when it is assumed that his immunity still subsists despite his suspension?
This may be for legal minds or the courts to determine in due course.
