The People’s
Voices Were Muffled
By
Uche Chukwumerije
March 6, 2006
Transparency and democracy seem to be the mantras of the leadership of the Joint
Constitutional Conference Review. How transparent and democratic were the public
hearings recently concluded by JCCR? As a citizen, I am entitled to proffer an
answer. I also have the extra advantage of being a participant in the exercise.
I want here to review what happened in and around my duty post in South-West
zone. From this “empirical” start, I shall attempt an appraisal of the whole
national exercise.
Excellent Mobilisation
If the scoreline in public hearing is success in mobilising rallies of the
faithful, maximum points must go to the organisers in the South-West zone. It
was an excellent campaign rally. The expansive premises of the state Assembly
were alive with drumbeats, praise songs and hoots of buses decked in Peoples
Democratic Party colours and banners proudly proclaiming local government
identities. The hall, venue of the public hearing, was a picture of
choreographed hierarchy. If you took away the presenters and their aides, the
audience was an enlarged state executive council, a combined session of state
legislatives, party faithful and state executive councils. A well-packed gallery
complemented the government command performance. Almost all the governors or
their deputies were there. If there was more in this exercise than would meet
the eye, the expansive humility of the host Governor, Col. Olagunsoye Oyinlola (rtd.)
and the loud irrepressible humour of Governor Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State (Yess-ooh!)
dominated the environment with a contrary message.
Presentations In The First Day
The first day of the public hearing was like a scene from Mussolini’s file-past
of popular fronts. After ritual affirmation of their positions on desired
constitutional amendments (with support of three-term agenda as the expected
climax in a comedy) by the states, ostensibly non-government groups began to
file out. The Chairman worked from a pre-qualified list of groups. On paper,
that is. The deft moves on the ‘high-table’ and the orchestrations of the floor
managers - a party big boss (sitting right behind me) and two governors -
silently endorsed speakers or improvised appropriate substitutes from a reserve
bench of faithful loyalists. For instance, the last two serial numbers in
Chairman (Ifeanyi) Ararume’s list were blank. But, not to worry: names were
invited at the appropriate time to read out pro-third term pronouncements! n
orchestra would not have produced a better symphony. A few discordant notes -
evidently, designed to provide the kind of tribute, which the vice of hypocrisy
pays to the virtue of transparency - were allowed. Afenifere, for instance. But
the sour note that went beyond allowed boundary was that of Barrister Bamidele
Aturu, whose direct hit (the governors and Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission) promptly drew the ire and hammer of the Chairman. It was like a red
cloth before a bull.
Two Verdicts
Over twenty groups (made presentations) on the first day. How genuinely
independent were most of these civil society groups? When were they established
and where were they based? What was the extent of their consultations with their
constituents? When government papers began with “we, the people of …… state”,
was the basis of the popular verdict clarified? No! The Chairman did not allow
members to ask probing questions for necessary clarifications, contrary to Rule
5 of the Procedure guiding our exercise. I reminded him of this duty on two
occasions - 8.45 am in his hotel suite and later after the presentation of the
National Association of Nigerian Students man. But for obvious reasons, he
preferred his coaster-roller approach, speeding the hearing to a desired
verdict. It was only when the session adjourned for break and we came outside
the garrisoned walls of the venue that we saw the massive evidence of another
verdict. Leaders of dozens of groups besieged some of us (Hon Idris and me)
angrily protesting their forced exclusion from the hall. The official excuse,
they complained to us, was that they did not make written applications. But this
excuse was lame, because subterfuge of improvisations has enabled the Chairman
to feature groups who were not pre-registered as I hinted earlier. Indeed, at
least one speaker had no written memorandum. In any case, two of the excluded
groups have in fact applied for registration and have submitted two copies of
their memoranda. The excluded groups were over 25. This was more than the number
that were allowed to present papers on the first day. There is also one
noteworthy point about the excluded groups: All of them were against the
third-term agenda. A tale of two verdicts in one zone: one from government
hearing, and the other from public (un) hearing. If I dwelt too long on the
first day, it was because the day was the high point of the two-day exercise.
The Chairman of the first day merits the highest accolade. Someone should
recommend him for a GOCN in next year’s Honours’ list!
Second Day
The second day began as an anti-climax. Weariness has set in. I went into our
bus and took a seat at 9 am, waiting for scheduled departure at 9.15 for the
venue. By 9.40 am, only three of us were in the bus. Where were the other
twelve? One person volunteered an analysis: it might be that the others were
bored, like invigilators assigned to supervise an examination session whose
results have already been computed and announced!
The session of the second day, managed by co-chairman Hon. (Bawa) Bwari, Chief
Whip of House of Representatives, was a more credible act of transparency, even
if the big guns had already been rolled out and the battle had been lost and won
on the first day. Too little medicine, too late. There was still a pre-qualified
list, but some of the scheduled speakers did not show up. The Chairman did grant
time to panel members to ask questions for clarification, in accordance with our
rules. But the most glaring cases of doubt have come and gone on the first day.
There were awkward attempts to counter the few discordant (anti-third term)
notes allowed on the previous day. The last speaker, Sheikh Olayinka Ajisafe,
was obviously drafted to counter the anti-third-term stances of two Muslims
bodies which had earlier made presentations. The Sheikh who spoke in Yoruba had
no memorandum. Earlier, one leader of an Igbo association had appeared to
counter the submission of Lagos State that 15million people approved the state’s
proposals. (The Igbo leaders came straight from Chairman Ararume’s breakfast
table and promptly returned to the suite after the hearing). However, the
co-dominion of the first day (the chairmen shared the high table with two
governors) did not work on the second day. The co-Chairman, I can reliably
reveal, rejected all irregular requests.
The public hearing in the South-West zone underlined some points: The two-day
exercise was basically a government outing. The governments have spoken. Most of
the presentations were what Bola Ige (in whose honour the complex of the Osun
State Assembly was named) would dismiss as the fingers of the same leprous hand.
Te second was the fact that the people, kept at bay behind plice lines, have not
spoken. For the two days,the Assembly fortress hosted more armed plicemen than
constitution amenders. Bagdad could not have been better fortified. The third
was that the arguments on third term have become unfortunately personalisd as
“for or against Obasanjo” ultimatum. The loud hurray that followed every support
of third term agenda had a familiar ring of ‘carry go” pesidential campaign.
The National Scene
So far for the South-West zone. Osogbo is a metaphor for the charade that was
attempted throughout the country - with uneven results. True, there were
differences in zonal management - different attitudes in interpretation of rules
of procedure (some were open, others manipulative), different attitudes in
deference to local authorities (some established co-dominion with state
governors while others maintained the independence of the JCCR panel), different
configurations of the weight of local priorities (some emphasised third term
while others were concerned with other issues). But it is difficult to avoid the
general conclusion that if the results in certain zones did not turn out as
neatly computerised as in the South-West, it was not for lack of trying.
Many factors - ethno-religious predispositions, cultural peculiarities,
proprietary sways of political buffs and varying levels of local political
awareness and popular mobilization - combined to feed in varying degrees the
dynamics of popular resistance to the pre-packaged deals being sold them via
political surrogates, in the name of public hearing. Therefore, any
self-congratulation by any third-term zealot who would pretend that the overall
defeat of the proposal by the masses is a vindication of transparency is at best
untutored insensitivity of a low-grade propagandist.
What are the remarkable similarities that run through all the exercises? The
first is the proprietary arrogance of the state governors. The illusion that
every governor - whether for or against third term - can and has become the
royal “we” capsuling the position of the people is so apparent that it has
almost been accepted as conventional wisdom. A cynic, on the contrary, may quip
that the governors are indeed prisoners in a gilded cage: some of the governors
who were compelled by the force of crowd hostility to murmur incoherent
pseudo-intellectual ambiguities at the witness stand quietly submitted memoranda
which are unequivocally pro-third term. The second is the greed and cowardice of
the elite groups. Submissions of most of the pro-third term groups were inspired
by greed and fear. Their new battle song: if you can’t beat them, join them. The
third is the inchoate un-mobilised state of the Nigerian people. If the third
term proposal failed in many states, it was not because of the level of mass
awareness but mainly because of the stubborn strength of local and primordial
resentments.
Dangers Ahead
The dangers ahead are real, potent and imminent. The first comes from the
determination of the spin-doctors to force their plan on the nation. Before the
public hearing, this agenda was a rogue proposal. It tried without success to
smuggle itself through the backdoor into the national agenda. The public hearing
offered it visa. Now, it has made a valid entry into the national agenda. The
spin-doctors, midwives to deformities, will be encouraged to take their fraud to
a higher level of refinement. Their game plan is still unfolding. The second is
the treachery of written memoranda. Whenever government hearing ran into
collision with people’s anger during the public hearing, it sought an escape
route in ambiguity. In at least half dozen instances, government spokesmen and
apologists, frightened by the strength of public opinion, quickly and loudly
said into the microphone something different from what they quietly wrote in
submitted memoranda. This is dangerous.
As JCCR now enters the ‘technical’ phase of computing the number and weight of
proposals, will admissible data include both oral and written positions? How
will admissible data compute the transparently dominant preferences of the
masses themselves, so evident in their spospontaneous loud ovations for
proposals in support of retention of existing constitutional provision on
executive tenure? Response to this question will pose the greatest challenge to
the intellectual and moral integrity of the megaphones of transparency. It is
another ambush laid by the spin-doctors. The battle line is now drawn: third
term agenda has entered the affray. The popular forces must continue to watch
out. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Notes of Senator Uche Chukwumerije from the South-West public hearing in Osogbo,
Osun State.
