AMAECHI: A Rebel And His Motivations

PLACED in any context for the purpose of scrutiny, the Nigerian variant of politics is one defined by a nebulous mishmash of characters. In the First Republic, the dichotomy was between a staunch conservative base, and what came across as the liberal arm of the political elite, which had a more urgent philosophy to nation building. So, while the conservative base of the years after Nigeria’s independence were not the ones in a hurry to prod the British for flag independence, the liberal base, fired by ideology and nationalism pushed vigorously for political independence. The leading political and ideological voices of the time tended to reflect these philosophical dispositions.

In the Second Republic, there was the clear bifurcation between the progressives’ camp and the conservative bloc. The National Party of Nigeria (NPN) had a clear conservative tilt, and its leading personages embodied that philosophy. On the other hand, the progressives’ camp was defined by Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s home-grown socio political model of democratic socialism. This model made free education, integrated rural development, healthcare etc. the cardinal programmes on which political engagement was based.

As would be seen from this brief excursion into the Nigerian political space of the past, the leading political voices of those times were shaped by the undercurrent of dominant ideas of their times. Since the advent of Nigeria’s current democratic dispensation in 1999 however, there have been no dominant ideas to tie the leading political figures to. The national political firmament has been defined by the syndrome of stars coming from nowhere and going to nowhere. The political space has been very fluid; so have been the dominant characters. It is a system that produces heroes whose credentials might come crashing like a pack of cards, when scrutinised against the realities of what the nation needs to move forward.

Whereas in the past, it was possible to hold a politician to account on the basis of a self-subscribed set of ideas, Nigeria’s current democratic journey has been largely bereft of the critical content of ideas. So the dominant voices of the moment are a coterie of individuals who are defined by the strengths and flaws of their contradictions. It is in this context that the Nigerian public may attempt an understanding of the frenzied conversation around former Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi. The anti-climax of a screening should have been used to distil an engaging conversation on nation building. It should have been so because, as he stood before the Senate last week to be screened as one of President Muhammadu Buhari’s ministerial nominees, Amaechi gave off vibrations that raise fundamental questions. Those questions must be answered to provide a balanced and nuanced picture of not just the former governor as a politician, but also about the current direction of Nigeria as an entity.

Those who would want to place him in the column of courageous men would readily point at the rebellious, but principled strand of his character, which saw him staunchly opposing former President Goodluck Jonathan. His frontal assault against the Jonathan Presidency from within the former President’s home turf was a massive distraction that was as devastating, as the many others the former President failed to manage effectively. Those who want to laud Amaechi would argue that it is only a man with raw courage that would dare an almighty and imperial Presidency to make a point about what he believes in.

What many at the time described as Amaechi’s foolhardy stance resulted in a backlash of recriminations, which were in turn garnished by Amaechi for maximum advantage. But what was the ultimate objective of Amaechi’s activism? What was the philosophy driving his convictions. At the Senate screening, he talked glibly about the need to end all forms of impunity and executive recklessness.

In fact, his own narrative about his travails is heavy about the persecution he suffered as a results of his principled stance against the corruption and impunity that defined the Jonathan regime. Those who watch closely would however come to the realisation that Amaechi’s is just one side of the big story of the ingrained impunity that defines the very existence of the Nigerian State. While the Jonathan government, which Amaechi so stridently assailed failed to live up to the immense opportunity it had, it cannot be denied that the ethnic and sectional posturing against the administration from certain parts of the country thoroughly muddied the waters, with severe implications for national unity.

As much as he was a victim of his colourless and indecisive approach to governance, the Jonathan government was hobbled by the reckless comments of people who were supposed to be elder statesmen from the North. That administration was harassed from all sides not just on the score of performance, but also on the basis of where the former President hailed from. From the jaded lenses of Amaechi, such grand assault would ordinarily not constitute recklessness. Perhaps, it is safe that the former governor, now ministerial nominee is much more interested in standoffishness that has an executive touch to it, which was why he developed a rabid thirst for showdowns with the former administration.

On the other hand, there are many Nigerians who would be interested in scrutinizing Ameachi’s position during the Senate screening that his position on resource control had changed. The former governor, soon to be minster (if there are no more cog in the wheels of his ascendancy), said upon visiting Germany, he came across a new model of resource sharing that should be adopted. That fuzzy position brings to the fore the debate around fiscal federalism, which has been a touchstone of the agitations by the minority groups in Nigeria’s suffocating federal structure. Did the former governor touch base with his constituency in the Niger Delta before coming to the Senate to propose a hazy model of resource sharing that is yet to be understood by the very people who have sought emancipation from a predatory state that is merely interested in expropriating resources, without commensurate responsibility?

There are therefore many answers to be provided by the emergent “Lion of Niger Delta politics,” if equity, justice and fairness were to be the driving force of the position he has taken in national politics. Beyond Amaechi, there is no doubt that the constituent factors that fused to birth the All Progressives Congress (APC) government of change would be re-evaluating what they sought to do for Nigeria beyond personal ambitions.

The Southwest flank, which had always been the veritable platform in the struggle for true fiscal federalism in the Nigerian project has either gone mute or had its voice eclipsed in the current power equation. So for the Southwest, does the lexicon of change imply an abandonment of those time honoured ideas for nation building? Similarly, the South East is angered by the shabby treatment that has been meted out to it at the very beginning of the government of change.

On its part, the Niger Delta is still grappling with an appropriate response. At the Senate screening, Amaechi glossed over these realities. Is it the supposition of the change government he fought to enthrone that Nigeria’s current feeding bottle federalism should continue? Was this the order he fought so valiantly to enthrone; or was his fight about positioning, and the relevance it brings? These are the fundamental questions that would have brought out the true essence of Amaechi’s activism. But since Amaechi’s friends in his former party, the PDP decided to turn deaf and dumb during the screening, they deny Nigerians the chance to draw concrete conclusions on whether the man came out as a hero or a villain.