Tuesday 27 November 2012

Re: And It’s El-Rufai Again – By Chinedu Ekeke


Re: And It’s El-Rufai Again – By Chinedu Ekeke

I cringed last week as I read heaps of tweets that followed an essay by Obinna Mgbeahurike (Known as The Arch Cardinal on twitter) targeted at Malam Nasir El-Rufai. A good number of the tweets emanated from Reno Omokri, an aide in Nigeria’s presidency, who recently took it upon himself to desecrate public space with gutter language, the type reserved for motor park touts. And the author of the said piece, donning his combat garb, was on hand to hit back at anybody who dropped any comment that expressed a contrary view. At a point, he declared to one commentator, “I don’t remember any invitation passive or active for your opinion in MY BLOG.” The emphasis was on the ownership of the blog; the same blog he wanted people – none owners – to visit and read. The whole idea was for every contrary view to steer clear of the blog. You either agree with the declaration that El-Rufai was a crook or keep shut.

Before I continue, I would like to enter a caveat here. In the course of my interactions with Mr Obinna on Twitter, I got to find out that he is from my state, my local government, and even my maternal clan, where, unfortunately, I’ve not been before. It means I have enough reasons to want to get sentimental about Obinna’s views if I am wired to think that way. In the real sense of it, he is my brother, and I am going to handle this rejoinder as a brother.

Mr Obinna began with a latent anger. He claimed El-Rufai had refused to give him attention on Twitter despite his attempts to attract such. He then concluded that it was out of pride or arrogance that El-Rufai ignored him. He said the man feels ‘too important to engage a lowly man’ like him (Obinna). He went a step further to mock the man’s physical size when he declared; “Maybe because my name doesn’t ring a loud bell … or perhaps am a bit too tall for Nasir to see my head and figure out what I am about.”(Emphasis, mine).

Everybody who has up to 1000 followers on twitter understands how difficult it is to engage that number, let alone a person who has up to 50,000 followers. Malam El-Rufai has over 100,000 followers, and Mr Obinna should understand the difficulty in engaging even 20% of that population. Not responding to people’s questions on twitter doesn’t make the person being questioned arrogant. Yet I have seen El-Rufai engage many of his followers in series of question and sessions. It is impossible to respond to everybody on your timeline if you have over one hundred thousand followers. This is why the mockery of El-Rufai’s physical size is unnecessary. None of us on earth contributed anything to our physical looks. We were all made by God.

The writer wasn’t happy that El-Rufai took umbrage at President Goodluck Jonathan for the recent Gallup polls in which Nigerians adjudged their government the second most corrupt in the world. For Mr Obinna, El-Rufai has no business accusing President Jonathan’s administration of corruption because there was a Wikileaks cable release that declared El-Rufai corrupt. Here’s what Obinna quoted: “–Al-Rufai is at the center of the corruption allegations. Well-known to PolCouns eight year ago, when he was homeless and seeking a loan to import a taxi from the UK, al-Rufai is said to have recently purchased seven upscale properties in a posh Abuja neighborhood. His demolitions of commercial and residential buildings in the capital have reportedly provided an opportunity for himself and several of his friends. After demolishing residential properties in Kubwa, the land was reallocated to several of his friends and to an investment company he allegedly owns. The community of Chika, where about two square miles of development was demolished in December, has allegedly been allocated to the same group of people.’ (Culled from a US Embassy Cable Message. The full report can be viewed here: http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=06ABUJA483&q=al-rufai ).”

As I read Obinna’s explanations of the Wikileaks cable quote above, I could see a man beaming with excitement. It was to him like victory, victory over an enemy. A cast iron evidence against a smart rogue was dug up, and yes, it was weighty enough. The implicit message leaped out of the pages of the essay and stirred readers in the face. He was so sure his piece couldn’t be punctured.

Well, let’s hope it doesn’t.

First, I’m surprised Mr Obinna is just seeing that particular Wikileaks cable. I saw it last year. Mr Obinna is already one year too late on that. I also saw other Wikileaks cables. I analysed them even then, and here’s what I found out.

The Wikileaks cables released about Nigeria were written under two United States Ambassadors, John Campbell and Robin Sanders. I discovered that cables by Robin Sanders were more factual while those by John Campbell were more of speculations and hearsays. I will give examples.

When you read cables by Campbell, you won’t find any difference between what he wrote and how Nigerian newspapers report. You get to see too much of ‘rumoured’, ‘believed to have’, ‘reported to have,’ etc. It is difficult to point to lines of certainty in the cables. For instance, here’s what

John Campbell wrote in the particular cable where El-Rufai was mentioned: “(C/REL UK) The Bureau of Private Enterprises oversaw the privatization of many government-owned business, including sugar, steel, rice and other sectors. It is widely believed that the privatization exercise benefited both the President, through Aliko Dangote, and the Vice President, through various agents.”

Note that he stated, “It is widely believed…”. No certainty. This isn’t different from what he’d been reading in Nigerian dailies.

Here’s another one by Mr Campbell:

“(U) For example, in a widely-circulated August 22 letter to President Obasanjo, Abia State Governor Orji Uzor Kalu accused Obasanjo of corruption, listing a number of dubious deals, including: ABUJA 00000483 002 OF 004 –Cancellation of the contract for the construction of the national stadium in Abuja, only to re-award the contract to a different vendor at a higher price. –Use of public funds for capital improvements at two private schools secretly owned by Obasanjo. Obasanjo’s response was to agree to be “investigated by the EFCC, which reports to the President. When the EFCC invited Kalu to provide evidence to support his accusations, Kalu refused, pointing out that the EFCC was not an independent investigative body and had no authority to prosecute the President, and the investigation died out.”

Is there anything different from this and what we read in Nigerian dailies within that period?
Still on Obasanjo, Ambassador Campbell wrote; “(S/REL UK) It is also widely believed that the President’s inner circle also reaps hefty rewards with impunity.” (I highlighted the ‘widely believed’ for the sake of emphasis).
Now let’s look at Robin Sanders’ cables:

“Jonathan told the Ambassador ‘everyone’s confused’ about who is in charge of Nigeria.”
Sanders continues: “(C) The AgP lamented, “This terrible situation in the country today has been created by four people: Turai Yar’Adua [the ailing President’s wife], his Chief Security Officer (CSO) [Yusuf Mohammed Tilde], his Aide-de-Camp (ADC)[Col. Mustapha Onoedieva] and Professor Tanimu Yakubu [Yar’Adua’s Chief Economic Advisor].”
And this: “(C) Jonathan said the CSO and ADC saw him separately to let him know that they did not intend to mistreat the AgP and expressed their willingness to work with him (which the AgP doubts).”

In all the cables sent by Robin Sanders, one cannot trace speculations or hearsays. They come with certainties. Everything was about findings, and findings. Sometimes the cables were minutes of meetings held with people in government. They carried the weight of credibility. The same cannot be said of John Campbell’s cables. It was Campbell who sent the cable on El-Rufai, and like all his messages, this one also came with only hearsays. One would have expected that with all the sophisticated intel at their disposal, Mr Campbell’s embassy would have got the clear details of El-Rufai’s shady deals. It is not enough to just allege that El-Rufai ‘is said to have recently purchased seven upscale properties in a posh Abuja neighborhood.” Who said? The Embassy was in a position to provide proofs on this. If Mr Campbell had known that the cable would leak any time in the future, I doubt if he would have sent just speculations as intel. This goes to show that the Wikileaks cables aren’t unquestionable. Some of them should be questioned. Others are convincing enough to believe immediately. Mr Campbell’s don’t qualify for instant swallow. They must be questioned.

But let us even look at the issues alongside Mr Obinna’s analysis. He said El-Rufai was seeking, wait, N6 million, to import a taxi, and that El-Rufai was equally homeless. That is ridiculous. By 1998, El-Rufai was a consultant to the regime of Abdulsalami Abubakar. The government handed over in May 1999. It means that even a day before Obasanjo became the president, El-Rufai was still a consultant for the government. I don’t know if it is possible that a government consultant in Nigeria will be homeless. Consultants do not earn the same salary as ministers. Even in the private sector, consultants do not earn the same salary with employees of the organization they consult for.

But let’s even ignore the fact that he was a consultant, El-Rufai studied quantity surveying and established El-Rufai & Partners Ltd, a quantity surveying firm, in 1982 (That is 30 years ago. Also note that he was born 1960. He established that firm at 22 years). As at 1982, I wonder how many quantity surveying firms, as well as quantity surveyors, Nigeria had. The firm was successful from inception, and has so remained to date. El-Rufai started practicing as a quantity surveyor while still in youth service, and bought his first car while still serving. As at then, he didn’t even know how to drive. It is unimaginable that the owner of a successful business will be homeless in 1999, the same year he was consulting for the Federal government. If this isn’t questionable, I wonder what is.
To fortify his claims, Mr Obinna wrote; “We know Nasir to be a lawyer and a Quantity Surveyor both of which he didn’t practice for this period so whence the stupendous wealth? Ponder on these for a while.”

That is not true. El-Rufai was a Quatity Surveyor first, and practiced for many years. He only became a lawyer in 2008, after he left public office. For emphasis sake, El-Rufai practiced quantity surveying!

Why did I go this far in defence of Nasir El-Rufai? It is because I feel there should be a limit to the propagation of falsehood against opponents of President Jonathan. If we brand everybody who has been in government a criminal, then we will be discouraging people from doing their best when they get to government. If we create the culture of castigating everybody in government, we’ll build a system where public office holders would only end up telling themselves; “They must condemn me anyway. So what’s the difference?” Nasir El-Rufai is one of the very few people who did their best while in government. Yes, the President under whose regime he served was grossly corrupt, but that doesn’t erase El-Rufai’s giant strides as a minister. Are we to suggest that Oby Ezekwesili should be vilified because she served under Obasanjo? Would we be fair to her if we say that? She was exceptionally good, and we must appreciate that about her. Ditto for El-Rufai.

Is he a saint? Far from it! Who amongst us is a saint, anyway? So I agree with Obinna that El-Rufai is a sinner. But what is the weight of his sin? I don’t know. I, however, do know that President Goodluck Jonathan weighs much more in the sinners’ scale. He was indicted in 2006 by a powerful task force set up by Obasanjo. The indictment was for false declaration of assets and for owning assets way above his means. It is surprising that the same person who saw the Wikileaks cable on El-Rufai doesn’t know that the Jonathan he defends should be in prison for false declaration of assets, in a real country, that is.

Are we still believing Mr Campbell’s hearsays on El-Rufai? Should we then assume that it is out of Jonathan’s love for El-Rufai that he hasn’t prosecuted him? It can’t be! It is for lack of evidence. Whoever believes Jonathan forgives his enemies should ask Ibori and Orkah. If this government has anything to tie on El-Rufai, they would have hauled it at his face long before now.

The danger of my writing this piece is that some people will call me a paid writer. That isn’t important. What is important is that I know I wasn’t paid to write this, neither did I tell El-Rufai I was going to write in defence of him. I picked interest in El-Rufai many years ago, long before the birth of Facebook and Twitter, when he exposed two senators who demanded bribe from him before confirmation as a minister. He fits into my definition of a courageous person. He looked at generals and PDP chieftains in the face and demolished their illegal structures in Abuja. Those were enough for me to know he is courageous.

The whole idea of Mr Obinna’s essay was to intimidate El-Rufai into silence in the face of the monumental decay Mr Jonathan has set in motion in the governance of Nigeria. That was why he asserted; “A crooked man has no business in calling others crooked. That is my point.”

Mr Obinna should do well to remind
his ‘saintly’ president Jonathan that the indices have never been this scary for Nigeria. In just 3 weeks, every index paints a grim picture of our situation. Gallup polls affirm that his government is the world’s second most corrupt; KPMG says Nigeria is the most fraudulent country in Africa; and then, Nigeria is the worst country to be born in 2013. These should be enough to make him sit up. He should be grateful to El-Rufai and the rest of us who help him point out where his attention should focus, where his unpatriotic aides like Reno Omokri mischievously refuse to point him to.

You can follow @ekekeee on Twitter for more direct engagement.

No comments:

Post a Comment