As the Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2003 to 2007, Hon. Aminu Bello Masari was the man that carried the burden of the failed third-term attempt of former president, Olusegun Obasanjo. In this interview with Chuks ohuegbe and auwal s. mu’azu, he speaks of his role in the whole crisis, among other issues.
Sir, with the benefit of hindsight, can you appraise your stewardship as the Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2003 to 2007?
It is for those who observed us from the outside, and who are still observing the National Assembly and the House in particular to assess our stewardship. But then, the most important thing is judgement of the people, not your own personal judgement about yourself.
It is for those who observed us from the outside, and who are still observing the National Assembly and the House in particular to assess our stewardship. But then, the most important thing is judgement of the people, not your own personal judgement about yourself.
So, I’m not in a position to assess myself. Others, who are watching, who are commentators of the House or the National Assembly in general, are in a better position to say this is how far and this is what is there on assessment of the period we were in office.
The highpoint of your stewardship was the “killing” of the Third Term Bid of former president Obasanjo. What exactly happened? What were the obstacles and how were they surmounted?
I don’t want you to pre-empt some of the things that I have already started writing with some of my friends. We are trying to come up with something. But, by and large, you know that at the time we were guiding the debate and we had to be fair to those who wanted to amend the constitution and those who were against the amendment.
I don’t want you to pre-empt some of the things that I have already started writing with some of my friends. We are trying to come up with something. But, by and large, you know that at the time we were guiding the debate and we had to be fair to those who wanted to amend the constitution and those who were against the amendment.
I did not know that it was going to go the way it went; that was why I made my position known early enough. I never thought really that there was this issue of amending the constitution to provide for a third term for the president and the governors. At the time when I made my statement, I heard rumours, but I never believed that there was something like that. So, after I made the statement, the comments that came from individuals surprised me.
Immediately, some people attempted to remove me as Speaker. So, when I heard it, I thought it was part of Nigerian rumour, until when it came to pass. We started when I had already made a statement, which I thought at the time was a simple and straight-forward statement, that our tenure was ending by May 29, 2007.
How did your leadership survive the backlash after scuttling the third term project?
I must appreciate my colleagues in the House who understood it very well, that it was the statement I made concerning our leaving office by May 29, 2007. And the media also, I must thank them, because I could say 90 per cent of them stood on our side; even those few that were on the other side later came to understand that there was no substance in the allegations.
I must appreciate my colleagues in the House who understood it very well, that it was the statement I made concerning our leaving office by May 29, 2007. And the media also, I must thank them, because I could say 90 per cent of them stood on our side; even those few that were on the other side later came to understand that there was no substance in the allegations.
The allegation of money being deducted for housing that was not there, which is the responsibility of management; and the management had paid it. They also alleged that there was some money in the bank, and that the bank then went down. I said, well, the accounts in the bank were opened before my tenure, and even if the former leadership opened the account, they opened them based on the recommendations of the Accountant-General.
You can’t open an account in the bank without the Accountant-General’s office giving approval. There was also the issue that I claimed to have a post-graduate diploma. What they didn’t know was that it was a polytechnic before it was changed to a university. Well, some of the people in government and some other persons who attended the same institution, some prominent directors, came and told us that this is what had happened.
Former President Obasanjo is insisting that at no point during his tenure did he propose the third term agenda. What is your take on this?
I will be pre-empting my own project if I answer your question. But I will only say one thing, that he was saddled with the responsibility of leadership. There are two things: a mistake of omission or commission. So, the minimum we expect once things go wrong during our time, we take responsibility.
I will be pre-empting my own project if I answer your question. But I will only say one thing, that he was saddled with the responsibility of leadership. There are two things: a mistake of omission or commission. So, the minimum we expect once things go wrong during our time, we take responsibility.
During your time, there were constant frictions between the Executive and the legislature. Why was there no cordial relationship in spite of the fact that you were from the same political platform?
The fact is that the National Assembly is an institution, and when we came in 1999, there wasn’t that recognition that the National Assembly should be independent. And there wasn’t this party supremacy. It had started, but I think what really affected party supremacy to the extent that it spilled over to the National Assembly and other organs of government was simply our past conferences and conventions after election, which did not produce requisite leadership the people would respect.
The fact is that the National Assembly is an institution, and when we came in 1999, there wasn’t that recognition that the National Assembly should be independent. And there wasn’t this party supremacy. It had started, but I think what really affected party supremacy to the extent that it spilled over to the National Assembly and other organs of government was simply our past conferences and conventions after election, which did not produce requisite leadership the people would respect.
At the national level, I think about 70 or 80 per cent of the leadership of PDP then wanted the late Sunday Awoniyi as the national chairman. But the government came with their candidate and used the governors, who were bringing in delegates from the states, to overturn the wishes of the party members. And again, coming from that, the governors also used those opportunities to put their stooges at state and local government levels.
So, that was the failure of the political system itself. It was the Executive that injected the virus that came to haunt the political system by not allowing the parties to really elect people who could point out where the Executive is going or when the National Assembly is not going the way it should go. So, what happened later was that the National Assembly was doing its own, the party was doing its own, and the Executive was doing its own.
Unfortunately, it was the same party that had a majority of 70 per cent in government, local government chairmen and the Federal Government. The implication of this was that the party state chairmen were politically stronger than the governors that were elected in 1999, but gradually it was reversed. You have the national chairman, and somebody is calling himself the leader of the national chairman.
There was total confusion and that really created the problem we are having now in all the political parties. PDP is not different from the other political parties. That was why when we initiated reform in 2009, we thought that if PDP was able to reform, automatically other parties would follow, because at that time PDP controlled about 27 states and over 500 local government areas and the Federal Government.
So, if that political party, which controls the governance of the country will reform itself, being a people’s party, then obviously other parties have no option but to follow suit. But since the PDP refused, so other parties also refused. So, there is confusion in the political system.
Why did the PDP reform fail?
Because the government did not want reform. Reforming the party is freeing it from the control of the Federal Government; having an independent political structure that will produce the leadership and force it to follow the programmes of the party. This issue of national leader, state leaders and all these is alien to the constitution of PDP and other political parties.
Because the government did not want reform. Reforming the party is freeing it from the control of the Federal Government; having an independent political structure that will produce the leadership and force it to follow the programmes of the party. This issue of national leader, state leaders and all these is alien to the constitution of PDP and other political parties.
But unfortunately, now the councillor elected in your ward becomes your leader, your local government chairman becomes your leader, the governor and the president become the leaders of the party. There was a time when myself and former Senate president, Ken Nnamani, and some others were suspended from the party, because we said the party had to be reformed.
So, they killed it, but we are still talking about it. Even the current national chairman is talking about reform. But they don’t know that it is in our interest, to allow the institutions of democracy to function well.
What exactly led to your deffection from the PDP?
We came up with the reform package and I was one of the leaders. At one time, it appeared as if I was the leader, whereas the former Senate president, Ken Nnamani, was the chairman. I was his deputy. And as happened, most of the time when these things came out, he wasn’t in the country. So, I was leading.
We came up with the reform package and I was one of the leaders. At one time, it appeared as if I was the leader, whereas the former Senate president, Ken Nnamani, was the chairman. I was his deputy. And as happened, most of the time when these things came out, he wasn’t in the country. So, I was leading.
When we presented the reform at the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the party, the kind of treatment I got and the whole reform package got; and the appointment I had with some people, knowing what we discussed with them before, I told myself that since I was in the G-21 calling for how to reform the party, which culminated in the convention and amendment of the constitution, certainly, there was no more room for me based on the role I played. So, the best thing was for me to withdraw.
Still talking about leadership, what was the most challenging moment you had as the Speaker of the House?
I think the most challenging was the issue of amending the constitution, which called for balancing, because those who were asking for the amendment of the constitution were also constitutionally right to ask. Those who opposed it were also constitutionally right.
I think the most challenging was the issue of amending the constitution, which called for balancing, because those who were asking for the amendment of the constitution were also constitutionally right to ask. Those who opposed it were also constitutionally right.
But because those who were supporting the amendment were more powerful in terms of authority, so the pressure was put on the leadership, and we made it clear that we were going to be sincere, balanced and everybody would answer his father’s name and there would be record of what you said and where you voted for.
So actually, I think that some people said that following that route would undermine the amendment, and we said not following that route would undermine our integrity, and the integrity of the National Assembly, because the procedure of amending the constitution is very clear. So, we were determined to follow the procedure, based on the constitution, and that was what we did.
Your relationship with the national leadership of the party and the Governors’ Forum, did it have any impact on your not getting the party’s ticket in 2007 to run for Katsina State governorship election?
The issue of Katsina in 2007, some of the principals are not alive, so it is not good to make a comment about a person who is not there to defend himself. Probably, some of our friends and people that we were in politics together and those prominent participants and actors in 2007 are still very much alive, including former president Obasanjo.
The issue of Katsina in 2007, some of the principals are not alive, so it is not good to make a comment about a person who is not there to defend himself. Probably, some of our friends and people that we were in politics together and those prominent participants and actors in 2007 are still very much alive, including former president Obasanjo.
So, it is only if they comment, that I can. But for me, what I would say has more to do with somebody who is not alive today. So, I don’t want to comment on that, it is part of my history.
There is a growing agitation for the revisiting of the Onshore/Offshore Act. We understand it was passed during your tenure. What is your take on this?
First of all, let me say that any enactment, any Act passed by the National Assembly can be amended at any given time, depending on the circumstances and the need of the time. Even the constitution which is the supreme law has made the provision for its amendment. So, there is nothing wrong in amending the Onshore-Offshore Act. What is wrong is the way some people are trying to politicise the issue and apportion blame to some people or to someone, which is not right. Let us take the history of this onshore-offshore.
First of all, let me say that any enactment, any Act passed by the National Assembly can be amended at any given time, depending on the circumstances and the need of the time. Even the constitution which is the supreme law has made the provision for its amendment. So, there is nothing wrong in amending the Onshore-Offshore Act. What is wrong is the way some people are trying to politicise the issue and apportion blame to some people or to someone, which is not right. Let us take the history of this onshore-offshore.
It was introduced in the House around 2001, 2002, and when it was introduced, already, there was this issue of election and the impeachment of the president, and immediately after that, the issue of 2003 election came up – nomination, and party congress and all that. Even at that time, it was controversial. It was never passed. When in 2003 we came, it was re-introduced; and this time, when it was re-introduced, it was done after the parties involved – the Governors’ Forum and everybody agreed to come out with a political solution that would be acceptable to all.
That was why it was reduced from 500 to 200 nautical miles. For anybody now to come and say we should blame Mr. A or B, I think they missed the point. This Act was a compromised position of the governors, president, political parties and the National Assembly. I could remember when we were discussing the issue with the former president, he said he envisaged a situation where maybe after 10, 20 years with the offshore exploration, maybe over 70 to 80 per cent of all the oil will be on the offshore, so that the pressure on onshore-offshore will cease.
So, it was not a position that one should start blaming or saying that somebody has done this. It was a compromised position and I challenge anybody who was in the government at that time, either as governor or a minister, to say it was not a compromised position.
I think if they say it has made the North poorer, as the state governors collect less allocation, that would have made the northern governors to be more imaginative in terms of creating wealth, in terms of using the large population they have, in terms of using the land we have. We have a comparative advantage if we use what God has given us. We have the land, we have water.
Do you know how much billion cubit metres of water lying idle in the North? Do you think that coming to Abuja to collect allocation is the only way to develop? The Native Authorities were contributing to the northern government in those days. I think we need imaginative leaders, we need creative leaders, we need leadership that will make sacrifice.
The controversy over state police is still brewing, in spite of Mr. President’s declaration. Can you advise the government?
My own take on this is very simple. Why do we need a state police? We are now talking about people who are not balance, fair, and just to their fellow citizens. From my state to Bayelsa, and from Lagos to Borno, if you conduct local government election, the party in government will win landslide.
My own take on this is very simple. Why do we need a state police? We are now talking about people who are not balance, fair, and just to their fellow citizens. From my state to Bayelsa, and from Lagos to Borno, if you conduct local government election, the party in government will win landslide.
And then, the way the governors are now operating with the State Houses of Assembly as if they are inferior, if you give them state police they will start arresting people indiscriminately. I think for the health of the nation, for the health of the individuals, we ordinary people, I wouldn’t support state police, because they have not shown maturity, they have not shown leadership, they have not shown justice and fairness. In fact, nobody can win a councillorship election from another political party.
There is an ongoing effort by opposition parties to form an alliance towards 2015. What is your view on this?
Alliance is desirable, and some of us were visited even before the matter was made public. The worry, however, is whether the agencies responsible for the conduct of a free and fair election will be independent. This is because INEC is not independent.
Alliance is desirable, and some of us were visited even before the matter was made public. The worry, however, is whether the agencies responsible for the conduct of a free and fair election will be independent. This is because INEC is not independent.
The security agencies are not even independent. They are biased and they take side with whoever is in government. I think I support the issue of alliance. The security agencies and INEC are serving government and not the people. When the institutions that will make elections credible are not there, so what is the effort of the individual going to be when the institutions are very weak, cannot support free and fair elections.
Do you have any regret?
I do not have any regret, because I performed to the best of my abilities under the prevailing circumstance.
I do not have any regret, because I performed to the best of my abilities under the prevailing circumstance.
SOURCE: 16 September 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment