Jonathan’s ‘wide of the mark’ disposition
- Details
- Category: Philosofaith
- Written by M. U. Ndagi
- Hits: 903
The actions (and inactions in some instances) of President Jonathan in recent times have rather exposed the weaknesses which his stone-blind admirers desperately strive to shroud or defend each time he veers from what is ‘commonsensical’ in the conventional world of politics, fiscal policies, security, infrastructural development, etc. Jonathan’s shortcomings in their cumulative form define him in the light of a leader whose knowledge of his country’s realities (including potentials, strengths, weaknesses, threats, peculiarities, diversities and resources) equals that possessed by a Nigerian who when asked to name the biggest city in the country mentioned his local government headquarters; because he never went beyond it. Would it not, thus, be an outrageous question to ask such a Nigerian to talk about the “Horn of Africa”?
The source of this bewildering disconnection (which has resulted in the orchestration of a ‘dislocated government’ in the country) between President Jonathan and the concerns of the Nigerian people is attributable to one, or two, or three of the following three factors that plausibly explain Mr. president’s repeated ‘wide of the mark’ character. That: (1) His crop of cabinet crew members (including ministers, advisers, Senior Special Assistants, Special Assistants, Technical Assistants) are not playing their subordinate but statutorily role of advising and keeping him posted; or (2) They are advising him but perhaps wrongly; or (3) Jonathan himself either lacks the political experience and sensitivity to read between the lines when he is wrongly advised or the intellectual capacity to initiate and confront existing challenges with workable solutions.At least two instances would be cited in this piece to corroborate the above. First, Nigerians were treated to a ‘public drama’ (which was supposed to be a symposium) when the only two characters in the play: President Jonathan and Speaker of the House of Representatives Aminu Tambuwal staged the theatrical performance at the Presidential Villa to mark the 2012 Democracy Day on Tuesday May 29, 2012. Tambuwal, who spoke first, said the president has been shirking his constitutional responsibility to assent to bills passed by the National Assembly. The speaker further lamented how such inaction by the executive makes the legislative process cumbersome as some of the bills have to be re-introduced all over again. President Jonathan in his usual ‘wide of the mark’ pattern responded by accusing the lawmakers of overreaching the doctrine of the ‘separation of powers’.
What appears more outlandish in the series of the presidential gaffe by Dr. Jonathan at the occasion was his remark that “the enacting of laws by legislators is a disregard to the manifesto of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP)”. The president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria also added that; “so, when we are elected in to office, both arms of government are supposed to work together to make sure that the party’s manifesto guides our actions…” I hope the president did not mean to say that PDP’s manifesto now overrides the country’s constitution? I wonder if President Jonathan is aware that the National Assembly is comprised of members from political parties other than PDP. I wonder if he equally understands what is meant by ‘separation of powers’. His definition of the term, maybe, is that the executive has the prerogative to demarcate between areas the lawmakers should pass bills and those ones from which they are restricted. I do not also know at what point and for what purpose PDP manifesto becomes a legislative tool in the national Assembly.
Jonathan’s ignorance about the workings and roles of the various structures of government came to the fore, once again, when he said while still reacting to the indicting comment of Tambuwal that “lawmakers are not supposed to tinker with the spending plans of government in budget proposals but should rather pass such as submitted”. The question even is: what indeed is the relationship between PDP manifesto or the scrutiny by lawmakers of budget proposals which Jonathan kept re-echoing at the occasion and the fundamental issue of assenting to bills passed by the National Assembly? Nigerians expected President Jonathan to rather explain to citizens why the bills sent to him were not assented to. It’s sad that President Jonathan decided, by way of not assenting to bills, to blackmail Nigerians for the constitutional roles played by the lawmakers.
President Jonathan’s political adviser should collaborate with the adviser on National Assembly matters to educate their boss on what the law says about bills sent for his assent. The Nigerian Constitution provides that bills passed and sent to the president for assent must within 30 days be returned back to the National Assembly by the president either as a signed document which thereafter becomes a law; or unsigned upon which the National Assembly has the constitutional authority to veto it with a 2/3 majority; or crave the indulgence of the National Assembly as he returns the bill to re-touch some aspects before it is signed. The president is probably not aware of the implications of his inactions in this regard.
A more recent ‘wide of the mark’ episode is the ‘give a sop to Cerberus’, which President Jonathan desired to achieve when he announced the renaming of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) to Moshood Abiola University Lagos (MAULAG). As a strategy to living with and surviving the strong currents of the crude political waves and intrigues, Jonathan occasionally ‘draws the red-herring across the trail’ to divert the attention of Nigerians from real issues to very irrelevant debates. Even the family of Chief Abiola, like several other Nigerians, did not mince words when one of his daughters, Hafsat, advised Jonathan to instead concentrate on eradicating poverty in Nigeria which was their late father’s wish. Government must have been under the illusion that the university community and Nigerians will be too pleased with the gesture. As pointed out by the students of UNILAG, President Jonathan’s priority for universities now should not be name-change but the provision of teaching and learning facilities.
The embarrassing public reactions that trailed the announcement of the name-change could have been averted if President Jonathan had consulted widely and appropriately. For instance, the Acting vice chancellor of UNILAG, Professor Rahman Bello said the name- change was news to the university management. Jonathan must realize the need to, as a leader; reverse his mind-set of leaping all the time before he looks. May Allah (SWT), for the sake of His righteous servants among us, deliver Nigeria and Nigerians from all her challenges, amin.
Articles
Jonathan’s ‘wide of the mark’ disposition
Category: Philosofaith Written by M. U. Ndagi Hits: 903
The actions (and inactions in some instances) of President Jonathan in recent times have rather exposed the weaknesses which his stone-blind admirers desperately strive to shroud or defend each time he veers from what is ‘commonsensical’ in the conventional world of politics, fiscal policies, security, infrastructural development, etc. Jonathan’s shortcomings in their cumulative form define him in the light of a leader whose knowledge of his country’s realities (including potentials, strengths, weaknesses, threats, peculiarities, diversities and resources) equals that possessed by a Nigerian who when asked to name the biggest city in the country mentioned his local government headquarters; because he never went beyond it. Would it not, thus, be an outrageous question to ask such a Nigerian to talk about the “Horn of Africa”?
The source of this bewildering disconnection (which has resulted in the orchestration of a ‘dislocated government’ in the country) between President Jonathan and the concerns of the Nigerian people is attributable to one, or two, or three of the following three factors that plausibly explain Mr. president’s repeated ‘wide of the mark’ character. That: (1) His crop of cabinet crew members (including ministers, advisers, Senior Special Assistants, Special Assistants, Technical Assistants) are not playing their subordinate but statutorily role of advising and keeping him posted; or (2) They are advising him but perhaps wrongly; or (3) Jonathan himself either lacks the political experience and sensitivity to read between the lines when he is wrongly advised or the intellectual capacity to initiate and confront existing challenges with workable solutions.At least two instances would be cited in this piece to corroborate the above. First, Nigerians were treated to a ‘public drama’ (which was supposed to be a symposium) when the only two characters in the play: President Jonathan and Speaker of the House of Representatives Aminu Tambuwal staged the theatrical performance at the Presidential Villa to mark the 2012 Democracy Day on Tuesday May 29, 2012. Tambuwal, who spoke first, said the president has been shirking his constitutional responsibility to assent to bills passed by the National Assembly. The speaker further lamented how such inaction by the executive makes the legislative process cumbersome as some of the bills have to be re-introduced all over again. President Jonathan in his usual ‘wide of the mark’ pattern responded by accusing the lawmakers of overreaching the doctrine of the ‘separation of powers’.
What appears more outlandish in the series of the presidential gaffe by Dr. Jonathan at the occasion was his remark that “the enacting of laws by legislators is a disregard to the manifesto of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP)”. The president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria also added that; “so, when we are elected in to office, both arms of government are supposed to work together to make sure that the party’s manifesto guides our actions…” I hope the president did not mean to say that PDP’s manifesto now overrides the country’s constitution? I wonder if President Jonathan is aware that the National Assembly is comprised of members from political parties other than PDP. I wonder if he equally understands what is meant by ‘separation of powers’. His definition of the term, maybe, is that the executive has the prerogative to demarcate between areas the lawmakers should pass bills and those ones from which they are restricted. I do not also know at what point and for what purpose PDP manifesto becomes a legislative tool in the national Assembly.
Jonathan’s ignorance about the workings and roles of the various structures of government came to the fore, once again, when he said while still reacting to the indicting comment of Tambuwal that “lawmakers are not supposed to tinker with the spending plans of government in budget proposals but should rather pass such as submitted”. The question even is: what indeed is the relationship between PDP manifesto or the scrutiny by lawmakers of budget proposals which Jonathan kept re-echoing at the occasion and the fundamental issue of assenting to bills passed by the National Assembly? Nigerians expected President Jonathan to rather explain to citizens why the bills sent to him were not assented to. It’s sad that President Jonathan decided, by way of not assenting to bills, to blackmail Nigerians for the constitutional roles played by the lawmakers.
President Jonathan’s political adviser should collaborate with the adviser on National Assembly matters to educate their boss on what the law says about bills sent for his assent. The Nigerian Constitution provides that bills passed and sent to the president for assent must within 30 days be returned back to the National Assembly by the president either as a signed document which thereafter becomes a law; or unsigned upon which the National Assembly has the constitutional authority to veto it with a 2/3 majority; or crave the indulgence of the National Assembly as he returns the bill to re-touch some aspects before it is signed. The president is probably not aware of the implications of his inactions in this regard.
A more recent ‘wide of the mark’ episode is the ‘give a sop to Cerberus’, which President Jonathan desired to achieve when he announced the renaming of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) to Moshood Abiola University Lagos (MAULAG). As a strategy to living with and surviving the strong currents of the crude political waves and intrigues, Jonathan occasionally ‘draws the red-herring across the trail’ to divert the attention of Nigerians from real issues to very irrelevant debates. Even the family of Chief Abiola, like several other Nigerians, did not mince words when one of his daughters, Hafsat, advised Jonathan to instead concentrate on eradicating poverty in Nigeria which was their late father’s wish. Government must have been under the illusion that the university community and Nigerians will be too pleased with the gesture. As pointed out by the students of UNILAG, President Jonathan’s priority for universities now should not be name-change but the provision of teaching and learning facilities.
The embarrassing public reactions that trailed the announcement of the name-change could have been averted if President Jonathan had consulted widely and appropriately. For instance, the Acting vice chancellor of UNILAG, Professor Rahman Bello said the name- change was news to the university management. Jonathan must realize the need to, as a leader; reverse his mind-set of leaping all the time before he looks. May Allah (SWT), for the sake of His righteous servants among us, deliver Nigeria and Nigerians from all her challenges, amin.