Posted by By KENNY ASHAKA, Kaduna on
A first-class chief in Adamawa State, HRH, Homun Asaph Zadok Goron Gakye Kazamuleto, the Hama Bachama has dismissed the recent comment attributed to the Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuade on the conduct and outcome of the April polls as nothing more than a personal opinion.
A first-class chief in Adamawa State, HRH, Homun Asaph Zadok Goron Gakye Kazamuleto, the Hama Bachama has dismissed the recent comment attributed to the Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuade on the conduct and outcome of the April polls as nothing more than a personal opinion.
The Ooni recently congratulated the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Maurice Iwu on what he termed the successful conduct of the first civilian-to-civilian elections in the country.
Asked if the Ooni's statement was the position of traditional rulers in the country, the Hama Bachama said it was merely the opinion of the Ooni, maintaining that the elections were far from being free and fair.
His words: 'In terms of the opinion of traditional rulers in the country, I want to believe that the Ooni of Ife and His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto are amply qualified to make any pronouncement that should be a reflection of the collective position of the traditional rulers because they are both Co-chairmen of the Forum of Traditional Rulers of Nigeria. But having said that, I want to look at the comment of the Ooni as his personal opinion, informed by the fact that in his position as a Royal Father, he felt that there is the need to maintain peace, and equally felt that other Royal Fathers should complement this effort."
He spoke of how in his dormain, the various local government councils had to provide funds to facilitate the distribution of election materials, which INEC failed to do despite the allocation of billions of Naira to the commission for the purpose.
Excerpts:
Let's start with your background. Who is His Royal Highness, Asaph Zadok?
First and foremost, Asaph Zadok, Goron Gakye, Kazamuleto is the 27th Hama Bachama since the kingdom started from the reign of Bitiparamo in 1704. I arrived the scene in 2004. Incidentally my appointment as the 27th Hama Bachama also coincided with the 300 years of the history of the kingdom. I consider that a very unique blessing that I had the honour to be the 27th Hama Bachama and also in the year of the third centenary of the kingdom. And I think, it was the first time the Bachama kingdom celebrated a centenary. So, basically, that is the much I can say for now.
I'm tempted to begin this interview with current political issues in the country, specifically the 2007 elections. The Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuwade recently commended INEC over the conduct of the last elections and also asked the Lamido of Adamawa, Alhaji Mustapha to intervene in the squabble between the opposing parties in the elections. Would it be right to say this is the view of all traditional rulers in the country?
In terms of the opinion of traditional rulers in the country, I want to believe that the Ooni of Ife and His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto are amply qualified to make any pronouncement that should be a reflection of the collective position of the traditional rulers because they are both Co-chairmen of the Forum of Traditional Rulers of Nigeria. But having said that, I want to look at the comment of the Ooni as his personal opinion, informed by the fact that in his position as a Royal Father, he felt that there is the need to maintain peace, and equally felt that other Royal Fathers should complement this effort. Why I consider this a personal opinion is because I know newspapers are not the medium of official communication between traditional rulers.
If the Ooni were communicating officially, the Lamido would not be informed through the pages of newspapers. Secondly, I also want to reflect on the observations of His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto just before the elections when he noted that it does appear that INEC had not made adequate preparations for the conduct of the elections. And he did express this worry succinctly such that even when the INEC Chairman, Professor Maurice Iwu, invited Northern Traditional Rulers to brief them on preparations for elections, he spurned the meeting. He actually was not there at the meeting. He sent somebody who came but did not address the issues.
The summary of what was perceived was that INEC did not make adequate preparations for the conduct of the elections. But then, if we are looking at it from the context of the congratulations to INEC by the Ooni of Ife, there does not appear to be a consensus of verdict in both the organizational and operational framework of INEC. Then it would be difficult for us to say that is the position of traditional rulers. We want to believe that is the personal opinion of the Ooni expressed from a position of a responsible traditional ruler who is probably overtaken by his concern for stability of the polity.
What is your position on this issue of the Ooni's message to the Lamido of Adamawa for intervention?
On the issue of the intervention of the Lamido, I think the Lamido would have been in the best position to address that. I do not know why he mentioned the Lamido. You must first recognize that the Lamido is an in-law of the Vice-President and, therefore, a father in every respect. Secondly, he is one of the longest reigning traditional rulers in Nigeria. I dare say he is even one of the longest in the world.
In Nigeria today, you can count only three or four of them who have been on the throne for over 50 years. So, his call on the Lamido must have been informed by the respect, not only of the longevity of the Lamido on the throne, but also his experience in conflict resolution, which he must have acquired through the years. Having said this, I really want to say that I am not always comfortable with this culture of the political class messing up things and bringing traditional rulers to do the cleaning job because they are things that could have been avoided.
They are things that a little planning, caution and dedication could have avoided. And when these things are done, they now rush to traditional institution to come and do fire brigade job. Traditional rulers are not involved when they are planning these things. They believe that traditional rulers should be insulated completely from the political process. Incidentally, this is part of the hang over of the colonial mentality that was bequeathed, unfortunately, to the Nigerian political class. When the colonialists came here (Nigeria), the traditional institutions were in place. The white-men did not introduce government to Nigerians. The traditional institutions were governments. They were charging them on taxes and tariffs. They fixed their customs duties.
They had their own judiciary in place. Especially in the North, we had the Alkali system. They had their own prison service. Even though there was not a properly trained standing Army, every adult was a member of the traditional government's Army. Therefore, it was not the white man that brought government to Nigeria. But they had to take over government from traditional institution, sometimes by conquest. They became suspicious and created an existing rivalry between the traditional institution and the colonial government.
That accounted for a lot of deposition of traditional rulers by the colonial administration. When the colonial administrations were to leave, they were not comfortable handing over power to the class that they met in power when they came. They created their own class- the political class. They handed over power to the political class and also made them to inherit the fears and inhibitions that the colonialists had against the traditional institution.
It was such that the political class saw its own survival as intrinsically linked to the continued erosion of the relevance, power and structure of the traditional institutions. By implication, the political class saw a rival in the traditional institution. They, therefore, believed that it is only through a systematized curtailment of powers of the traditional class that their survival can be ensured. By and large, the courts were removed from the traditional institutions. The traditional institution was not recognised as a government.
They created a three-tier government - Federal, State and Local Governments - without the traditional institution being in government. They took the judiciary and put in the hands of the State and the Federal while before the advent of our own kind of democracy and government, the courts were controlled by the traditional institutions. In fact, the palace of the King was an Appellate Court.
Now, we have customary courts; but the Traditional Council does not appoint the Judge; does not pay his salary. They say the traditional institution was arbitrary in its use of power and therefore the Native Authority Police, which were previously controlled by the traditional institution, or the Dougari's too, which were the traditional police that had been in existence before the Nigeria Police, were transferred and entrusted into the hands of the federal government.
Today, it is no longer the traditional institutions that are arbitrary.
They are talking about the arbitrariness of government, the Police and the Army. The truth of the matter is that while you can accuse the traditional institutions, in time past, which was an allegation leveled against the traditional institution by the colonialists as justification for the dismantling of their structures and to reduce and curtail their powers, today, the entire fabric of societal morality has collapsed. Even the Immigration Service was better managed under a traditional government than it is today.
Where there is still this traditional government in operation like in the Cameroun, you cannot go into the domain of any King as a stranger, as a visitor and pass the night without the paramount ruler knowing about your arrival and your business in his domain. You cannot find one Immigration Officer who can tell you who are the people who have visited Adamawa today; who are those sleeping in Adamawa today; he doesn't know. But the traditional system has taken care of all that. So, you see, what we are simply saying is that the erosion of the powers of the traditional authority and its relegation to be doing fire brigade job for the political class is something that the Sultan, His Eminence, cried out against.
They were doing their own thing; finally, they came towards the elections and invited traditional rulers. Come and see what we have prepared for election. And they were not there to show the traditional rulers how they prepared. Even at the time they were calling the Council of States meeting to show the preparations they had made for the election, which traditional ruler was invited? There was none!
The elections have come and gone. What is your own assessment of the elections?
To be very honest with you, I tend to borrow a leaf from what His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto said. To say that INEC did not make adequate preparation is like a repetition. But that appears to be my observation. Let me give you an example. In my area, for instance, at my local government headquarters, where I am resident, election could not take place early enough for the Presidential. They say there was a shortfall of 9000 ballot papers. That means that 9000 registered voters were disenfranchised from the process. Now, that is not a small number. The 9000 people went and queued and registered for an election but were denied the benefit of that exercise. And it is not only in that place. We have pockets of reports here and there of almost the same thing. So, my personal assessment is that INEC was not sincere with Nigerians in some of its claims - very bold claims it made that they had made adequate arrangements for the election. The Direct Data Capture (DDC) Machines, which they said they were going to use for the elections, were not used at the end of the day. They said they would display voters' register. In the unit where I registered right in front of the palace, I kept asking whether the voters' register had been displayed. Up till the day of election, no voters' register was displayed.
Did you vote during the elections, Your Highness?
Sincerely speaking, if you look at the entire process, it gave little hope. I can tell you I did not vote. Having searched my conscience and looked at the entire process, I felt that one would just be voting for effect, for the media and public effect, but without actually discharging a responsibility to your conscience. There is this particular case where even the electoral officer sent to the local government was asked to pay homage to the traditional ruler. He said he didn't come to the place to do traditional council work. But on the day of election, they came with their media personnel; with their security and they wanted me to go and vote so that they can capture it on television. I said, ‘okay, you didn't come to do traditional council work, why should I come and do your work?' The traditional stool of this kingdom (Bachama) has been there before elections started in Nigeria. It was not created for elections.
Your Highness, I believe voting is your statutory right, which should not be tied to the demeanor of the electoral officer that came for the exercise.
Yes, the point I am trying to make is that the attitude, the mindset of the people that even conducted the exercise, left a lot to be desired. This was an election where billions of taxpayers' money was committed. I can tell you that there were several local governments, including my own, that had to pay for the distribution of INEC materials. And you wonder where was the money voted for INEC for this purpose? Why do they have to depend on local governments to pay for the distribution of their election materials? What of the local governments that refused to give money for the distribution? Where were the elections conducted? What has been the kind of training? Even the ad-hoc staff that handled the elections, you have been hearing protests over non-payment of their allowances. What happened to the money? So, it was an exercise that appeared to have been done half-heartedly. It was in this line that I actually subscribed to the observation of His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto, that INEC appeared ill prepared for the conduct of the last elections.
Let's look at the political scenario, the outcome of the elections and the reactions thereafter. Are you seeing anything like a stalemate?
I would not call it a stalemate. Not in those terms because a stalemate is when we are at a standstill. We are not at a standstill. Election Tribunals are beginning to sit. Petitions are being received. A President-elect has been declared. Those who disagree with the process are approaching the tribunals. So, I don't think we are in a state of stalemate. However, I want to concur that there is a credibility problem with the process. And this credibility problem has become a moral burden on the beneficiaries of the process. I am talking, not in terms of the individuals. It is not Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar'Adua's fault that he was the presidential candidate of the PDP. From the much I have heard, this is a God fearing person. But that is the more reason why the process that produced him should reflect that ethos. The concern of Nigerians, really, is not about his credibility but the credibility of the process that produced him. And I think that is where there is a moral burden and this moral burden needs to be discharged. But how do we discharge it? Some may describe this as a stalemate; but I don't think it is a stalemate. I think there is a moral snag and we have to confront this conscientiously, openly and frontally. Thank God we are not at a standstill; but we do not know what tomorrow may bring. So, I will like to admonish here that no effort should be spared in trying to find a solution to the credibility issue that has affected the process.
Your Highness, your remark that the Lamido ought not to read the request for his intervention in the crisis arising from the conduct of the election on the pages of the newspapers Does suggests that the Lamido is yet to be informed by the Ooni?
To the best of my knowledge, the first time we heard that message was in the news where it was reported that the Ooni congratulated Professor Iwu for conducting a civilian-to-civilian transition and also called on the Lamido to join the efforts to ensure a resolution of the misunderstanding arising from the conduct of the elections. Like I said earlier, the Lamido is amply qualified to intervene. But we do not know from where the request is coming. Is it coming from the President-elect? Is it coming from the PDP? Is it coming from the incumbent President? Is it a personal initiative of the Ooni of Ife? It is not just sufficient to say the Lamido should intervene. The question in this kind of problem is: How much magnanimity is the 'Victor", bringing to the table? What is he conceding? Because if you are intervening and you are talking of an all-inclusive government and several things, we traditional rulers, if politicians themselves have tried to insulate us from politics, there are negotiations they can better handle without the involvement of traditional rulers. And like I said before, the traditional ruler is the last bus station. When they are voting money for public enlightenment, there is no vote for any traditional council for that purpose. They want to campaign and mobilize people to be conscious of HIV, the Ministry of Information, with their public address van and media outfit comes to the traditional ruler who has no vote in the budget to handle this brief; who has no special training in the field, he will be the one that is going to do the mobilization. If there is a conflict they want resolved, the traditional rulers will be brought in. When they say, ‘let the traditional ruler have a constitutional role', they say no, ‘that will be bringing the traditional ruler into politics.' So, this kind of insincerity makes it even difficult for traditional rulers to intervene in some of these issues. By the time you intervene, they categorize you. Now, what is the implication of the Lamido of Adamawa's intervention? Any traditional ruler could have intervened.
Your Highness, what role do you want traditional rulers to play, I get the feeling that you want a constitutional role for traditional rulers?
Traditional rulers do not have a culture of agitation. There is nothing we ask for that amount to an agitation. Before constitutional democracy came into place, Africa was not without government. There were traditional governments in place. Let's look at Britain, for example. In Britain, the Queen is the Head of the Parliament. She must always be there at the opening of the parliament. That does not make her a politician. In Nigeria, a traditional ruler who may be the only traditional ruler with a domain consisting of 20 0r 30 local governments is not made the Security Officer. The local government chairman is the Security Officer of the local government. Curiously, in the local government reforms, they say the traditional ruler should take permission from the local government chairman before he travels. Now, if you are a traditional ruler whose kingdom comprises 30 or 40 local governments, which particular local government chairman are you taking permission from? Mark you, in the event of a conflict and there is crisis whether between grazers and farmers, they don't fire the local government chairman, they depose the traditional ruler. So, if the traditional ruler is not the Chief Security Officer, why should he bear the brunt? The truth is: the de-facto Security Officer is the traditional ruler. And if you think, even in the political conflict you created yourself; you need the traditional ruler to come and resolve it, is it too much to concede to them even the role of Chief Security Officers of their domain? That will not be too much. But they cannot bear responsibilities for security issues when they cannot summon a security meeting and invite the DPO, SSS to the palace for a security meeting. And when there is security breach, it is the traditional ruler. Something is wrong.
Your predecessor was removed because of the crisis in Numan, are you saying he was unjustly removed going by your analysis of the security arrangement in the local governments?
I said the traditional ruler is the de-facto Security Officer. So, why don't we make it legal? In fact, he is the Security Officer because he bears the consequence. And if he must bear the consequence, then let us legally recognize him as the Security Officer.
Are you advocating for that role?
That's what we are saying. That is how it should be but the political class is so apprehensive of conceding any form of authority to the traditional institution. Look, there is the Customary Court. These Customary Courts are supposed to decide issues based on the customs and traditions of the area. The custodian of the customs and tradition of that area is the traditional ruler. Why can't the traditional council be empowered to employ the judge, build the court, codify the laws and try people? Why won't the Customary Court be left under the control of the traditional council? In times past it was enforcing law and order at the grassroots level. It was enforcing discipline. Now, there is no discipline. Society is growing lawless. At the rate things are going, Nigeria is heading for a revolution. Why? Because lawlessness is piling on lawlessness. And it is because we refuse to learn or imbibe anything from our past. We have been so nurtured by the White people to believe that everything in our past is bad and that everything about the traditional institution is bad except conflict resolution.
Politically, What role do you think the traditional rulers should play?
If you look at our grassroots democracy, you will realize it is the most relevant democracy because it bears direct consequence on the lives of the ordinary people. Let me add that the biggest stakeholder in any grassroots settlement is the traditional institution. The traditional ruler is there till he dies or he is deposed. He has no end of tenure and multiple visas to disappear out of the country at the end of his tenure. He will always remain with his people. An arrangement where the traditional ruler will have more say in the governance of the local government; any constitutional arrangement that will give the traditional ruler more powers would be welcome.
I want to give you an example. If today we say that to qualify as the chairman of a local government you must first win a council seat in the ward, that raises the calibre of those running for councillorship because it means anybody running for councillorship is a material for chairmanship. Even in a party democracy, if you say the majority will produce the chairman, but whoever is that chairman must be subject to the endorsement of the traditional ruler, by implication, it also raises another standard of qualification; that not just anybody can be thrown up by a political process to become the chairman of a local government except he has the confidence of a traditional institution. The traditional institution was a government even before the Federation of Nigeria. It was typically what you can call the local government or the Native Authority. It was a government.
This is even more relevant with recent realities in the Niger-Delta where both oil companies and the NDDC must first consult with communities before agreeing on projects. The community, through its traditional institution decides which projects to be embarked upon and supervises the execution of these projects. But this is not applicable in other areas other than the Niger-Delta. What I am saying in effect is that even where a party emerges winner of the councillorship election, the traditional council should be constitutionally empowered to select the best among the councilors of the winning party who shall be appointed chairman. Now, the political process throws up any type of chairman, a chairman who you will never see in the local government office until payday. The political process has thrown up all types of chairmen.
Take the political conference for another example. They nominated traditional rulers to participate in the political conference. They said they don't want traditional rulers to be involved in politics, why did you nominate them into a political conference? What you are doing in the political conference is politics. Politicians are not sincere. There is nothing wrong in bringing, for example, His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife, into the Council of States, which is just an advisory body. No, they will want to discuss with traditional rulers under a different platform. They should not be involved in policy and governance. They should just be ceremonial; to add colour to their ceremonies. But we forget that the white-man merely improved on the ancestral governance that he had. We have refused to learn from our past and therefore, we are a people moving like a people doomed without a future.
Can you guarantee the neutrality of traditional rulers if they are given constitutional roles?
Traditional rulers are Nigerians. Incidentally, you expect a traditional ruler to register during voter registration. You expect a traditional ruler to vote during elections. By implication, you expect a traditional ruler to have a party of choice. You also expect a traditional ruler to have a candidate of choice. By all those implications, you cannot expect a traditional ruler to be neutral in the sense of being totally detached or insulated from the political process. Why is he a registered voter? But I want to believe that traditional rulers can actually be neutral in terms of canvassing for political support for a particular candidate because there are a lot of people who are voters who are not canvassers. There are a lot of people who are registered voters; who make up their minds who to vote for but they don't go out to campaign. And I think that as long as traditional rulers can keep their choice to their hearts that is the much neutrality expected from them when one expects them to register as voters and to cast their votes on election day. Traditional rulers cannot be completely detached because they live in Nigeria. If you look at the context in which the Ooni of Ife spoke, then some people will say well, maybe he has the sympathy of a political party. That may not necessarily be true. But this is the burden that the traditional rulers carry. There are those people who will even say ‘No, this one was a Commissioner in Boni Haruna's government. He was the former Director-General of Boni Haruna's campaign in 2003, there is no use even going to look for him for assistance or support. They have already categorized you. It is part of the burden some traditional rulers carry. Thank God, the traditional institution in Nigeria today is the reflection of all shades of discipline. Some came from the political class to become traditional rulers. Some came from the military to become traditional rulers. If today they speak, they will say ‘ehm! You know, this is espirit-de-corps. They are just supporting their military group.' If the traditional ruler who was a politician speaks, they will say ‘Oh! You know, he was a politician.' So, we can't run away from that.
One notices this culture of silence on the part of traditional rulers in this country in moments of national crises. I dare ask Your Highness if this is out of fear or deliberate indifference?
I want to differ on the issue of indifference. I beg to disagree. Traditional rulers are very concerned about everything that is happening in this country. Fear? Yes, I agree, partially. A lot of traditional rulers do not find it comfortable really to offer comments on the things that are happening nationally because traditional rulers are not politicians.
There are people that can be offended from their realistic assessment of certain issues. Some are protective of their stools and it has reached a point where some would rather suffer silence than even speak the truth. It is not a healthy situation. But the burden of traditional governance under a political government imposes on them the need for silence. And truly, the traditional rulers are quite reticent, quite reluctant because every traditional ruler is under a governor and these governors, their political parties vary.
Their political thinking differs. So, you cannot easily come and say this is the position of all the traditional rulers. Sometimes, they are determined. Like I tell people, traditional rulers don't have a political colour. They are like water. They assume the colour of the container. You put the traditional ruler in a blue container he looks blue. You put him in a black container he looks black. Now, traditional rulers are loyal to governments. But that should not be confused for loyalty to a political party. Some people have chosen to range this loyalty as partisanship because they only chose to see government in the colours of a party. It has only one colour for government and it knows it has to be loyal to government. By this token, it has suffered various vilifications in the hands of politicians. So, traditional rulers will continue to give that loyalty.
As a former Commissioner for Information and Director-General of the Boni Haruna Campaign Organization that brought the governor back to power in 2003, some people are of the opinion that you were privy to the policies of his government and by extension, therefore, should share in the successes and failures of the government. Do you agree?
Well, let me say that would be very generous for my critics or my admirers by whatever dividing line they are categorized. But let me say this. When people say that, and I have heard this many times, they tend to forget that I was in the Boni Haruna administration in a policy making position for only one year. And Boni Haruna's government has lasted eight years. Now, I cannot understand how somebody who came in the second tenure of Boni Haruna and only lasted one year in a policy making position as a member of the cabinet could have been central to the policies of the government for eight years? Secondly, in my perception, in my understanding of Boni Haruna, except if I have reason that reverses my perception of him; he is somebody that I have always been proud working with. I am not someone who abandons his friends in trouble. Yes, I was a member of Boni Haruna's cabinet. I was the Director-General of his campaign. But I was not only Director-General of the campaign. I was Director-General of the campaign of the PDP in the state at that time. And it was a PDP campaign. Thirdly, Boni Haruna is one governor I have worked with. And I am a very inquisitive person. I try to nose about things around him. You must realize that he was the governor that did the first fund raising dinner for his campaign. Now, if we believe that Boni Haruna had enough money for his campaign I would not have suggested that we go for a fund raising dinner. There were many that followed after that. But our own was informed, literally, by the lack of resources in his private till to run the campaign. I am also reliably informed and I believe same to be true that after eight years of serving as governor of Adamawa State, Boni Haruna has just rented a house in Abuja for two years.
I want to challenge you to show me any governor in Nigeria that has served for eight years that left as a tenant. Apart from his house in Yola, which I know about, he is leaving Yola to go into tenancy in Abuja. Many contractors that worked for Adamawa State, from my own personal enquiry, none has come out to say this is Boni Haruna's share. If am actually credited with influencing the policies of this kind of governor, I think it is something to be proud of. It means that the policies we influenced were positive.
They were not self-enriching. They were for the public good. Boni may not have achieved all his aims. The resources may not have been there to take care of everything. He may not have policed every ministry. But in terms of his personal acquisition and wealth, I think he is an exemplary leader. And I think those who associate me with him and actually believe I influenced him are actually doing me a great honour, which I think I little deserve.