Kwankwaso's destructive rhetoric by Maijidda Adamu Gezawa in Peoples Daily of August 8, 2011
Ever since Mallam Ibrahim Shekarau finished his second term of office as Kano state governor last May, there has been this raging debate over his continued stay in the state he governed for eight years. Spearheading the debate is no less a personality than the present governor, Engr. Rabi’u Kwankwaso. At several fora, he has minced no words about his aversion to Shekarau’s continued stay in Kano, saying it amounts to having two kings in one palace, and since he is the one currently holding office, Shekarau must relocate somewhere to allow him govern without distractions. This indeed is a debate that has been gathering lots of momentum, generating interests and attention. It occupies prominence in political programmes of the local radio stations.
Surely this is an issue that should be resolved when placed or viewed at in two perspectives – constitutional and precedence. There are of course other aspects that have to do with security and good conscience. Does the Nigerian constitution allow a serving governor to ask his predecessor to leave the state he governed, for whatever reason? I have consulted lots of legal practitioners and read the 1999 constitution extensively, and what has come to light is that all Nigerian citizens are free to live in any part of the federation that they choose to. This therefore means Kwankwaso’s instruction for Shekarau to leave Kano for him does not have any constitutional backing.
The second yardstick is precedence. Was there any former governor of Kano who was compelled to vacate the scene for his successor? The answer to this is yes and no. Yes because Kwankwaso left Kano on the day he handed over power to Shekarau in 2003. No, because he was the only one among Kano’s three democratically-elected governors before him to do so. Rimi remained in Kano after being defeated by Sabo Bakin Zuwo in the 1983 gubernatorial election. Kabiru Gaya also stayed in Kano after the Abacha coup of 1993. So the next question is: why is Kwankwaso the only governor to have vacated the scene on handing over power?
The answer to this is not far-fetched. In the course of four years of governance, Kwankwaso has rightly or wrongly stepped on so many toes, ranging from the powerful and the powerless. His enemies included enlightened groups, such as pensioners, civil servants, Islamic clerics, business community and several others. For inexplicable reason, he downgraded over a thousand civil servants to levels far below the ones they had attained. He also retrenched thousands of workers after denying them such rights as yearly salary-increment, leave-grants, etc . Pensioners complained that he denied them their dues, after giving their all in making Kano attain a pride of place. Clerics and commoners were not happy that he was foot-dragging in the implementation of the Shari’a, which all Muslims believe should guide their lives. The business community were not happy that their fortunes were being reversed, as state of insecurity under him had assumed a frightening dimension.
Long before he left governance, Kwankwaso was declared a sort-of persona-non-grata by the Kano people. He was booed and stoned virtually wherever he went to. The level of animosity and angst against him were such that he was roundly defeated by Shekarau at the 2003 elections. And on hand-over day, he could only leave Government House Kano through the back-gate. By these therefore, Kwankwaso could in all honesty not be said to have voluntarily left Kano for Shekarau to have unfettered governance. The fact is he was forced-out by the people.
From Kano, Kwankwaso went straight to Abuja, and then the Kano state Governor’s Lodge. He had pleaded with Shekarau to allow him stay in the lodge, and he stayed there, while lobbying to be made a minister. In Shekarau’s trade-mark magnanimity, Kwankwaso was accorded all the privileges and even rights due to a serving governor. Whenever he went to Abuja on official duties, Shekarau could only stay in hotels. Kwankwaso stayed for about two months and left on his own volition, after being made a minister. In contrast, when Shekarau left Kano Government House last May, at the end of two terms in office, he left through the main gate, at the front. He was hailed by the people who also wished him well.
So really the issue is that Shekarau parted on a note of cordiality with the people, even if his party was narrowly-defeated by Kwankwaso in the last election, a victory now being contested in court. It shall be noted that Shekarau was not a candidate in that election. He could not have been because he was barred by the constitutional-limit of two-terms. The issue of Shekarau constituting a threat to security as is being raised by Kwankwaso holds no water at all because there was never a time those accompanying him to mosques, funerals or such functions ever breached anybody’s peace. Let it also not be forgotten that under Shekarau, Kano witnessed unprecedented peace. In any case, Kwankwaso is known to have moved about freely, even with dangerous thugs, in a convoy of tens of vehicles at a time Shekarau was the governor, and he was never questioned or challenged. What is good for the geese shall thus be good for the gander.
One is compelled to observe that Kwankwaso is only trying to set a very dangerous precedent by asking Shekarau to leave Kano. Is it an offence to be a governor, and a popular one at that? Sooner or later, Kwankwaso is going to be a former governor, so he has to seriously guard his utterances so that they do not haunt him in future. The campaigns are over. What the people of Kano need now is positive action and not destructive rhetoric.
Maijidda ( ummargwal@yahoo.com ), an entrepreneur, wrote this from No. 3b, Hector Street, off Sardauna Crescent, Badawa New Layout, Kano
No comments:
Post a Comment