Interview

Sheriff Holds The Ace In PDP Crises – Hon Mikko

Published

9 years ago

June 20, 2016

Hon. Bernard Mikko, from Ogoni Area in Rivers State started his political career as a Councillor in 1988, and rose to become acting Chairman of the local government then. That local government, Bori, has now been divided into four LGs of Kana, Gokana, Eleme and Tai local governments. In 1998, upon the death of Abacha then as a member of the defunct Social Democratic Party, SDP, he joined forces in forming the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Where he was elected to the House of Representatives, representing the Kana and Gokana constituency. He served as Special Adviser on Monitoring to the former National Chairman of the party, Dr. Bamanga Tukur from March 2012 to 2014 when Bamanga resigned. He believes it is time to re-position the party for the grave challenges ahead. He spoke with a team of nationallTRAIL editors.

What in your views were the immediate and remote causes of the crises in the PDP? In political theory, they say, it is said power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, the issue of opposition in Nigerian politics is not new and it didn’t start with the PDP and APC. It started in the colonial era when the nationalists fought for the nation’s independence from the British who had the policy of divide and rule as its strategic tool. They handed over to who they felt they wanted. Upon independence they handed over to the people they wanted to rule. Then upon independence, the same divide and rule tactics manifested itself in the party system and even in the entire political system, leading to the collapse of the first Republic when the military took over. Even the military as a very highly disciplined organization anywhere in the world, there were counter-coups, coup de tat and sharp divisions and that division within the system still manifest itself up till this very day. So we can see that the solution to Nigeria’s problem is neither in APC or PDP but in the polity or the system itself. Let me now give why there is an overt political turmoil in the party. Political parties are formed by like-minded people coming together. They share basic ideology but this is lacking in our system. The people that formed the APC, PDP and all these political organizations are just strange bedfellows, not sharing any basic values or ideologies but coming together to wrest power. Before independence, they came together to capture power from the British. After independence, they came together to take over power from the military. That is what has manifested itself. The President that took over in 1999, was virtually out of the political scene, he was packaged by the system just to give power so you strange bedfellows coming together without sharing any values or basic ideology. Now the party has been in power for more than 16 years. We produced three presidents in a row, back to back. With this concept of power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely, so many things were taken for granted. We have a constitution in the party and we have the rule of law that governs society. Because majority of people were in the PDP, and a few were in opposition, they felt might is right and when elected officials make mistakes nobody is bold enough to tell them in them face that sir, I don’t agree with you. You can’t see anyone having any contrary view. You can’t see a Commissioner or a minister resigning his position because of ideological differences. Now, that has led to many party chairmen elected on the platform of the PDP resigning before the end of their tenures. That is because we had a strong block that became so very powerful under the second term of Obasanjo’s administration apparently because he was looking for their support in his third term bid. So he gave them a lot of powers. When he lost the constitutional amendment that would enable him a third term run, Yar’adua that took over from him couldnt sustain the tempo because of his illness so the Governors Forum became the group that filled the gap standing between the Nigerian people and governance. They became a rallying point of authority. You would remember the budget issue. Budget has been signed, it has not been signed. Governor Bukola Saraki then was the Chairman of the Governors Forum. So he started briefing Nigerians as if he was de facto President. Then when he left, Amaechi Stepped in. He became so strong that anything they wanted they would go to the President and put pressure on the President and insist that let this National Chairman resign .The would have no choice than to ask him to resign. Now we do not have a President that they can put pressure on that would whip everybody in line. We are an opposition party. If candidates are imposed there is no federal structure within the grip of the PDP to ram the person through an election. So what you are seeing today has been existing. It is just that the choice they made now… they wanted to bring in Modu Sherriff to continue the same impunity but they met a brickwall. If you look back when we lost the general election, the presidential election, the Muazu resigned. Other members of NEC stayed on and in line with our constitution, Article 47 of our constitution, the deputy national President is from the south, is supposed to step in and act for three months. And within that period they would get a substantive Chairman from the zone where the other Chairman came from. But this fid not happen as Secondus stayed on for eight months until Barrister Ahmed Gulak went to court enforcing his fundamental human rights, saying it was unconstitutional for him to remain acting for more than three months. The court on the 16th December, 2015 gave judgemnet that Secondus continued stay was illegal and unconstitutional. That decision was appealed for a stay of execution but on the 3rd of January it was quashed and thrown out paving a way for Gulak to declare himself Chairman of the party after invading the party secretariat. At that point it was now obvious that Secondus can no longer hold to the position of either acting National Chairman or in any capacity. It was at that point they called in Sherriff. From what we understand he was considered about the only person who has the courage and capacity to hold all persons together and do the needful to see the party through transformation and reformation and reposition the party for victory. If you look at the judgment certificate that gave Gulak the judgement, it said that “ Barrister Ahmed Gulak or any other person could take over the position of the Chairman.” But why some people in the party opposed the idea of Gulak was perhaps the need to get a more acceptable personality and some of us conselled that there was no need for him to be selfish by insisting on taking over the party. That is how Sheriff came in. We had our reservations about Sheriff emerging Chairman of the party but
they were smart enough to immediately call the NEC ana formalized his emergence. They conducted election on behalf of the National Convention. At that point, all of us that were in the same camp with Gulak felt since these things have been formalized, and we had the arguments to and forth we have no choice than to tow the party line. They now scheduled a convention to fill in other party positions. From what we understand two days before the Convention in Port Harcourt after they notified the INEC, a court order came from a Lagos High Court saying that the Office of the National Chairman, National Secreatry ang Auditor, would not be monitored by INEC, that was on a Friday. Then on Tuesday, eve of the election, another court order came apparently from Abuja saying that 17 other positions that make up NEC should also not be contested. Sheriff as a law abiding Chairman put off the convention. After putting off the convention, everybody would have been quiet and gone home but what we saw is now the problem of the party. It suggests there selfish interests in this whole drama running through your party ? Obviously, there is so much impunity. Impunity could arise from selfish interests of some undertakers trying to own the party. That is indeed the condition in the party today and most of our stakeholder, most Nigerians don’t seem to understand that for the fact that most of them are Governors doesn’t makeit right. People shouldn’t at Sheriff or the Governors but what the law says. Does the law allow for a caretaker administration or an interim contraption? Those that are pro-Sheriff are saying follow the law. We are not saying that w are supporting Sheriff because it is Sheriff but because we have looked at the law and he merits. We have also looked at the contraption called caretaker committee, we can not also find that one in our constitution. Even in the Military era, the Babangida administration also tried such a contraption by setting up the interim government. He was challenged and Justice Bassey Ikpeme then ruled against, thus ending the illegal reign then. The judgement led to the collapse of the Shonekan administration, paving way for the then government by late General Sani Abacha to start. This exactly what we are seeing in PDP today. It is just that people are not vocal . We have a society that hopes on what they can get from the leadership. The unemployment rate is high. They can’t speak the truth before these elected officials. Initially, it appeared the governors stood behind Sheriff, soon they backed out. Why do you think they moved against him? Like I told you the arguement thet put forward was very suspicious and I was very circumspect until they formalized.At that point I was not looking at who was bringing him but the due process. After NWC adopted him, presented him to nEC, they did an election. If it was merely to complete the tenure of Muazu, then it was not necessary because his tenure ended 26th of March. Then there wouldn’t have been need for a NEC meeting just for him to stay just two, three weeks. When they formalized his stay, at least we agreed but I think there some other forces behind the scene which we have not seen. I have listened to arguments by two of the Governors saying or that the made a mistake by bringing Sheriff. I think they should be punished by this mistake. Nigerians and party supporters should punish them. I have alos listened to the caretaker Chairman who said that the APC is sponsoring Sheriff to cause disaffection through the ranks of the party. It is common sense. If you are loking for APC agents in PDP, you should go and look at those who marketed Sheriff. When he was in his house and they had to convince him for two days, they they may just be the real APC agents, since he did not on his own foist himself on the party without their prodding and support. They showed to NWC, from there to NEC and today they are labeling him an APC agent? They are the real APC agents. I have never heard anywhere that APC agents carried Sheriff from his house and forced on the party either in either in Wadata House or anywhere. Do you think Sheriff deserves an apology for this seeming embarrassment he has been put through? Honestly, they should apologise to him. Because the reasons they are given appear superstitious. It is not based on facts. When you argue on religious matters, you argue based on superstition. These issues they are playing up cant be substantiated. Sheriff has gone to court and is parading the papers supporting all these. So what is there problem? I think if they want this party to move forward they should rally round Sheriff. There two options. Get along with him or persuade him to resign. Who holds the ace as it is now? Sheriff holds the ace.

Interview

INTERVIEW:Tinubu’s Tax Reform Bills Are The Best For Nigeria Now-Mikko

Published

10 months ago

December 7, 2024

Our Reporter

Honorable Bernard Mikko, a former member of the House of Representatives from Ogoni, Rivers State from 1999-2003 spoke to ourcorrespondent the merits of the Federal Governments fiscal and economic policies, especially the controversies surrounding the tax reform bills.
Excerpts:

The Federal Government has introduced far reaching economic reforms, the latest being the four tax reform bills, which seems to be generating controversies, what is your take on the fiscal and economic policies of the Tinubu administration generally?

(1)The Federal Government is an APC government that succeeded itself. From President Muhammadu Buhari to President Ahmed Bola Tinubu. They both campaigned on the change mantra, and the president vowed to continue from where his predecessor stopped. After sixteen years of the PDP administration, Nigerians were desperately in the mood for change. Including the change of economic, social, and political well-being of the people. The APC touted itself as that agent of change. Politics and political leadership set economic renewals and growth, even as the former dwindles, while the latter will still be subsisting. Change, they say, is inevitable in an active society. The tax reform bill is a major policy instrument for socio-economic change. It defines the essence of commitment to our unity, political development, and economic growth. As you know change anywhere in the world comes with innitial pains, apprehension and fear, it creates anxiety and generates controversies, sometimes founded on primordial identities and filial pieties and cleavages, particularly in diverse and multi racial societies like Nigeria. Interestingly, controversy is the nature of politics, and expectedly so in Nigeria, with the introduction of the four tax reform bills as a measure of the fiscal policy of the new administration of President Ahmed Bola Tinubu

Let us talk about the tax reform bills in particular. Would you say they are timely, given the socio- economic realities of the country?
(2) Nigeria inherited a colonial administration based imperial adventure and exploitation. Economic development and social welfare weren’t on the agenda of the colonial regime. Since 1933, there hasn’t been any major tax reform or fiscal policy that will put Nigeria on the path of economic growth and development. So, the reform isn’t only timely but long overdue. With hindsight, there could be no other time than now as time waits for no one. Anytime is God’s time.
But some sections of the country expressed reservations about the bills, alleging that they were targeted to estrange them. Taking a critical look at the bills, is it possible that any one of them may tend to target a particular section of the country?
(3) The so-called reservations expressed by some sections of the country are generally a symptom of the geopolitical nature of our country. Anytime the political leadership of the country is from one section, the opposite section appears to be nervous, sometimes in mischief. Looking at the gradients of the bills, I would say that the economy and the general well-being of the people are the target. But looking critically at the data from NBS provided by the Chairman of the Tax reform committee, Lagos and Rivers states appear to be on losing side, falling from over 80% threshold in the current tax regime to less than 15% in the envisaged fiscal policy administration. This is one of the sacrifices we have to make as a nation going forward, to be our brothers’ keeper in time of need and support.
The Senate had earlier passed the bills for second reading, only to suddenly turn around and set up a committee that will study the bills’ advice on their desirablility or not. As a former lawmaker, would you say the manner with which the bills are being handled are procedurally correct?

(4) The suspension of legislative action on bills by the Senate is strange, authoritarian, and undemocratic. In civilised parliamentary debates, critical stakeholders will be encouraged to present their views , which would enable parliamentary committees to reach a near consensus or cause a vote on clause by clause basis. The Senate presiding officer acted in error by suspending further legislative action and abdicating her constitutional responsibility to the executive arm that formulated the bills and sent them to the National Assembly. In proper parliamentary procedures, once a bill is introduced and read for the second time, it can’t be suspended based on speculations or sentiments expressed outside the chambers but can be withdrawn by the president in consultation with the leadership of the National Assembly. As a politician with cognate parliamentary experience, if the Senate in particular or the National Assembly in general is unable to carry out their functions of law making and representation, let the bills be withdrawn for the executive to conduct a referendum on the desirability of taxation as a major policy item on exclusive list in our Constitution. In this context, states, principalities, and regional governments would be a position to determine their fiscal priorities based on their culture and socio-economic understanding.

Given the contro easy the bills seem to be generating, what would you suggest as the best approach to solving this serming quagmire?

(5) Political debates in most times ignite tensions and controversy. Stakeholders should engage in healthy debate with empirical data to support their claims. Without data and facts, it’ll amount to speculation and mischief. My suggestions are:
(a) allow full parliamentary debates without hindrance in the National Assembly.

(b) If the National Assembly is unwilling to continue deliberation on the bills timeously( as in the case of the Petroleum Industry Bill that lasted over 20 years in the the National Assembly), the bills should be withdrawn, and the issue of taxation presented directly to the Nigerian people through a referendum, not through our representatives in the National Assembly.

Some analysts feel that the general mood of the country could make President Bola Ahmed Tinibus re- election in 2027 suffer as a result of these bills in particular. Do you think that could be the case?

(6) The bait of possible scenarios in the next general election is highly speculative and apparently mischievous. It takes a committed and courageous leader to move a nation out of economic quagmire, and such decisions are unpopular and painful. Patriotic leaders make painful decisions and not smear campaigns that would be appreciated decades later. Our heritage and prosperity provide the foundation of our power, not docile followship, weak leadership, or a fragmented population.

Interview

Kekere-Ekun Appears Before Senate for Screening, Vows to Tackle Corruption

Published

1 year ago

September 25, 2024

milcah

The Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Honourable Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has vowed to implement a zero-tolerance policy against corruption in the judiciary. She emphasized her commitment to integrity and strict adherence to judicial ethics as fundamental aspects of her judicial philosophy.

During her screening before the Senate, Kekere-Ekun assured lawmakers that, if confirmed, she would prioritize the swift adjudication of cases, particularly election petitions. She promised to shield the judiciary from external influences and advocated for enhanced welfare and infrastructure for judicial officers.

Justice Kekere-Ekun also stressed the importance of strengthening national institutions and promoting responsible behavior during elections. She highlighted that these improvements could help reduce the tendency to challenge election results in court.

The Senate commenced the screening process for Honourable Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun for the position of Chief Justice of Nigeria on Wednesday. Prior to the screening, Senate Leader Senator Opeyemi Bamidele (APC, Ekiti Central) moved a motion to reorder the day’s agenda to prioritize her screening. The motion was seconded by Deputy Minority Leader Senator Oyewumi Olalere (PDP, Osun West).

Justice Kekere-Ekun, accompanied by justices from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, arrived at the Senate Chamber at 12:30 PM. Senator Basheer Lado, Special Adviser to the President on Senate Matters, led her into the chamber following the invocation of Order 12 of the Senate’s Standing Orders by Senator Bamidele, which was seconded by Senator Olalere.

On Tuesday, President Bola Tinubu submitted a letter to the Senate, seeking the confirmation of Honourable Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun as the Chief Justice of Nigeria. The letter, read by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, highlighted the President’s nomination in accordance with Section 231(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which mandates the President to appoint the CJN on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and subject to Senate confirmation.

The letter stated: “Pursuant to Section 231(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which gives the President the power to appoint the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and subject to confirmation by the Nigerian Senate, I have the honour to forward the nomination of Honourable Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, CON, for confirmation as CJN. I hope that this request will receive the expeditious consideration of the Senate.”

Justice Kekere-Ekun was sworn in as the 23rd Chief Justice of Nigeria on August 23, 2024, by President Tinubu at the State House, Abuja. She is the second female to hold the position, following Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar (CJN from July 2012 to November 2014). Born on May 7, 1958, in London, United Kingdom, Justice Kekere-Ekun began her legal career at the University of Lagos, where she earned her law degree in 1980, and was called to the Nigerian Bar on July 10, 1981.

Interview

Inspiring Strategic Agility and Leading Successful Change

Published

1 year ago

August 15, 2024

milcah

Ambassador Charles Crawford, an Oxford and Harvard-trained British Diplomat and former British Ambassador to Bosnia and Poland, is renowned for inspiring leaders worldwide to navigate the complexities of geopolitics and volatility. His insights will be shared at the upcoming TEXEM UK Programme, “Strategic Agility and Inspiring Change: Fuelling Sustainable Success,” from August 26 to 29 at Hilton Liverpool.

Lessons from Diplomatic Experience
Drawing on his experience in post-communist Europe and post-conflict reconciliation, Crawford emphasizes that leaders must be adaptable in rapidly changing environments. Reflecting on the challenges faced during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, he advises against complacency, reminding business leaders that favorable market conditions may not last forever. His key lesson: optimism must be balanced with realism.

Leadership Strategies in Volatile Regions
Crawford highlights the importance of understanding both the opportunities and risks of leading in turbulent times. Leaders must be ambitious yet cautious, acknowledging that change initiatives often create winners and losers. He shares a poignant example from Serbia, where underestimating opposition led to tragic consequences. This lesson underscores the need for careful consideration of both allies and adversaries when leading change.

Strategic Agility in Business and Diplomacy
While diplomacy often emphasizes patience and method over agility, Crawford notes that taking smart risks is crucial in both fields. He challenges leaders to balance agility with caution, ensuring that quick decisions do not lead to unforeseen pitfalls. The TEXEM programme will delve into actionable strategies for embracing strategic agility in business, drawing parallels with diplomatic agility.

Communication and Leadership
Effective communication is central to inspiring change. Crawford, with his experience as a speechwriter for world leaders, underscores the importance of motivating followers through words. Leaders should focus not just on sharing information but also on challenging assumptions and encouraging new ways of thinking. Engaging speeches that provoke thought can be more impactful than those offering simple answers.

Learning from Historical Transitions
Crawford’s experiences during the fall of communism and apartheid offer valuable lessons for today’s leaders. He emphasizes the importance of trust and making hard choices in times of chaos. Through the TEXEM programme, participants will gain insights into how historical leaders navigated such challenges and how these lessons can be applied to modern corporate settings.

The programme promises to equip leaders with practical tools and fresh perspectives to navigate change and drive sustainable success.