By definition, Nigeria is under civil rule or democracy. For the government of President Bola Tinubu to be in place, there was an electoral process, which culminated in an election and declaration of results as well as a winner. Now in power, the government is supposed to govern the people with regulated orders, having as its guiding principles the tenets of democracy.
In democracy, the things that are taken for granted are the culture of tolerance, respect for human freedom and fundamental rights, freedom of expression and of the press, separation of powers, independence of the branches of government, holding free and fair elections, and the supremacy of the constitution. Also in democracy, the rule of law prevails, while brute law ought to be out of place.
Incidentally, certain signals from government leave a doubt in the minds of people as to the kind of democracy in Nigeria. With intimidation, name-calling and vilification of dissenting voices by elements in government becoming a tradition, there is an increasing consensus that the country is gradually drifting into autocratic democracy.
To be sure, ever since the Tinubu government assumed office more than one year ago, the executive and legislative arms of government have been in an unholy alliance and consciously or unconsciously showing a high level of intolerance. This behaviour is threatening the very foundation of the country’s democracy and has sparked concerns among civil society organisations, opposition parties and the citizens, who fear for their freedom of expression and assembly.
These days, government’s responses to criticisms have been marked by aggression and intimidation. The government, through its officials, has made it a pastime to vilify people who criticise its performance and policies as well as those perceived to be in the opposition, with a view to not only discrediting them but also making them incur widespread odium. We have heard talks about using the instrumentality of office against critics by government officials, with threats of arrest or treason or treasonable felony charges.
Nigerians were witnesses to the recent development in the Senate, whereby the senator representing Borno South, Ali Ndume, former Senate Chief Whip, was deposed by the Senate’s leadership. His sin was that he had the effrontery to call the actions and inactions of President Tinubu and his government to question.
Ndume, no longer comfortable with the happenings in the country, like many other Nigerians, had lamented in an interview with journalists: “Mr. President is not in the picture of what is happening outside the Villa. He has been fenced off and caged. So many of us won’t go through the backdoor to engage him.
“Nigerians are getting very, very angry. The government is not doing anything about the food scarcity and it needs to do something urgently. We don’t have food reserve. There is unavailability of food. Food crisis is the worst crisis that any nation can encounter. If we add that to security crisis, it will be severe.”
Proffering solutions to the problems he identified, Ndume said: “The President should wake up; it seems he isn’t in the picture of what is happening because he has been caged off. I am very worried not only for the President himself, but for myself.”
As a bona fide citizen of Nigeria, Ndume felt strongly that something was wrong in government and the country. He spoke out, in exercising his right to freedom of expression and playing his role as a federal lawmaker whose duty it is to talk about the plights of the people he represents and Nigerians generally. Criticism against an individual, organisation or government is a legitimate right. It is done to point out errors and make government to correct them. Unfortunately, in Nigeria today, it is increasingly seen as an abomination.
Before the Ndume case, Senator Abdul Ningi, representing Bauchi Central, was suspended because he made an observation about the 2024 budget. The senator had alleged that the total worth of the 2024 budget assented to by President Tinubu was different from what was passed by the National Assembly. He pointed out a difference of about N3 trillion.
Despite the admission that there was actually an increase, which came about during appropriation process, the Senate slammed a suspension on Ningi. In his motion for the Senate to discuss Senator Ningi’s revelation, the chairman of Senate Committee on Appropriation, Senator Olamilekan Adeola, had said: “The additional increase of N1.2 trillion to what was presented by the President came during the appropriation process through additional funding requests and some items of expenditure to the committee (of appropriation) that were not included in the bill as submitted by the President and were meant to address additional funding for the judiciary, agriculture and food security, works, science and technology, education, water resources, National Assembly, health and National Home-grown School Feeding Programme.”
Ningi stayed suspended for three months, until the Northern Caucus of the Senate took “full responsibility for his action” and tendered an unreserved apology. He was recalled to plenary.
In the last one year, the military and police have arrested journalists, using National Security and Cybercrime Act as camouflage. Such occurrence was not rampant before. Arrest and intimidation of journalists are an infringement on freedom of the press guaranteed by the constitution and threaten the ability of citizens to access accurate information and hold those in power accountable. Indeed, the shrinking of the civic space undermines the ability of citizens to organise and advocate for their rights.
By clamping down on Ndume and Ningi for pointing out government’s errors and failings, the Senate cried more than the bereaved. The Senate, nay legislature, being an arm of government in place to check the executive, ought to be the conscience of the society and a watchdog. It is inconceivable for the Senate to be a tool for the caging of the opposition. The Senate, the Presidency and judiciary should hold their allegiance to the nation and not to any individual, be he or she the President or Senate President. Allegiance to an individual against the state is treason in itself.
Government critics are not enemies but compatriots who want corrections made and things done in a better way, for the good of the people and the country. This is distinct from sycophancy, which is an unforgiveable sin. Sycophants do not have the interest of anybody at heart. They are only interested in their personal benefits. A government that cherishes sycophancy against progressive criticism will end up in disgrace and failure. It would be a case of a grasshopper roasting in the fire and exuding oil, as the Igbo say, that thinks it is enjoying because people say it’s discharging oil owing to heat, not knowing that it is burning to death. Any cheerleader who continues to praise a masquerade whose trousers are torn and baring the manhood is only out to ridicule it. Another spectator who tells the masquerade that its manhood is showing from its torn trousers is a better cheerleader.
It is in this country that the wife of a former President, Aisha Buhari, openly alleged that her husband, President Muhammadu Buhari, had been hijacked by a cabal. She said that those who did not work for her husband’s election had hijacked the government, threatening not to campaign for her husband’s re-election in the proceeding election, if things continued the same way. She had told the BBC Hausa service in 2016: “He (President) is yet to tell me, but I have decided as his wife that, if things continue like this up to 2019, I will not go out and campaign again and ask any woman to vote, like I did before; I will never do it again.”
Aisha Buhari did not criticise her husband because she hated him. She spoke out of concern, believing that the former President would dislodge the perceived cabal or make amends. Although Buhari, at that time, said her wife’s place belonged to the kitchen and “the other room,” the message by the woman was not lost on him. Buhari, despite the fact that he did not like what his wife said, never divorced her.
To say the least, the culture of intolerance under President Tinubu’s government poses a significant threat to Nigeria’s democracy. It is essential for officials of the administration to recognise the value of dissenting voices and take steps to protect freedom of expression, assembly and the press. Failure to do so risks undermining the legitimacy of the government and the trust of its citizens. The government arms, whether executive or legislature, should learn to tolerate others with different points of view.