Hon. Ghali Umar Na’Abba was the speaker of the fourth House of Representatives, whose tenure can be described as eventful in the annals of Nigeria’s democratic sojourn. He confronted former President Olusegun Obasanjo head-on. In this exclusive interview with Auwal S. Mu’azu and chucks Ohuegbe, the former lawmaker reveals the secret of how he survived a number of plots to impeach him, his role in killing the onshore/offshore bill, and his views about President Jonathan’s re-election bid, among other topical issues.
It has been quite some time since you left office, how has it been?
It has not been rosy, being a politian who is concerned with the peace and stability of his country. Since I left, a lot of things have been done to bring the system down, and today, we cannot admit that our system is a failure.
It has not been rosy, being a politian who is concerned with the peace and stability of his country. Since I left, a lot of things have been done to bring the system down, and today, we cannot admit that our system is a failure.
We went through the third term adventure of Olusegun Obasanjo, through the turbulent years of Umar Yar’Adua who was largely sick when he was president, and now to Goodluck Jonathan. The events and actions leading us to where we are have not been comfortable experiences as far as I am concerned.
It is common knowledge that during your stewardship in the House, it was one struggle after the other, do you have any regrets?
I don’t have any regret about any action I took as the speaker of the House of Representatives, and I don’t think, I did anything that should be of concern to any Nigerian. Therefore, I don’t think I have any regrets.
I don’t have any regret about any action I took as the speaker of the House of Representatives, and I don’t think, I did anything that should be of concern to any Nigerian. Therefore, I don’t think I have any regrets.
What were the most challenging moments, while you were speaker?
The most challenging moments for me were two. One has to do with the Enwerem Presidency of the Senate and our attempt to cause him to leave the office whether through impeachment or resignation, because he was not leading the National Assembly the way that was comfortable to us.
The most challenging moments for me were two. One has to do with the Enwerem Presidency of the Senate and our attempt to cause him to leave the office whether through impeachment or resignation, because he was not leading the National Assembly the way that was comfortable to us.
Because of the House resolution that we were not going to sit in a joint session, arising from the investigation undertaken against Enwerem’s qualifications to become Senate president in which the House found him guilty of, the House committed itself so much that, that particular resolution would have brought about a constitutional crisis in the country.
It was my responsibility to defend that action of the House of Representatives. And it was a great challenge which of course was not known by many Nigerians. But it was the most challenging period of my tenure. I thank God that the situation was resolved when eventually Enwerem was removed, and we moved on.
The second challenge was the time the National Assembly was going to impeach President Obasanjo. For four months, between August to November 2002, when the matter was eventually dropped, it was not easy, because I was seen to be the arrowhead. I was seen to be the mobiliser and orchestrator. My office and residence became a beehive of activities with different people to persuade me to tell the National Assembly to drop the matter.
It was not easy, because it was not really my plan; it was a National Assembly issue. Of course, I took an active part in whatever happened, because I believed that Nigeria would have been much better without Obasanjo.
But do you have any regret that the House under your watch was not able to impeach Obasanjo?
Well, I regretted very much, but the people who caused us to drop that impeachment, like Alhaji Shehu Shagari and General Yakubu Gowon, eventually were not fair to us. In the long run, they were not fair to Nigerians.
Well, I regretted very much, but the people who caused us to drop that impeachment, like Alhaji Shehu Shagari and General Yakubu Gowon, eventually were not fair to us. In the long run, they were not fair to Nigerians.
Your tenure in the House was characterised by so many activities, prominent were the moves to end your leadership. What strategies did you employ to survive till the end?
The simply strategy was that, I carried my colleagues along in whatever I was doing. Whatever you heard or saw in the House, in terms of solidarity given to me, was simply because I always mobilised my colleagues and took them along in whatever we wanted to do.
The simply strategy was that, I carried my colleagues along in whatever I was doing. Whatever you heard or saw in the House, in terms of solidarity given to me, was simply because I always mobilised my colleagues and took them along in whatever we wanted to do.
In that enterprise, everybody contributed, every decision we took was a total sum decision of the House, not the decision of Ghali Na’Abba, which was why when we resolved to do anything, I was backed to the hilt by my colleagues.
You said some prominent persons like Shagari and Gowon who persuaded you to halt the impeachment moves were not fair to Nigerians, can you expatiate on this?
We decided to embark on Obasanjo’s impeachment for particular reasons; some of which involved undermining of democracy, some had to do with the way and manner he was sabotaging the North, economically and politically. Not only the North, he was sabotaging every part of the country. We felt that Nigeria did not need him.
We decided to embark on Obasanjo’s impeachment for particular reasons; some of which involved undermining of democracy, some had to do with the way and manner he was sabotaging the North, economically and politically. Not only the North, he was sabotaging every part of the country. We felt that Nigeria did not need him.
We felt that after they (Shagari and Gowon) helped him survive, they would also ensure that he would do things that would revert the negative things he had done before. But these people went about their businesses; it was never on record that any of them prompted Obasanjo to drop his evil activities after they had helped him survive the impeachment move until he finished. When he kept unleashing these evils on the House and its members, none of them was there to talk to him or caution him.
You said during Obasanjo’s tenure, the North was almost brought to its knees. Can you tell us some of the things he did to undermine the North?
There were lots of things he did administratively; some of them even culminating into the use of the instrument of the law. Northern businessmen were deprived of contracts. If you see a Northerner got a contract, they were menial contracts that would only help somebody to eat, but will not help them prosper. The purpose of awarding these contracts to individuals was in order to facilitate the establishment of private enterprise. He felt that he had to priortise this through the instrumentality of contracts.
There were lots of things he did administratively; some of them even culminating into the use of the instrument of the law. Northern businessmen were deprived of contracts. If you see a Northerner got a contract, they were menial contracts that would only help somebody to eat, but will not help them prosper. The purpose of awarding these contracts to individuals was in order to facilitate the establishment of private enterprise. He felt that he had to priortise this through the instrumentality of contracts.
When they make the money, they can go and invest in agriculture, mining and other areas that have comparative advantages. But when you deprive people of such contracts, they cannot do anything. I can’t remember Obasanjo awarding a contract of over N1 billion to any Northerner. All the big contracts had never been awarded to the Northerners. This was a trend that Obasanjo established with the aim of depriving and pauperising the North.
It is also on record that when he became president, he said he was going to reduce Northerners to the status of beggars. What he used to do was to remove his dress and show people the marks on his body, that it was Northerners who did that to him in prison; he was beaten, that he would take revenge. The motivation of his presidency was to seek revenge for what he claimed Abacha did to him while in power.
I think it was foolish of him, because you cannot visit the sins of one person on all the community. That was his motivation, and that was why he was not a successful president. He allowed himself in revenge. In his attempt, he only multiplied his suffering. That is why I thought that Obasanjo presidency had never been fair to the North.
It is quite intriguing to note that the PDP has the majority members in the House, yet they seemed to always have one running battle or the other with successive governments?
What was happening and is still happening is that successive presidents do not carry the party along in all they do. They only use the party to seek the office. And those party leaders, because they want patronage and contracts from the government submit to the executive. That is why you find that the president and the party will collude against the National Assembly.
What was happening and is still happening is that successive presidents do not carry the party along in all they do. They only use the party to seek the office. And those party leaders, because they want patronage and contracts from the government submit to the executive. That is why you find that the president and the party will collude against the National Assembly.
The National Assembly, a lot of times, is seen as anti-establishment. There is always a running battle between the National Assembly and the executive. And really, the party is supposed to be the centre in any arrangement, where politically, the country will propel itself forward. The party is the guardian of it’s manifestoes, and since the president and everybody is elected on the platform of the party, everybody must now submit to the manifesto of the party.
All the presidents are coming with their own agenda; it is either state agenda, regional agenda or personal agenda. And they will never follow the manifestos of the party. That is why there is always a disconnect between the party and the president on one hand, and the president and the National Assembly on the other. Everybody is doing what he wants. They are going in different directions. You cannot achieve development with this kind of attitude.
You can achieve development only in stability and peace; we sit down and agree on things to be done, and it is done. But in a situation where the president conceives something himself, he will never share it with the National Assembly. All they will see is that he is implementing it. The party is never consulted. All these things are sure recipe for instability.
At the moment, there is agitation for the reopening of the on-shore, off-shore debate, and it is common knowledge that the bill was first brought to the House during your tenure, we would like to know whether you people considered and passed that bill and what is the content of the bill, which is now generating controversy, and also how did you handle the bill during your time?
The on-shore, off-shore bill was submitted to the House of Representatives in 2002, and it was killed by the House because we felt that it was going to pauperise certain states at the expense of other states. That is why today, there is no law on the abrogation of on-shore, off-shore between 2002 and the time it was passed and assented to by president Obasanjo in 2004.
The on-shore, off-shore bill was submitted to the House of Representatives in 2002, and it was killed by the House because we felt that it was going to pauperise certain states at the expense of other states. That is why today, there is no law on the abrogation of on-shore, off-shore between 2002 and the time it was passed and assented to by president Obasanjo in 2004.
There is no known law on on-shore/offshore abrogation between that period. In 2003, Obasanjo sent the bill again to the National Assembly, it was in March, on March 10th. It was ignored by us, we decided that we would never touch it up to the time we left and we did not touch it. In January 2004 he brought it back to the successive House of Representatives. In January 9, 2004, he wrote a letter to them introducing the bill and sent it to them and they passed it in February of 2004.
So, the only law on the abrogation of on-shore/off-shore dichotomy was enacted in 2004 and not in 2002. The only thing was that when they passed it in 2004, they said it would take a retroactive effect from April 2002. And if anybody cares to look at the law this is what he will see. But I am very surprise that there is so much hype that this law was enacted in 2002 when Ghali Na’Abba was speaker, and the feeling has been so strong against me.
I wonder what some people are up or after, but this is what I know. So if anybody wants to say anything on the abrogation of on-shore/off-shore dichotomy let him bring an emperical evidence to show that it was passed at certain time or it was enacted at a certain time and not a certain time. People should not just go and be writing on the pages of newspapers or discussing in groups just because they like to pin down Ghali Na’Abba.
So, if you are asked whether the bill was passed during your tenure or not, what will you say?
When I said there is no known law on the abro gation on onshore/offshore between 2002 and 2004 and that what the house of representative did then was to kill the bill and I challenge anybody ..if a bill is passed into law and it was assented by the president that is where you get the law. And where there is no law, then definitely something must have happened.
When I said there is no known law on the abro gation on onshore/offshore between 2002 and 2004 and that what the house of representative did then was to kill the bill and I challenge anybody ..if a bill is passed into law and it was assented by the president that is where you get the law. And where there is no law, then definitely something must have happened.
And when you read Obasanjo’s letter to the National Assembly in 2004, he said that he sent the bill to the National Assembly in March 2003 and unfortunately up till the time the National Assembly ended its life, it has not been passed by them. So he was re-presenting it to them. So this will tell you that there has been no law on onshore/offshore between 2002 and 2004. And if there is any such law, somebody should bring it forward.
Part of the argument is that you people overrode the veto of the president to pass the bill, what do you have to say?
Well if it is a bill conceived by me, and the president decided to veto it, of course I can mobilise members to pass it by two third majority. But in this case it was Obasanjo’s bill, and since it is his own bill, what is the need for us to pass it by two third majority.
Well if it is a bill conceived by me, and the president decided to veto it, of course I can mobilise members to pass it by two third majority. But in this case it was Obasanjo’s bill, and since it is his own bill, what is the need for us to pass it by two third majority.
It is his bill, and since it is his bill, he will not veto it. So where did two third majority came from? And where is any record that the house ..the only times I remember the house overrode the president’s veto, was in 2000, I think 30th June, 2000 when the NDDC Act was passed by two third majority in the house of representatives.
That was the only time. The other two times when the house wanted to amend the ICPC act and the electoral act 2001 and after the bills were passed by two third majority in both chambers, the attorney general took the National Assembly to court and there was a protracted court case up to the supreme court, which the Supreme Court decided in their own wisdom that the override was not done according to the constitution.
So these are the only times I remember. And if there is any other time that was done, somebody should come with his proof because people should not just begin to argue over radio or the newspapers without any proof, without any evidence. When you want to bring somebody down, show proof. But you just can’t be writing sentiments or nonsense in the papers.
Some Nigerians expected you back to the House and it wasn’t so, what happened?
Well, you know that in 2003, Obasanjo colluded with the then Kano State governor and the police were instructed to ensure that whatever was the result, I must be a loser. After the collation, my people, who were supposed to go and witness the collation, were all disperse by the police. They wrote whatever they wanted and presented it as the result of the elections. That was why I was not able to come back to the House.
Well, you know that in 2003, Obasanjo colluded with the then Kano State governor and the police were instructed to ensure that whatever was the result, I must be a loser. After the collation, my people, who were supposed to go and witness the collation, were all disperse by the police. They wrote whatever they wanted and presented it as the result of the elections. That was why I was not able to come back to the House.
Progressives in the PDP have been defecting. As a founding member, what are the problems of the party?
Something is going on, but it is not peculiar to the PDP alone. It is happening in all the parties. After the primaries of all the parties in 2002, members would rise up and tell the world that they have left their party. ANPP members would leave to go to PDP.
Something is going on, but it is not peculiar to the PDP alone. It is happening in all the parties. After the primaries of all the parties in 2002, members would rise up and tell the world that they have left their party. ANPP members would leave to go to PDP.
PDP members would leave to ANC. The malaise was in all the parties, and this is because there was no internal democracy in all the parties. I was involved in trying to persuade certain governors to facilitate the return of some people, and others too tried to cajole the governors into returning some of the members of the House that were not supposed to be there.
And because they controlled the parties, the governors would bring in some type of people. I succeeded in making them bring some people back, but some I could not. This is to show you that elections are not recognised in the parties, and where there is no conviction, there is no progress. Our political parties are not helping this democracy. Once there is no competition, then there won’t be internal democracy.
Is there any hope of bringing internal democracy into the PDP now that there is a new leadership in place?
The current PDP chairman has been singing internal democracy since he became the chairman, and I will like to be optimistic that he will do all within his powers to bring in internal democracy to the party.
The current PDP chairman has been singing internal democracy since he became the chairman, and I will like to be optimistic that he will do all within his powers to bring in internal democracy to the party.
2015 is fast approaching, looking at the efforts of the opposition to come together, do you see them giving the PDP a run for its money?
There are two levels; the state and the national level. At the state level, the PDP may not necessarily suffer in the states, particularly in the North. And with the way President Jonathan has been handling the party, there is a wide gap between him and Northerners. And I am afraid that Northerners will not return him to power again, because he did lots of things wrong to the North.
There are two levels; the state and the national level. At the state level, the PDP may not necessarily suffer in the states, particularly in the North. And with the way President Jonathan has been handling the party, there is a wide gap between him and Northerners. And I am afraid that Northerners will not return him to power again, because he did lots of things wrong to the North.
The feeling is very strong against him. And if he desires, he can call responsible people to investigate for him and do something about it.
Do you see the North stopping Jonathan to contest in 2015?
It is very possible, because right now in the North, the feeling is that Jonathan is not worth voting for. People feel that most of the people who supported him didn’t have the moral laxity to go and canvass for vote for Jonathan in the North. Those, whose houses were burnt during the electoral violence, have not been compensated. Lots of people don’t have faith in him.
It is very possible, because right now in the North, the feeling is that Jonathan is not worth voting for. People feel that most of the people who supported him didn’t have the moral laxity to go and canvass for vote for Jonathan in the North. Those, whose houses were burnt during the electoral violence, have not been compensated. Lots of people don’t have faith in him.
You were also targeted during the post election violence, why do you think they attacked you?
It was because I supported Jonathan then. And it was because he was the candidate of my party, and as a leader, it will not augur well for us to begin to cross from one place to the other. Another time a Northerner will be the flag-bearer of the party; do we expect people from Bayelsa State to vote for us? It is true that the way the Jonathan candidature came about in the party was questionable.
It was because I supported Jonathan then. And it was because he was the candidate of my party, and as a leader, it will not augur well for us to begin to cross from one place to the other. Another time a Northerner will be the flag-bearer of the party; do we expect people from Bayelsa State to vote for us? It is true that the way the Jonathan candidature came about in the party was questionable.
All the same, you know that in the history of people, difficult decisions are made. What is responsible for the peace and stability of this country today is because he was elected. Sometimes, tragedy is not because you were right and the other wrong, but because the atmosphere was charged.
It could also happen when two people are right. Some of us made a difficult decision not to support the president, but he was the flag-bearer for my family. The effect of what Jonathan has done is that, nobody can speak to us about zoning. It is dead, and so anybody can contest from anywhere.
But have you been compensated?
Nobody has compensated me so far.
Nobody has compensated me so far.
Do you have any regret for supporting Jonathan, and do you like the way he is running the country?
When he was a candidate, what he often told us was that he would give attention to agriculture, and as a Northerner, I am very passionate about agriculture. My regret is that, I have not seen any Northern farmers happy as a result of anything Jonathan’s agriculture policy has brought to them.
When he was a candidate, what he often told us was that he would give attention to agriculture, and as a Northerner, I am very passionate about agriculture. My regret is that, I have not seen any Northern farmers happy as a result of anything Jonathan’s agriculture policy has brought to them.
But I hope before the end of his tenure, he is going to fulfill his promises. Otherwise, it will make it very difficult for some of us to support him again.
Where do we hope to see Ghali Na’Abba in 2015?
It is too early for me to be presumptuous. I am looking at the situation, and with time, I will let my position be known.
It is too early for me to be presumptuous. I am looking at the situation, and with time, I will let my position be known.
SOURCE: 16 September 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment