By SONALA OLUMHENSE
In no particular order, here are a few thoughts to consider, if you are still trying to decide whether Nigeria is a country or a game.
In September 2023, four months after Mr. Bola Tinubu assumed the presidency, he undertook the unprecedented step of recalling the nation’s ambassadors abroad, effectively decapitating its 109 diplomatic missions worldwide. Only Nigeria’s United Nations missions in New York and Geneva were left intact, on account of the General Assembly scheduled for later that month, which the president intended to attend.
Spokesman Ajuri Ngelale explained: “The president is determined to ensure that world-class efficiency and quality, will henceforth, characterize foreign and domestic service delivery to citizens, residents and prospective visitors alike.”
That was 10 months ago. World-class efficiency and quality being apparently still being manufactured in the bowels of Aso Rock, Nigeria has not replaced those diplomats, leaving their families and dependents trapped around the world.
Are we a country, or a game?
In May 2019, the then-President, Muhammadu Buhari government began the prosecution in London of his predecessor, Goodluck Jonathan and his oil minister Diezani Alison-Madueke, for accepting bribes and breaking our laws, citing them in a $1.3 billion oil deal eight years earlier.
Court papers said the two officials conspired to “receive bribes and make a secret profit,” keeping the government from getting what it was owed from the deal.
The Buhari government said it had only received a $209 million signature bonus in relation to the deal, but that it estimated the value of the oilfield involved to have been “at least $3.5 billion” and that it would seek to calculate damages on that basis.
Again, that was in 2019. Buhari went on to serve out his second term, completing his tenure last year. He never spoke about the matter in Nigeria, and neither Jonathan nor Madueke, who lives in London,ever had to answer questions let alone testify in court.
Are we a country, or a game?
As early as October 2016, it had become clear that in his hunger for power, Buhari had all along lied about his anti-corruption profile. Biographer John Paden, author of “Muhammadu Buhari: The Challenges of Leadership in Nigeria,” wrote that Buhari’s anti-corruption objective was not justice, such as apprehending and jailing those who had looted Nigeria blind, but only to retrieve such funds.
Buhari told Paden that Mr. Jonathan had obtained“off-budget funds” during his tenure and that he had in his possession letters implicating the former president in that regard.
Remember that it was in the same year that the then-British Prime Minister David Cameron, with Buhari on his way to a so-called anti-corruption conference in London,described Buhari’s Nigeria as “fantastically corrupt.”
Buhari was not angry. He did not challenge Cameron. He said what he wanted was not an apology but all the Nigerian loot in Britain. That was always Buhari’s safe zone as he sought to avoid having to embarrass his corrupt friends and supporters. And so, he never made any specific demands on the British government, never named anyone, and never advanced Nigeria beyond his own limitations.
Wrote Paden, falsely: “The fact that Buhari was enlisting the help of the international community in the probes lent weight to the seriousness of his effort – and also meant that alleged offenders had nowhere to hide.”