A gradual descent into autocracy

During the campaigns for the 2015 elections, and following concerns that he was an unrepentant tyrant and dictator, General Mohammed Buhari was at pains to convince Nigerians and the international community that he was a changed man and that he would now govern strictly according to the rule of law and there will be no draconian measures or abridgement of the rights of citizens. At a lecture on February 26, 2015 at the Chattam House in London, he was emphatic about his new orientation. “I cannot change the past. But I can change the present and the future. So, before you is a former military ruler and a converted democrat who is ready to operate under democratic norms and is subjecting himself to the rigours of democratic elections for the fourth time.”

Elaborating on why he came to appreciate democracy as the ideal mode of governance, he said it had to do with the unexpected fall of the Berlin wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Hear him: “On a personal note, the phased end of the USSR was a turning point for me. It convinced me that change can be brought about without firing a single shot.”

However, since his elevation to the presidency, Buhari appears to be going back on his word and there is now a gradual slide towards autocracy, impunity and disrespect for the rule of law. Perhaps, it is the case that a leopard hardly changes its spots.

In the next three weeks, I will attempt to demonstrate with evidence how the president has been gradually moving towards autocratic rule and why majority of Nigerians, blinded by support for the president and his change agenda, are oblivious of this reality. Not all are unaware though. Some respected lawyers, academicians and thought leaders have noticed the trend, but having invested so much energy and reputation into the Buhari project, they find it difficult to criticise him or believe that they did not make an informed choice. What is more, most of them also erroneously believe that corruption could not be fought effectively by through the instrumentality of the law. They are therefore willing to permit the presidency trampling on the law, disregarding the judiciary, and employing unconventional and unlawful methods to deal with the hoards of corrupt officials in Nigeria.

Buhari’s descent into autocracy started with the Sambo Dasuki case and the way the Department of State Security (DSS) and the State Security Service (SSS) invaded his – and his father’s – house and refused to allow him to travel even when the courts expressly gave him permission to. Quite against the rule of law, the president had to resort to “ordering his arrest”. He was subsequently rearrested and other charges – notably of mismanagement and diversion of the funds meant for buying of arms to fight the Boko Haram insurgency – were levied against him. Still he was granted bail but the security agencies still continued to hold on to him. Initially, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and the security agencies continued to justify their disobedience of various court orders granting Dasuki bail and his continued detention on the less than convincing reason that he was being arrested and charged on other and separate alleged offences, but the real reason came out at the Presidential Media Chat last week. Asked why Sambo Dasuki and Nnamdi Kanu were rearrested immediately after they were released from prison on bail, President Buhari spoke matter-of-factly: “If you see the atrocities these people committed against this country, we can’t allow them to jump bail.” He continued: “They would just say to Central Bank give so and so, 40 billion naira just like that; 40 billion. The president unilaterally decided that it would be a very bad idea to allow Dasuki to travel to the United Kingdom as permitted by the courts. According to him, “what of the over two million people displaced, most of them orphas whose fathers have been killed, what type of government do you want to run? We cannot allow that”.

On Nnamdi Kanu, the president said despite having two international passports, one for Britain and the other for Nigeria, Mr. Kanu “did not use any of them to come into the country”. He also insinuated that the fellow smuggled in equipment with which he came in to preach hate messages.

Although the presidency later made a belated attempt to lessen the extent of the president’s gaffe by claiming that the president was only giving his personal opinion when he spoke about Dasuki and Kanu and not as the president of Nigeria, it was clear we were dealing with a president who does not fully understand or has refused to accept democratic procedures.

It is clear from the media chat that the president is the dictator he has always being and has no appetite for or respect for the rule of law and the judiciary. He sees no point in regarding accused persons as innocent until proven guilty in a law court. Just like in 1984 when he was military dictator, the accused are considered guilty until they could prove their innocence. What an inversion of justice!

To be continued…

 

Christopher Akor