“At what point did Pantami deny all those extremist ideologies, and under what circumstances? Then, should such a man have been appointed a minister in Nigeria? ” ―Ebuka Onyekwelu
Nigeria’s Communications and Digital Economy Minister, Dr. Isa Pantami is facing a major accountability challenge. This would not be the first time a serving member of the Federal Executive Council would be facing such a serious test on the government’s strength to hold its members accountable. However, nothing beats the wildest imaginations of Nigerians and observers, than the position the government has now taken, despite the severity of Pantami’s case. Although the government position may not have come to many as a surprise, it brought to fore, just once again, the core problem of Nigeria’s aspiration to nationhood. To be fair, many who do expect the government to be decisive in choosing its own side, which, normally, is expected to be on the side of public outcry, justice and fairness, were not only disappointed. They were taught a hard lesson on what obtains in Nigeria under the current regime, and much more.
There are questions as to how Pantami who is a fundamentalist, and whose sympathy and support for extremist groups and terror organizations are not hidden, managed to evade DSS screening and was subsequently screened and confirmed by Nigeria’s National Assembly. Though, it has been reported that the DSS actually raised a red flag to Pantami’s appointment on the basis of his entanglement with extreme religious ideologies and prejudice towards Christians, for nothing other than the fact that they are Christians. In all, the persuasion from these events is that Nigeria and its government chooses who is a problem to the image or wellbeing of the country based purely on other measures bereft of justice and fair play, public apprehension, and even international implication.
Nigerian politics under the prevailing realities of today are for hardliners.
Never has such weighty, proof-laden allegations been leveled against a minister of Nigeria. Yet, the only concern of the federal government according to a “statement by the presidency” is that “Dr. Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami is currently subject to a cancel campaign instigated by those who seek his removal”. It did not stop there. The statement ended with a matter-of-fact, take-it-or-leave-it, verdict that “The Administration stands behind Minister Pantami”. Without appearing to make the same line of argument that has become popular with the Administration’s supporters in which they try to compare two wrongs, in a bid to justify their own wrong. But howbeit that this was not the treatment Kemi Adeosun the former Minister of Finance received when the allegation of her NYSC forged certificate broke out. On the contrary, her resignation was quickly accepted, though one cannot be sure how willful her resignation was. In her place, Zainab Ahmed was appointed. Like Pantami who was the director of the National Information Technology Development Agency – NITDA, Kemi was also the former Finance Commissioner in Ogun state. So apparently, if Pantami is merely being targeted “by those who seek his removal” now that he is a minister, as the presidency puts it, how was Kemi’s case different? I mean, does it not appear apparent that Nigerian politics under the prevailing realities of today are for hardliners. Obviously, Nigeria has gone back to the hegemonic politics of its early days and where the substance of an issue is nothing when contrasted against the identity of the person in question. In the particular instance, the weight of supporting, sympathizing, or fraternizing with extremist groups, is in the past and should be left in the past because the one who did it is more Nigerian than others. The Presidency has declared Pantami free, in fact, also acquitted him; hence making a bold statement to the effect that whatever people did in their past does not matter in their future. Even if the presidency intends to apply this rule to every single Nigerian, what kind of a country do they intend to build with this? It is really very hard to see through any logical, or for that matter, sensible justification of the position that has been taken by the government.
One is constrained to rightly assume that of course, Chris Ngige or maybe Babatunde Fashola will not be as “lucky” if suddenly some activities from their past as state governors come after them. For them, it will be a matter of how well-grounded they are to sail their own ship to safety or literally perish with the scandal. But not for an Isa Pantami, though definitely for a Kemi who will leave for a Zainab. Nigeria’s latest descent into hard-line politics of identity is a critical pointer that those manning the country at the moment are hardliners who cannot be engaged on the basis of justice, fairness, and logic. Purveyors of identity politics, whose basis for determining what goes to who, and how one is treated, is based on his or her identity, rather than on the basis of established protocol for public officers. Evidence simply points overwhelmingly to a resurgence of this experience, particularly with the current regime. For Isa Pantami, the federal government became not only the courts but also judicial officers that tried and acquitted him of any wrongdoing, over such outrageous allegations with proofs, because it is now in the past.
Normally, the high-powered delay is part of statecraft.
In dealing with this kind of issue, the presidency has options. They could have given a statement that the case is being investigated, although Dr. Pantami has admitted to speaking growingly of Al-Qaida and Taliban in the past. The President would have promised to constitute a committee to look at the allegations and determine the appropriate action to take against the minister. That by far is the very least expected of a functional and sensitive government. Sadly, the verity that the federal government did not see any need to be diplomatic or even considerate in dealing with the issue to avoid abusing the sensibilities of Nigerians and the international community, only but says a whole lot about the manner this government is framed to function. Normally, the high-powered delay is part of statecraft. The government would have simply employed delay tactics while still allowing the minister to continue pending the outcome of the committee report which may never happen. However, that the government failed to deploy this option in handling such a sensitive issue speaks to how the government takes sides and approaches issues from the viewpoint of us against them. Patently creating, affirming, and polarizing its own citizens along different lines of division that is mostly avoidable.
At another level, perhaps, what the presidency did was divert attention from the issue in question. We must not forget that in this case, the major concerns are; did Pantami at any point expounded religious extremism, preached support for Al-Qaida, Taliban and accepts some ideologies of Boko Haram, and does he subscribe to Jihad? Secondly, at what point did Pantami deny all those extremist ideologies, and under what circumstances? Then, should such a man have been appointed a minister in Nigeria? Howbeit that those grave concerns did not matter to the Presidency! The question of being a terrorist sympathizer does not matter to the presidency, because, they said, “all discerning Nigerians know this manufactured dispute is nothing to do with the Minister’s prior words”. Such weighty words, a past he has so comfortably lived with till those “prior words” were recently made public knowledge. The question is; is his apology borne out of conviction just like his “prior words” or circumstantial out of his desire to save face and maintain his job? A difficult question and a major puzzle the presidency should have cleared but was left completely unaddressed.
This particular event is significant for Nigerians who have been told in clear language that whatever stake they have in this government is subject to determination by “the presidency”, which reserves the right to affirm or dismiss the same. I mean, if a government can declare a nullity past substantial wrong of a public officer, and by its own discretion deepen in its political and other biases, what more! The government has also shown open support for impunity and extremism, which are not without consequences. Nigeria is now squarely back to the us-against-them divide, which sees religious, ethnic, and political considerations take precedence over all other concerns. And if this government can so imperiously defend this, what else can the government not defend?
♦ Ebuka Onyekwelu, strategic governance exponent, is a columnist with the WAP
- Oko Poly Students Protest N5000 Examination Fees Imposed By Management - April 17, 2024
- Man Defiles 11-Year-Old Girl in Awka-North Local Govt, Anambra State. - April 16, 2024
- 10 years after Abduction – Chibok Girls Came Home With 34 Children - April 15, 2024
