President Donald Trump has finally accepted defeat in the recently concluded Presidential elections. This followed the formal affirmation of President-elect, Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory yesterday, January 6. Trump said that the final result: “represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history. “Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th,” Trump said in a statement. “I have always said we would continue our fight to ensure that only legal votes were counted. “While this represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history, it’s only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again.” President Trump still repeated false claims about the election that incited a mob to storm the Capitol. Source: CNN.
Trump and Biden Supporters | Photo credit: France24
Supporters of President Donald Trump of the United States staged mass demonstration today, January 6 in Washington, D.C, clashing with the supporter of Joe Biden and police, resulting in the arrest of six people.
According to the U.S. media, President Trump’s supporters had flocked to Washington from all across the country at the weekend to attend the rally and demand that pro-Biden electoral votes in swing states not be accounted for due to violations in the electoral process.
Fox News reported that a rally yesterday, January 5 night began peacefully but escalated into clashes with people opposed to Trump and police officers, who fired tear spray repeatedly.
Local broadcaster WUSA 9 reported that six people were arrested on charges, including illegal possession of guns and munitions, illegal possession of fireworks, and assault on a police officer.
Abundant video footage from the scene shows police officers lined up next to protesters.
A video caught a white woman punched in the face to blood by a black woman, who she said she believes was a Black Lives Matter activist.
The victim complained on camera about the police officers standing by and doing nothing to contain the attacker. The main rally is yet ahead, however.
U.S. Congress is due to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election later in the day.
Who in the Nigerian political and ecclesiastical circles would not know the then Fr. and now Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah? Lately, he has been in the news.
But this should not be new, given that he is often in the news; what is really new is not just the controversial visit he and his team of National Peace Committee paid to President Muhammadu Buhari but also the view the committee expressed to the President in the course of their meeting with him.
Of specific note is the committee’s position on the President’s handling of the long over-due war against corruption in the country.
In a recent interview with one John L. Allen, Jr – an American journalist and former Vatican correspondence for the well-known US-based National Catholic Reporter (NCR) – Bishop Kukah was reported to have expressed the wish for the “progress” Nigeria must make, in his words, to “find its soul” _(cf.http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/08/24)_ .
He expatiated the rationale behind their visit to President Buhari with specific reference to the President’s fight against corruption.
In the course of that interview, Kukah inadvertently presents his vision or style of ecclesiastical political engagement in the murky waters of Nigerian politics.
Many Nigerians are yet to see through this vision to really understand the interest it truly represents, especially given that these Nigerians have come to accept it uncritically as the correct approach to politics by the Catholic Church in Nigeria.
In other words, Kukah presents us the kind of politics, he believes, will bring about the anticipated progress in the country’s search for meaningful socio-political change for “its soul.”
I wish to join Kukah in this search and hopefully lay bare Kukah’s kind of politics for what I think it is and then proceed to present a different vision of politics that, I argue, will more effectively and meaningfully help the country “find its soul.”
This is an intellectual exercise whose raison d’etre is NOT dogma or faith-related.
I want to believe that Bishop Kukah will at least tolerate from me a robust argument against his position and politics as well as agree that we can politically and intellectually disagree and still be adults enough to remain as friends we have been over the years.
My friendship with Bishop Kukah goes as far back as the mid-1980s when both of us were doctoral students in the area of religion and politics.
He was in Britain and ahead of me while I was in Canada.
Out of his doctoral studies emerged his pioneering work in the field, Religion and Politics in Northern Nigeria since Independence and mine resulted into my first book, A Dangerous Awakening: The Politicization of Religion in Modern Nigeria, which he did me the honour to review at its launching.
We both had the passion to see how we can use the idiom of religion to bring about socio-political change in our country.
Then came the most turbulent years of the pro-democracy activism or, better, when military dictatorship and pro-democracy activism were at their respective heights in our land.
With many activists either silenced, imprisoned, forced into exile or simply killed, the only organized institution that the military could not touch was the Churches, leading to Kukah gathering a number of us at the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria, Lagos, where he was the Secretary-General, as a kind of think-tank.
In our group were Ruben Abati, Femi Falana, Pat Utomi, to name a few of us who would usually meet at night to rub minds towards bringing about the collapse of military dictatorship and the ushering in of democratic governance in Nigeria. Kukah was instrumental in the Catholic Bishops of Nigeria bringing me to the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria as the pioneer Director of its Department of Church and State (2000-2003).
But we began to part ways – of course, on ideological and political grounds – around 2000 when Kukah got deeply involved with Olusegun Obasanjo who, by this time, had become his bosom friend and the country’s President.
The relationship yielded him (Kukah) well-heeled political appointments as well as placing him on the central stage of the murky waters of Nigerian politics.
No time epitomized this better than when he was appointed into the membership of the Oputa Panel as its Secretary.
From then on, it was a no-going back in his close relationship with the then President Obasanjo and his political party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
While the then Fr. Kukah, by this time, could arguably be regarded as a national hero, he definitely had become an icon of sort within the Christian circles and a role model of political activism for the Nigerian Catholic Church hierarchy.
In my book, Crossing the Rubicon: A Socio-Political Analysis of Political Catholicism in Nigeria, I had a generous mention of Kukah’s brand of politics.
By this time I had come to see him as exemplifying those activists who believe in working as insiders in order to influence the powers that be to be upright and work for the common good.
I disagreed with him on this, believing that while there may be some merit to working from the inside, the merit cannot outweigh the long-term advantage of working
This is because, as church leaders and/or activists, our role is that of being the voice of the voiceless not by openly becoming partisan but by way of strategic and open neutrality that must be people-oriented.
Herein lies the credibility and moral right we will validly have to criticize any and every political party and leadership class in power.
For, more often than not, once individuals, especially religious leaders, get themselves too close to the corridors of power, they can easily be enticed into seeing things more from the purview of the ruling class than the masses, leading the individuals, with time, to become ill-prepared and ill-disposed to suffer for the masses or work in their interest.
The foregoing brings me to the recent anti-Kukah vitriol in the country.
Two reasons, according to John Allen, appear to be behind this, namely: (1) the perception among many Nigerians that Kukah is “covering” former President Goodluck Jonathan as a payment for “the graft from the [President]; and (2) that “Kukah is trying to pressure Buhari not to go back on a secret deal to leave Jonathan alone as the price of taking power.”
I cannot imagine and, therefore, do not believe the veracity of the first reason; the Matthew Hassan Kukah I know cannot descend so low.
The second reason, however, could circumstantially have some veracity.
This is because Kukah has been recorded elsewhere to argue that if Jonathan had not accepted the verdict of the last election and peacefully conceded victory to Buhari – the first of such act in the country’s history – Nigeria would have been engulfed in a civil unrest that, in the first place, would have resulted in having no country today for Buhari to fight his war against corruption.
In other words, that singular act by the former President Jonathan is good enough to have him and his government officials exonerated from being probed.
Elsewhere, and on a related note, Kukah had cautioned Buhari that his fight against corruption should not be fought on the pages of the newspapers or through what Kukah rightly described as “public lynching” of those suspected to be corrupt.
For Kukah, such a fight must, as a matter of fairness and justice, be waged through the necessary respect for due process and rule of law.
No justice-minded person, in my view, should argue against this position and expectation; and here, Bishop Kukah is on solid ground.
What is baffling, however, is Kukah’s seeming loss of his well-known brilliance and smartness to recognize the elitist character underlying his position on Buhari’s war against corruption, especially as it relates to President Jonathan.
Going by his argument, Kukah is unknowingly, perhaps, suggesting a very politically unhealthy precedent for the country.
A future corrupt or corrupted President could easily get away with his corruption and its accompanying loot by simply, like Jonathan, conceding victory to a more popular opponent.
But more baffling is Kukah’s inadvertent demonstration of the double standard that also characterizes his politics – an assertion the following account will try to elucidate.
For the eight years his bosom friend, then President Olusegun Obasanjo, was in power, it was common knowledge in the country that Kukah was dining and wining with Obasanjo and his party.
Such was the case that he could more or less pass as the “unofficial Chaplain” of Obasanjo’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
For instance, Kukah himself recalls how he was “invited to the PDP Presidential Retreat held at the International Conference, Abuja on Saturday, May 19, 2007”, following the 2007 general elections.
Although, according to him, he “neither saw nor received the formal invitation” he “nonetheless honoured the invitation out of respect for this audience.”
Under this circumstance, only a close and highly respected priest-member of the party – a chaplain or spiritual guide of sort – could dare attend such a high-powered and exclusively partisan gathering.
Also for the eight years of Obasanjo’s Presidency, he was using the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to selectively fight his political opponents and settle political scores with them.
The years of Jonathan’s Presidency were more subtle; officials of the Department of State Security (DSS) in particular, on behalf of President Jonathan’s government and with his tacit support were carrying out “public lynching” of his and PDP’s political opponents. These officials, without qualms, were allowing themselves to be used by Jonathan and his party to settle political scores.
To buttress the veracity of this assertion, one needs to recall the inglorious role national security agents played for President Jonathan and his wife in the long-drawn political “war” between them and the then Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State, or the never-proven weighty allegations that stretch from offering bribes to security officials to sponsorship of terrorism which were principally levelled against the main opposition, the All Progressives Congress (APC), culminating in its offices being raided by the DSS after accusing it of cloning voter’s card.
All through those years of both Obasanjo’s and Jonathan’s respective presidencies, Kukah was largely silent over their “public lynching” of opponents, disregard for due process and the rule of law.
With the political fall from power of the deeply corrupt and unpopular PDP and barely two months after the emergence of President Buhari’s government with a mission to fight corruption in the country, Kukah suddenly wakes up to notice “public lynching” of people accused of corruption, recognize the imperatives for the respect for due process and rule of law in the fight as to caution Buhari, according to Kukah, for disregarding this imperatives.
On a different matter but arising from the same Kukah’s political mind-set and double-standard approach to politics, one recalls his denouncement of one Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor and his leadership of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN).
The denouncement was with special reference to his “perceived closeness” to President Jonathan and his government, leading to the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigerian (CBCN) – to which Kukah belongs – withdrawing its membership from the association.
Oritsejafor would again be denounced, following the case of his alleged involvement in the controversial $9.3 million arms deal in South Africa for the then President Jonathan’s government, leading Kukah to advise his fellow Church leaders to so distance themselves from “the corridors of power” that they “should not be seen as playing the praying wing of the party in power.”
As Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama – Kukah’s fellow bishop and President of the Catholic Bishop Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) – puts it while chiding Oritsejafor: “It is not acceptable for a Christian leader to be seen always with the President.”
It is not our intention here to argue for or against Oritsejafor whose own record of church leadership vis-a-vis church-state political relationship obviously and rightly deserves a separate treatment.
What is of interest to us here is this: excepting Oritsejafor’s alleged involvement in the arms deal, what Kukah and his fellow Catholic bishops condemned Oritsejafor of doing with regards to his closeness with President Jonathan and his family as well as political party (PDP) is more or less similar to what Kukah himself did in the eight years Obasanjo was President.
Thus, Kukah was to Obasanjo what Oritsejafor was to President Jonathan and both Kukah and Oritsejafor were obviously sympathetic towards their respective friend’s political party (PDP). Just as Oritsejafor was Jonathan’s spiritual adviser, so too was Kukah, as we noted earlier, invited by the PDP to its retreats for spiritual counselling.
Such is the case that one can validly argue that the writing of the history of Obasanjo’s Presidency will not be complete without a generous mention of the role the then Rev. Fr. and now Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah played in that governance.
Thus, Kukah seems to betray a political mentality that is best described, for want of a better expression, as politics of convenience and self-interest; that is a politics largely pursued on the basis of its accruing benefits to the individual.
On this note, keep in mind our earlier observation of Kukah’s rise to a high profile status in the nation and within Christian circles.
Juxtapose this with his fraternization with Pastor Oritsejafor who is a member of the National Peace Committee on whose behalf Kukah has privately and publicly been chiding President Buhari.
In one of his public statements, Kukah had vouched for the personal integrity of the members of the Committee among whom is Oritsejafor.
Yet, this same individual, as we noted earlier, had been castigated and vilified by Kukah.
Apart from Kukah’s obvious double-speak here, one wonders why, in a country like Nigeria with so many pastors of Oritsejafor’s stature to choose from, Kukah found him a more convenient and suitable choice to work with.
Perhaps it is because of Oritsejafor’s position as the President of Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN); but this is an association on which Kukah had passed similar judgment as he did on its leader, leading to CBCN – to which Kukah belongs – withdrawing from its membership, even if temporarily.
By virtue of the withdrawal and as a matter of principle, Kukah was not supposed to be doing business with Oritsejafor and, by extension CAN.
That the contrary was the case lends credence to the speculation that Kukah would have no qualms in disregarding this principle if only to satisfy his interest in keeping alive his noted status on the national scene. We may never know the real and subterranean reason for his action here.
But one thing is sure and certain: by pontificating good political behaviour to a no-nonsense President Buhari of anti-corruption fame through the mediation of a National Peace Committee whose membership is ethically tainted, Kukah unknowingly and circumstantially compromised the good intention he professes to be behind the Committee’s visit to and admonition of Buhari.
Besides, it would appear that between the choice to uphold the fight for the common good – the war against corruption – in the country and that of protecting President Jonathan’s interest and, by extension, the PDP for which he and Oritsejafor hold common sympathy, Kukah chose the latter. In the end, the entire mediation is either self-serving or suspect at best.
It is in the context of the foregoing that many Nigerians are rightly or wrongly criticizing Bishop Kukah.
Some of us believe that he and his co-travellers compromised their integrity and moral right to criticize or caution President Buhari.
To say this, by the way, is not to suggest that Buhari himself is a saint.
On the contrary he is not; and who among us is? What is not beyond doubt, however, is this: to many Nigerians, between him and former President Jonathan, Buhari was the lesser evil of the two.
And his probing Jonathan’s administration is a good omen and precedent for the country to find its political good health.
This is because by the probe, Buhari is directly or indirectly setting himself and his administration up to face the same treatment from the government that hopefully will succeed him.
The country will, indeed, be the richer for this development!
As a matter of fact, it could very well be a necessary component to the overall tool towards the eventual realization of Kukah’s dream of the country’s progress towards finding its soul.
On and above this component, it worth adding that unless and until socio-political activists – be they secular or religious – not only distance themselves from the corridors of power but also be willing to pay whatever the price for their outspokenness against the injustice and impunity of those in power the sweet talks or dream of the country finding its soul will remain a mirage.
Besides, any meaningful and effective talk or activism for Nigeria to “find its soul” must begin from bottom-up, NOT top-down as Kukah’s style of political activism seems to advance.
In other words, any political activism for social change in Nigeria or anywhere else, to be meaningful and effective, must not only be necessarily rooted in a grassroots-based socio-political conscientization of the people but also lived out practically through an on-going solidarity and interaction with them within the context of their experience and interest.
The preceding remarks do not take away Bishop Kukah’s outspokenness and brand of political activism; but in whose ultimate interest?
We ask this question because Kukah has been heard speaking in favour of church leaders distancing themselves from the corridors of power, believing that “we cannot speak the truth to power” or “hear the wails of the poor and the truth” as long as we have closeness with such powers.
But as we have noted above, the same Kukah who makes and believes this statement does not seem disposed or prepared to walk his talk – to live out his talk in practice!
Thus his kind of politics is principally elitist and, therefore, out to serve elitist interests.
Besides, its practical expression in a manner that exhibits double standard, double-talk and self-interest together not only portrays it as unprincipled but also lacking of the political integrity and moral justification to challenge the opposing grassroots politics.
Furthermore, that brand of politics does not have the socio-political disposition and capacity to midwife the long overdue needed socio-political conscientization necessary for Nigeria to truly “find its soul.”
Is Kukah still popular? I say “yes”!
But for goodness sake, he is not in the ranks of the likes of the Oscar Romeros and Desmond Tutus of the world that people like John Allen seem to place him.
Of course, in a place like Nigeria where there is a dearth of people-oriented political activism among the rank and file of the religious leadership, Christians and Muslims alike, John Allen’s picture of Kukah could easily but wrongly be seen as true.
For, as the saying goes: in the land of the blind the one-eyed is the king!
The Saudi Arabia and other countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council ( GCC) have signed a peace accord at a summit held at Alula yesterday, January 5. Speaking at the summit, the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman said that the summit was aimed at mending relations with Qatar, stressing the importance of solidarity and security among Gulf, Arab and Muslim nations. The Crown Prince said the AlUla Declaration would be signed during the summit of Gulf leaders in the northwestern city in Saudi Arabia. The declaration, he said, will strengthen the bonds of friendship and brotherhood among the countries and peoples in order to serve their aspirations. He added that unity is needed to confront threats in the region, particularly those from Iran.
“Today, we are in utmost need to unite our efforts to advance our region and confront the challenges that surround us, particularly the threats posed by the Iranian regime’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile program, its destructive sabotage projects as well as the terrorist and sectarian activities adopted by Iran and its proxies to destabilize the security and stability in the region. “These actions put us in a position to call the international community to work seriously in order to stop these programs and projects that threaten regional and international peace and security.” The Crown Prince thanked Kuwait and the United States for their efforts in helping broker the agreement. Kuwait announced on Monday that Saudi Arabia and Qatar would reopen their borders, a major step towards ending a dispute that started in 2017.
The Department of State Services (DSS) has made it clear to Nigerians in search of jobs that it not currently carrying out any recruitment exercise.
In astatement today, January 5, the Service’s spokesman, Dr. Peter Afunanya said that those who engaged in misleading acts of raising false recruitment alerts or defrauding others are warned to desist from such or be ready to face the music.
“So far, the Service is sustaining efforts on clamping down on the activities of fake job syndicates illegally using its name to deceive and scam the public.”
Dr. Afunanya said that the clarification has become necessary in view of desperate efforts by fraudsters to scam unsuspecting job seekers or their sponsors.
He asked members of the public to note that recruitment into the Service is never done on monetary basis.
“Instead, it is guided by merit and transparency. Beneficiaries undergo series of screening and vetting processes and procedures through which only the best, produced by these, is taken.
” In the context of this, members of the public should be mindful of attempts by fraudulent persons and /groups to fleece them of their hard earned money. They should rather report to the Service any suspicion in this regard.”
The Presidential Task Force (PTF) on coronavirus has said that 731 members of Batch B National Youths Service Corps (NYSC) have tested positive for the virus.
The Chairman of the Task Force and Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Boss Mustapha, at a news briefing today, January 5 in Abuja, said the PTF conducted the testing of batch B corps members using RDTs.
According to him, out of the 35,419 in the Batch B, 731 tested positive compared to the 108 recorded in Batch A.
“Cases were recorded from corps members from every state of the federation. There is also a rising rate of infections among healthcare workers and it calls for the escalation of surveillance.
“As at date, the statistics for Nigeria shows the following: Cumulative cases: 91,351; Cumulative Tests: 958,911; Deaths: 1,318 and Week 53 recorded 57 deaths, the highest for any single week since we started,” he said.
Bos Mustapha said that the private sector, under the CACOVID banner, was supporting with 100 oxygen cylinders per day till the end of March, 2021.
He said that approval has been given to rehabilitate five oxygen plants in tertiary health institutions in Abuja.
Iran has applied to Interpol for an international arrest warrant for the President of the United States, Donald Trump in connection with the murder of Iranian top military general, Qassem Soleimani, last year.
Iran’s justice spokesman, Gholam Ismaili, in a television broadcast today, January 5, said that the country has filed a red notice against President Trump and other United States’ commanders.
“In this regard, we have filed a ‘red notice’ at Interpol against 48 people, including Trump, US commanders, and Pentagon representatives as well as US troops in the region.”
A country can use the “red notice” to request other countries to track down and arrest a person.
On January 3, 2020, on Trump’s instructions, the US Army reportedly killed Soleimani, who was on a visit to Iraq with a rocket attack near Baghdad airport.
The influential Iraqi militia leader, Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, the deputy head of Iraq’s Hashd al-Shaabi militia, was also killed.
Soleimani was the commander of the elite Quds Force, part of an elite unit of the Iranian armed forces.
He coordinated the activities of militias loyal to Iran in Iraq and other countries.
President of Iran, Hassan Rowhani, called Soleimani a national hero who had become a legend in the region after his assassination by the US.
“Tehran will avenge his murder in due course and at the same time take legal action against Trump and the Pentagon,” Rowhani said.
Former governor of Ogun State, Chief Olusegun Osoba, has insisted that the National Leader of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu has the right to contest for president in 2023.
Osoba, who spoke today, January 5 in a television programme in Ogun State, advised politicians in the Southwest to unite in order to achieve success in 2023, adding that there was a “gentleman agreement” for the southern part of Nigeria to produce the country’s next president in 2023.
He said that though there had been so much noise from the Southeast on the jostle for the presidency, but that nobody from the region has contacted him or other key members of the party on the matter.
“Asiwaju Bola Tinubu as an individual has the right to put himself forward, we have not zeroed in on an individual. Zeroing in on any individual will destroy our efforts now. But Asiwaju Bola Tinubu has a right to pursue his own agenda.
“On the South-East quest for the presidency, nobody from the region has contacted or consulted me to lobby, to even say they are interested in the 2023 presidential election.”
Although, Tinubu has not publicly declared his intention to vie for the presidency, there are insinuations in several quarters that the ex Lagos State governor would vie for the nation’s highest political office in two years’ time.
China has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Nigeria to promote digital and green economy in addition to engaging in military and security cooperation.
The Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, who spoke to news men today, January 5, after signing the MoU with his Nigeria counterpart, Geoffery Onyeama in Abuja, said: “we will expand cooperation into new areas of digital and green economy to make development more diversified.
“Our two countries will continue to work closely on COVID-19 response and strongly support each other to a final victory which is a cure.
“We will further engage in military and security cooperation to contribute the Nigeria’s national security capacity building, we will also coordinate in regional and international affairs.
“We have every confidence that China-Nigeria strategic partnership will embrace and even brighter future, together we will make a great contribution to Africa’s peace and development for the stability and prosperity of the World.”
This was even as Onyeama said that the decision by his Chinese counterpart to visit Nigeria first is a reflection of the importance which China attached to her relationship with Nigeria.
He said that China had contributed greatly to the successes recorded in the priority areas of the current administration as declared by President Muhammadu Buhari, which include infrastructure development, economy diversification and job creation.
“He is on a five country tour of Africa and has selected Nigeria to be the first country that he visits, this is not a coincidence, it is a deliberate decision that reflects the importance that they attach to the relationship between both countries.
“This visit by the State Councilor is a very important one, we have held discussions and we agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding on establishing an inter-governmental Committee that will be in charge of coordinating all aspects of cooperation between the two countries in many areas in many sectors in which we are cooperating with the Chinese
“In our meeting today we talked about transportation, our railways, defense system, political matters and how to structure political cooperation.”
At the end of the talks, the Chinese government through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced a donation to Nigeria of 100 million Renminbis, the Chinese local currency which we reckon to be roughly 50 million dollars or 6 billion Naira,” he said.
Some of the Minister on the Nigerian delegation included: Minister of Industry Trade and Investment Niyi Adebayo, Minister of Health Osagie Ehanire, Minister of Transportation Rotimi Amaechi, Minister of Education Adamu Adamu and the Minister of Aviation Hadi Sirika.
The MoU is meant to establish and inter-governmental committee that will coordinate the cooperation and relations between both countries.
The Committee which will be co-chaired by the Foreign Affairs Ministers of both countries will also stive to deepen the cooperation between both countries, Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Geoffery Onyeama said in Abuja.
The Chairman of Kaduna Electric’s Board of Directors, Yusuf Hamisu Abubakar, has narrated how security challenges and coronavirus adversely affected power supply, especially in Kaduna State in 2020. Addressing the staff of the company and other stakeholders in the power sector, the Chairman acknowledged the great sacrifice and resilience displayed by the operatives of the company during the past year. He explained that Coronavirus pandemic took a toll on everyone, creating adverse effects on the company. The Chairman said that 2020 also brought to the fore, the security challenges the company faced in some of its franchise states. According to him, the spate of banditry and kidnappings in these states have severely hampered the company’s operations, even as he prayed that a lasting solution will be found to the security challenges in the new year. He charged all staff of the company to redouble their efforts in the new year by providing excellent services to customers more so with the responsibilities thrust on the Company’s shoulders by the Service Based Tariff which came into effect in November last year. He commended the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, the state governments in its franchise and the federal government for their worthy efforts in providing the needed support in ensuring the power sector remained viable.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Bishop Kukah And His Brand of Politics, By Rev. Fr. Iheanyi Enwerem, O.P.
Who in the Nigerian political and ecclesiastical circles would not know the then Fr. and now Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah? Lately, he has been in the news.
But this should not be new, given that he is often in the news; what is really new is not just the controversial visit he and his team of National Peace Committee paid to President Muhammadu Buhari but also the view the committee expressed to the President in the course of their meeting with him.
Of specific note is the committee’s position on the President’s handling of the long over-due war against corruption in the country.
In a recent interview with one John L. Allen, Jr – an American journalist and former Vatican correspondence for the well-known US-based National Catholic Reporter (NCR) – Bishop Kukah was reported to have expressed the wish for the “progress” Nigeria must make, in his words, to “find its soul”
_(cf.http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/08/24)_ .
He expatiated the rationale behind their visit to President Buhari with specific reference to the President’s fight against corruption.
In the course of that interview, Kukah inadvertently presents his vision or style of ecclesiastical political engagement in the murky waters of Nigerian politics.
Many Nigerians are yet to see through this vision to really understand the interest it truly represents, especially given that these Nigerians have come to accept it uncritically as the correct approach to politics by the Catholic Church in Nigeria.
In other words, Kukah presents us the kind of politics, he believes, will bring about the anticipated progress in the country’s search for meaningful socio-political change for “its soul.”
I wish to join Kukah in this search and hopefully lay bare Kukah’s kind of politics for what I think it is and then proceed to present a different vision of politics that, I argue, will more effectively and meaningfully help the country “find its soul.”
This is an intellectual exercise whose raison d’etre is NOT dogma or faith-related.
I want to believe that Bishop Kukah will at least tolerate from me a robust argument against his position and politics as well as agree that we can politically and intellectually disagree and still be adults enough to remain as friends we have been over the years.
My friendship with Bishop Kukah goes as far back as the mid-1980s when both of us were doctoral students in the area of religion and politics.
He was in Britain and ahead of me while I was in Canada.
Out of his doctoral studies emerged his pioneering work in the field, Religion and Politics in Northern Nigeria since Independence and mine resulted into my first book, A Dangerous Awakening: The Politicization of Religion in Modern Nigeria, which he did me the honour to review at its launching.
We both had the passion to see how we can use the idiom of religion to bring about socio-political change in our country.
Then came the most turbulent years of the pro-democracy activism or, better, when military dictatorship and pro-democracy activism were at their respective heights in our land.
With many activists either silenced, imprisoned, forced into exile or simply killed, the only organized institution that the military could not touch was the Churches, leading to Kukah gathering a number of us at the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria, Lagos, where he was the Secretary-General, as a kind of think-tank.
In our group were Ruben Abati, Femi Falana, Pat Utomi, to name a few of us who would usually meet at night to rub minds towards bringing about the collapse of military dictatorship and the ushering in of democratic governance in Nigeria. Kukah was instrumental in the Catholic Bishops of Nigeria bringing me to the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria as the pioneer Director of its Department of Church and State (2000-2003).
But we began to part ways – of course, on ideological and political grounds – around 2000 when Kukah got deeply involved with Olusegun Obasanjo who, by this time, had become his bosom friend and the country’s President.
The relationship yielded him (Kukah) well-heeled political appointments as well as placing him on the central stage of the murky waters of Nigerian politics.
No time epitomized this better than when he was appointed into the membership of the Oputa Panel as its Secretary.
From then on, it was a no-going back in his close relationship with the then President Obasanjo and his political party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
While the then Fr. Kukah, by this time, could arguably be regarded as a national hero, he definitely had become an icon of sort within the Christian circles and a role model of political activism for the Nigerian Catholic Church hierarchy.
In my book, Crossing the Rubicon: A Socio-Political Analysis of Political Catholicism in Nigeria, I had a generous mention of Kukah’s brand of politics.
By this time I had come to see him as exemplifying those activists who believe in working as insiders in order to influence the powers that be to be upright and work for the common good.
I disagreed with him on this, believing that while there may be some merit to working from the inside, the merit cannot outweigh the long-term advantage of working
This is because, as church leaders and/or activists, our role is that of being the voice of the voiceless not by openly becoming partisan but by way of strategic and open neutrality that must be people-oriented.
Herein lies the credibility and moral right we will validly have to criticize any and every political party and leadership class in power.
For, more often than not, once individuals, especially religious leaders, get themselves too close to the corridors of power, they can easily be enticed into seeing things more from the purview of the ruling class than the masses, leading the individuals, with time, to become ill-prepared and ill-disposed to suffer for the masses or work in their interest.
The foregoing brings me to the recent anti-Kukah vitriol in the country.
Two reasons, according to John Allen, appear to be behind this, namely: (1) the perception among many Nigerians that Kukah is “covering” former President Goodluck Jonathan as a payment for “the graft from the [President]; and (2) that “Kukah is trying to pressure Buhari not to go back on a secret deal to leave Jonathan alone as the price of taking power.”
I cannot imagine and, therefore, do not believe the veracity of the first reason; the Matthew Hassan Kukah I know cannot descend so low.
The second reason, however, could circumstantially have some veracity.
This is because Kukah has been recorded elsewhere to argue that if Jonathan had not accepted the verdict of the last election and peacefully conceded victory to Buhari – the first of such act in the country’s history – Nigeria would have been engulfed in a civil unrest that, in the first place, would have resulted in having no country today for Buhari to fight his war against corruption.
In other words, that singular act by the former President Jonathan is good enough to have him and his government officials exonerated from being probed.
Elsewhere, and on a related note, Kukah had cautioned Buhari that his fight against corruption should not be fought on the pages of the newspapers or through what Kukah rightly described as “public lynching” of those suspected to be corrupt.
For Kukah, such a fight must, as a matter of fairness and justice, be waged through the necessary respect for due process and rule of law.
No justice-minded person, in my view, should argue against this position and expectation; and here, Bishop Kukah is on solid ground.
What is baffling, however, is Kukah’s seeming loss of his well-known brilliance and smartness to recognize the elitist character underlying his position on Buhari’s war against corruption, especially as it relates to President Jonathan.
Going by his argument, Kukah is unknowingly, perhaps, suggesting a very politically unhealthy precedent for the country.
A future corrupt or corrupted President could easily get away with his corruption and its accompanying loot by simply, like Jonathan, conceding victory to a more popular opponent.
But more baffling is Kukah’s inadvertent demonstration of the double standard that also characterizes his politics – an assertion the following account will try to elucidate.
For the eight years his bosom friend, then President Olusegun Obasanjo, was in power, it was common knowledge in the country that Kukah was dining and wining with Obasanjo and his party.
Such was the case that he could more or less pass as the “unofficial Chaplain” of Obasanjo’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
For instance, Kukah himself recalls how he was “invited to the PDP Presidential Retreat held at the International Conference, Abuja on Saturday, May 19, 2007”, following the 2007 general elections.
Although, according to him, he “neither saw nor received the formal invitation” he “nonetheless honoured the invitation out of respect for this audience.”
Under this circumstance, only a close and highly respected priest-member of the party – a chaplain or spiritual guide of sort – could dare attend such a high-powered and exclusively partisan gathering.
Also for the eight years of Obasanjo’s Presidency, he was using the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to selectively fight his political opponents and settle political scores with them.
The years of Jonathan’s Presidency were more subtle; officials of the Department of State Security (DSS) in particular, on behalf of President Jonathan’s government and with his tacit support were carrying out “public lynching” of his and PDP’s political opponents. These officials, without qualms, were allowing themselves to be used by Jonathan and his party to settle political scores.
To buttress the veracity of this assertion, one needs to recall the inglorious role national security agents played for President Jonathan and his wife in the long-drawn political “war” between them and the then Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State, or the never-proven weighty allegations that stretch from offering bribes to security officials to sponsorship of terrorism which were principally levelled against the main opposition, the All Progressives Congress (APC), culminating in its offices being raided by the DSS after accusing it of cloning voter’s card.
All through those years of both Obasanjo’s and Jonathan’s respective presidencies, Kukah was largely silent over their “public lynching” of opponents, disregard for due process and the rule of law.
With the political fall from power of the deeply corrupt and unpopular PDP and barely two months after the emergence of President Buhari’s government with a mission to fight corruption in the country, Kukah suddenly wakes up to notice “public lynching” of people accused of corruption, recognize the imperatives for the respect for due process and rule of law in the fight as to caution Buhari, according to Kukah, for disregarding this imperatives.
On a different matter but arising from the same Kukah’s political mind-set and double-standard approach to politics, one recalls his denouncement of one Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor and his leadership of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN).
The denouncement was with special reference to his “perceived closeness” to President Jonathan and his government, leading to the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigerian (CBCN) – to which Kukah belongs – withdrawing its membership from the association.
Oritsejafor would again be denounced, following the case of his alleged involvement in the controversial $9.3 million arms deal in South Africa for the then President Jonathan’s government, leading Kukah to advise his fellow Church leaders to so distance themselves from “the corridors of power” that they “should not be seen as playing the praying wing of the party in power.”
As Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama – Kukah’s fellow bishop and President of the Catholic Bishop Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) – puts it while chiding Oritsejafor: “It is not acceptable for a Christian leader to be seen always with the President.”
It is not our intention here to argue for or against Oritsejafor whose own record of church leadership vis-a-vis church-state political relationship obviously and rightly deserves a separate treatment.
What is of interest to us here is this: excepting Oritsejafor’s alleged involvement in the arms deal, what Kukah and his fellow Catholic bishops condemned Oritsejafor of doing with regards to his closeness with President Jonathan and his family as well as political party (PDP) is more or less similar to what Kukah himself did in the eight years Obasanjo was President.
Thus, Kukah was to Obasanjo what Oritsejafor was to President Jonathan and both Kukah and Oritsejafor were obviously sympathetic towards their respective friend’s political party (PDP). Just as Oritsejafor was Jonathan’s spiritual adviser, so too was Kukah, as we noted earlier, invited by the PDP to its retreats for spiritual counselling.
Such is the case that one can validly argue that the writing of the history of Obasanjo’s Presidency will not be complete without a generous mention of the role the then Rev. Fr. and now Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah played in that governance.
Thus, Kukah seems to betray a political mentality that is best described, for want of a better expression, as politics of convenience and self-interest; that is a politics largely pursued on the basis of its accruing benefits to the individual.
On this note, keep in mind our earlier observation of Kukah’s rise to a high profile status in the nation and within Christian circles.
Juxtapose this with his fraternization with Pastor Oritsejafor who is a member of the National Peace Committee on whose behalf Kukah has privately and publicly been chiding President Buhari.
In one of his public statements, Kukah had vouched for the personal integrity of the members of the Committee among whom is Oritsejafor.
Yet, this same individual, as we noted earlier, had been castigated and vilified by Kukah.
Apart from Kukah’s obvious double-speak here, one wonders why, in a country like Nigeria with so many pastors of Oritsejafor’s stature to choose from, Kukah found him a more convenient and suitable choice to work with.
Perhaps it is because of Oritsejafor’s position as the President of Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN); but this is an association on which Kukah had passed similar judgment as he did on its leader, leading to CBCN – to which Kukah belongs – withdrawing from its membership, even if temporarily.
By virtue of the withdrawal and as a matter of principle, Kukah was not supposed to be doing business with Oritsejafor and, by extension CAN.
That the contrary was the case lends credence to the speculation that Kukah would have no qualms in disregarding this principle if only to satisfy his interest in keeping alive his noted status on the national scene. We may never know the real and subterranean reason for his action here.
But one thing is sure and certain: by pontificating good political behaviour to a no-nonsense President Buhari of anti-corruption fame through the mediation of a National Peace Committee whose membership is ethically tainted, Kukah unknowingly and circumstantially compromised the good intention he professes to be behind the Committee’s visit to and admonition of Buhari.
Besides, it would appear that between the choice to uphold the fight for the common good – the war against corruption – in the country and that of protecting President Jonathan’s interest and, by extension, the PDP for which he and Oritsejafor hold common sympathy, Kukah chose the latter. In the end, the entire mediation is either self-serving or suspect at best.
It is in the context of the foregoing that many Nigerians are rightly or wrongly criticizing Bishop Kukah.
Some of us believe that he and his co-travellers compromised their integrity and moral right to criticize or caution President Buhari.
To say this, by the way, is not to suggest that Buhari himself is a saint.
On the contrary he is not; and who among us is? What is not beyond doubt, however, is this: to many Nigerians, between him and former President Jonathan, Buhari was the lesser evil of the two.
And his probing Jonathan’s administration is a good omen and precedent for the country to find its political good health.
This is because by the probe, Buhari is directly or indirectly setting himself and his administration up to face the same treatment from the government that hopefully will succeed him.
The country will, indeed, be the richer for this development!
As a matter of fact, it could very well be a necessary component to the overall tool towards the eventual realization of Kukah’s dream of the country’s progress towards finding its soul.
On and above this component, it worth adding that unless and until socio-political activists – be they secular or religious – not only distance themselves from the corridors of power but also be willing to pay whatever the price for their outspokenness against the injustice and impunity of those in power the sweet talks or dream of the country finding its soul will remain a mirage.
Besides, any meaningful and effective talk or activism for Nigeria to “find its soul” must begin from bottom-up, NOT top-down as Kukah’s style of political activism seems to advance.
In other words, any political activism for social change in Nigeria or anywhere else, to be meaningful and effective, must not only be necessarily rooted in a grassroots-based socio-political conscientization of the people but also lived out practically through an on-going solidarity and interaction with them within the context of their experience and interest.
The preceding remarks do not take away Bishop Kukah’s outspokenness and brand of political activism; but in whose ultimate interest?
We ask this question because Kukah has been heard speaking in favour of church leaders distancing themselves from the corridors of power, believing that “we cannot speak the truth to power” or “hear the wails of the poor and the truth” as long as we have closeness with such powers.
But as we have noted above, the same Kukah who makes and believes this statement does not seem disposed or prepared to walk his talk – to live out his talk in practice!
Thus his kind of politics is principally elitist and, therefore, out to serve elitist interests.
Besides, its practical expression in a manner that exhibits double standard, double-talk and self-interest together not only portrays it as unprincipled but also lacking of the political integrity and moral justification to challenge the opposing grassroots politics.
Furthermore, that brand of politics does not have the socio-political disposition and capacity to midwife the long overdue needed socio-political conscientization necessary for Nigeria to truly “find its soul.”
Is Kukah still popular? I say “yes”!
But for goodness sake, he is not in the ranks of the likes of the Oscar Romeros and Desmond Tutus of the world that people like John Allen seem to place him.
Of course, in a place like Nigeria where there is a dearth of people-oriented political activism among the rank and file of the religious leadership, Christians and Muslims alike, John Allen’s picture of Kukah could easily but wrongly be seen as true.
For, as the saying goes: in the land of the blind the one-eyed is the king!
_https://www.pmnewsnigeria.com/2015/10/05/bishop-kukah-and-his-brand-of-politics-towards-nigeria-finding-its-soul-by-fr-enwerem/_