advertisement

africandemocracy@hotmail.com Boston, MA, USA

COUNCIL OF STATE IS ONLY FOR DEMOCRATS

An Appeal to President Olusegun Obasanjo and the Political Class to Exclude General Muhammadu Buhari and other "Political Generals" from the Council of State through an amendment to the 1999 Constitution.

ne would recall in my preceding essay with the title "Buhari is Ruining the ANPP", I made a case and a passionate appeal to the owners of the ANPP for the immediate removal of General Muhammadu Buhari from the ANPP, partly because he is destroying the party, partly because of his refusal to be a democrat, partly because of his threat to the democratic order, partly because of his intransigence as a loser in an election and partly because of his decision to make his defeat a defeat of the north.

One would recall I ended that essay with an indication that I would be baring my mind on the need to expunge non-democratic or anti-democratic elements found in such a political actor as General Buhari from the intrinsically democratic contrivance such as the Council of State.

In this essay, I shall be making a case and a passionate appeal to the President and the political class for the removal of all "political generals" including General Muhammadu Buhari from the Council of State through a constitutional amendment, partly because by their nature of origin and their orientation to politics, they have nothing to offer a democratically elected President and partly because the Council of State being a democratic contrivance, only a former democratically elected President (SHAGARI) is of use as an adviser to a democratically elected President (OBASANJO).

This is an usually long essay. I want readers to understand my reasoning to the point of repetitive and tortuous in some cases. The case I am making is old with me dating back to my days in partisan politics. It is not borne out of "bad belle" or of ethnic, religious or regional considerations. It is borne out of my passionate and life-long commitment to democracy. I pray, readers will bear with me.

RECALLING MT CONCERN SINCE 1983

Readers who knew my thinking in the past 20 or so years would recall I first made a case for a fundamental rethinking of the composition of the Council of State in a debate I initiated in 1983. In 2000/2001 two incidents made me to re-open that debate I initiated in 1983 about the intention of the "Founding Fathers" of the 1979 Constitution for the Presidential System when the institution of the Council of State was provided for in a democratic order. Modesty aside, I was one of the "Founding Fathers" of the Presidential System that commenced with the 1979 Constitution. Some aspects of that effort are recounted in my book, Beyond the Tripod in Nigerian Politics.

My view then was that the members of the Constituent Assembly did not anticipate certain developments that engulfed the polity after 1979. It would appear that the makers of the 1999 Constitution which is just a carbon copy in many ways of the 1979 Constitution ignored those issues I noted in the past and compounded the earlier issues with new ones such as (a) the dominance of the "Political Generals" under the category of former President and former Heads of Government and (b) the preponderance of northerners in that category. The 1999 Constitution over protected and overcompensated those who killed democracy in the past by placing them in a position to further obstruct the democratic development in Nigeria. The anti-democratic behavior of General Buhari in the past is rearing its ugly head in the present hence the case for the exclusion of former military Heads of State from the Council of State becomes critical if democracy is to survive in Nigeria.

DOMINANCE OF NORTHERN "POLITICAL GENERALS" UNACCEPTABLE

In our wildest dream, those of us who set the agenda of the Constituent Assembly in 1977 who were mostly from the "Fourth Dimension" (minorities from the north and south) could not have in 1977/78 thought that Nigeria would have so many former military Heads of State.

We could not have imagined that the former Presidents or Heads of Government in the Council of State would be "political generals" with no claim to a democratic life of the like of Gowon, Babangida, Buhari, late Abacha and Abubakar.

We could not have imagined that "political generals would be made by some constitutional fiats as was made in 1999 to breathe over the head of an elected President.

We could not have imagined that these "political generals" would come from one part of the country and would be allowed to breathe over the elected President form another part of the country.

It was inconceivable that we would have thought that all the former Heads of State/Government except one (Shonekan they made) would come from the north.

These are the issues, which the President and the Nigerian political class would have to resolve through a National Conference.

CONCERN ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF STATE

I was shocked by the decision of the new President (Chief Olusegun Obasanjo) in 1999 to find jobs for the former "Political Generals" who were in their fifties and with access to unlimited time and money at their disposal for all sorts of mischief. President Obasanjo just wanted to integrate them into civilian life and the one way he thought he could achieve this was to make the former Heads of State including the former military Heads of State the Chancellors of the Federal Universities. It was obvious to me that the new President was in haste and did not give the matter the thought the matter deserved. Some of the issues that he neglected were as follows:

1. That most of the "political generals" who are former military Heads of State/Government except one (Shonekan) are from the north.

2. That all of them except two (Gowon and Shonekan) would be new to a university environment and cannot appreciate the crisis in higher education in Nigeria.

3. That of the six first generation Universities of reputes (Ibadan, Lagos, Ife, Benin and Nsukka and ABU) only one, (ABU), is in the north and the rest are in the south. That means that President Obasanjo would be sending maybe Shonekan to ABU in the north and Gowon and other "political generals" from the north to the southern universities.

4. That most of the University teachers and students detest the former military Heads of State who they felt were responsible for the economic and social crisis in Nigeria in general and the collapse of the middle-class and mounting unemployment of the university graduates in particular.

5. That the Universities are centers of liberal political thought and centers of anti-military activities, hence foisting former dictators on the universities where the teachers and students strongly believed contributed to their underdevelopment would be strongly resisted.

6. That to treat the former Presidents and Heads of State as a group violates the provision of the Federal Character in the Constitution as most of them are from one section of Nigeria.

The second occasion when I bared my mind on the issue of the Council of State was prompted by the conduct of the former Head of State, General Muhammadu Buhari who had the tendency to divulge the matters discussed in the Council of State. I did not see how the elected President from the south would find himself dependent on the advice of the "political generals" from the north on matters of security such as the riots over religion. My view then was that President Obasanjo should rethink the composition of the Council of State through the National Conference. I was concerned that an elected President did not owe the northern "political generals" anything to make him provide for them in a democratic order.

If President Obasanjo owed them something between 1999 and 2003, the recent election of April 19 2003 clearly demonstrates that he does not need them between 2003 as advisers on how to run a democratic Nigeria.

The third occasion was in 1983 under the Presidency of Alhaji Shehu Shagari in the context of who actually was the predecessor in office of the Executive President? This will be discussed later.

I took these three issues to form an essay in 2000 titled, "Searching for Roles for former Presidents and Heads of State, which was published by the Guardian in Nigeria and the African Market in New Jersey in June 2000.

The fourth occasion was within the context of a renewed call for the withdrawal of General Buhari from the Council of State because of his incitement of Muslims against non-Muslims in politics, The first to call for his removal from the Council of State was Chief Solomon D. Lar, the first National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and one of the "Founding Fathers" of the Presidential System. The case for the removal of General Buhari from he Council of State was the subject of my essay, "Only a National Conference can exclude an Islamic Jihadist from the Constitution". I still believe that the Council should exclude Islamic Jihadist.

Today the anti-democratic behavior of General Buhari is bothering me. I thought I should revisit the question of the composition of the Council of State in the context of the role of former military Heads of State who become partisan politicians, especially in their relation with a democratically elected President. General Muhammadu Buhari has nothing to offer a democratically elected President because he does not believe in a democratic life anyway.

Nigerians would recall the incident in the Presidential Villa just before the commencement of the series of election. I am referring to the encounter between President Obasanjo and General Buhari.

It was reported that all the former Heads of State with the exception of General Buhari were assembled in President Obasanjo's office going over the matters that would come before the full Council meeting. I was told that this was the usual practice when the President used to take his predecessors in office through matters listed and not listed on the Council paper. It is usually an opportunity for them to rub minds on varieties of issues. They used to walk together to the Council Chamber where other members are assembled.

The report said that when the absence of General Buhari was noticed, the President sent for him thrice and thrice he declined to join others in the President's Office. The report said that General Buhari did not only refuse to join his fellow former Heads of State with President Obasanjo, he in fact took his seat in the Council Chamber and conversing with the Governor of Zamfara unconcerned. Finally when the President and the former Heads of State came to the Council Chamber, an unfriendly encounter between President Obasanjo and General Buhari ensued in the full glare of the media in the Council Chamber as if they were a campaign.

The way the "political generals" from the north surround Obasanjo during the Council of State meeting and the prominence given to the meeting of the Council is making Nigerians to ask the pertinent question, what did the "Founding Fathers" actually have in mind when the institution of Council of State was introduced into the Presidential System in the 1979 Constitution.

WHAT THE "FOUNDING FATHERS" HAD IN MIND

I was an elected member of the Constituent Assembly that brought about the institution. I was the coordinator of the "voting majority" that set the agenda for the Assembly. What we had in mind was that the inclusion of the former Presidents or Heads of State of former Chief Justices who are Nigerians was meant to achieve the followings:

1. To provide advice to the elected President in his onerous duties in the national interest.

2. To provide for continuity in the functioning of government.

3. To demonstrate that there is wisdom in the Council of State and that that wisdom would be made available to the new elected President as he ponders over the affairs of the State.

4. To demonstrate that the former Heads of State would be in a position to advise the new President on the basis of how they as democrats handled identical matters before as a guide to the current officers of the State.

5. To demonstrate that advice from former democratically elected President/Heads of Government would be taken seriously by the current elected President.

6. To demonstrate that such advice is also to be in confidence and it is not supposed to be for the media, even if the President decides to reject such advice.

7. To demonstrate that the institution of the Council of State is not to be used during the military administration for obvious reasons and that the institution was conceived as a democratic contrivance and for the functioning of a democratic order and not for a military regime.

The foregoing would be a guide to the President and the political class as they proceed to review the 1999 Constitution.

COMPOSITION

The Council of State consists of the following:

1. The President who is the Chairman;

2. The Vice President who is the Vice Chairman;

3. The former Presidents and Heads of the Federal Government;

4. The former Chief of Justice;

5. The State Governors;

6. The Senate President;

7. The Speaker of House of Representatives;

8. The Attorney General and Minister of Justice;

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT

Number 3 above is the issue today and the subject of this essay. It should be amended to read "elected former Presidents or Heads of Government of the Federation". There is precedence for this.

One would recall that in the Constituent Assembly in 1977/78, where there was a retired Chief Justice still alive and still living in the country, (Sir Donley Alexander) number 4 was qualified with the following "former Chief Justices of Nigeria who are Nigerian citizens". There is no reason why Number 3 should not be so qualified to provide for only democratically elected former Presidents and Heads of Government.

FUNCTIONS

1. Advise the President in the exercise of his powers with respect to

   (i) National Population Census and Compilation, Publication and Keeping of Records;

   (iv) The Independent National Electoral Commission including the Appointment of Members of the Commission

2. Advise the President whenever requested to do so on the maintenance of public Order within the Federation……..and on such matters as the President may direct.

It is interesting to note that General Muhammadu Buhari was involved in the process that led to the composition of the INEC even when it was obvious to him that he had in mind running for the high office.

These two aspects of the functions of the Council of State completely mean that an elected President would have to depend on those who could advice him in confidence. This is where the dominance of the political generals from the north raises some problems. I am sure if General Abdulsalami Abubakar had allowed Nigerians to freely come up with a Constitution in 1999, no sane Nigerian from the south would have agreed to a situation where the "political generals" from the north virtually retained power after losing the free and fair poll through its dominance of the Council of State.

REVIEW OF THE COMPOSITION

Let me discuss the Composition as it has to do with the former Heads of State or Presidents.

1. Who are the former Heads of State today?

2. Is that what the "Founding Fathers" had in mind?

These two questions are areas that scholars should have been interested in since 1979. These are some of the fundamental questions that should be raised and discussed in the light of today.

UNELECTED PRESIDENTS/HEADS OF STATE

Can an unelected President or Head of Government qualify as a member of the Council?

Since the Council of State is a democratic contrivance and since it is meant to service a democratically elected President, one would expect that what the "Founding Fathers" had in mind was a former democratically elected President. Today only President Shehu Shagari qualifies under this criterion to be a member of the Council of State. President Obasanjo would join him in 2007 after his second term. As former Presidents who were democratically elected at one time or the other, they would be in a position to relate with an elected President as advisers in the Council of State.

CEREMONIAL PRESIDENT AS FORMER PRESIDENT

Can a ceremonial President be grouped with the category of President with executive power?

This was an issue in 1977 among members of the Constituent Assembly as to what to call the former ceremonial President (Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe) who was still alive. Members were conflicted as to whether Dr. Azikiwe as the surviving ceremonial President could rightly be called the predecessor of the President under the 1979 Constitution? Members erred on the side of caution and did not want to call a spade a spade. Members of the Constituent Assembly that made a distinction between a Chief Justice who was a Nigerian and a Chief Justice who was not ought to have come to terms with the fact that the President under the First Republic was different from the President under the Second Republic and that the former could not be the predecessor of the latter.

FORMER HEAD OF STATE/PRESIDENT AS PARTISAN POLITICIANS

Can a former President elected or unelected who is still in partisan politics qualify as a Member of the Council?

This would apply to Alhaji Shehu Shagari as an elected President before he renounced partisan politics. It applied to Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe when he became the presidential candidate of the Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP) between 1979 and 1983. It certainly applies to General Buhari today. The political class would have to resolve it in the light of the anti-democratic behavior of General Buhari as the presidential candidate of ANPP.

FORMER MILITARY HEADS OF STATE

Can a former military Head of State qualify as a member of the Council?

Those in this category are Generals Yakubu Gowon, Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida and Abdulsalami Abubakar. There are two things against them.

One, they know nothing about democratic practice; they are therefore not in a position to tell the elected President how they handled a crisis arising from democratic practice in the past.

In 1977/78 when the matter was discussed, only General Obasanjo would have been the former military Head of State. The other, General Gowon was a fugitive and stripped of his title and he could not therefore be anticipated by the "Founding Fathers" of the Constitution.

There was no way the "Founding fathers" would have anticipated such a large number of former military Heads of State from the north that would surround an elected President from the south as advisers. What can Obasanjo get from the core of Arewa leaders as former Heads of State?

Two, there is no way that the Constituent Assembly whose agenda was set by the Fourth Dimension would have accepted a situation that reduces the power of the States. The notion of "Federal Character" is not made applicable to former Heads of State. The Council of State as presently composed with the former Heads of State and the former Chief Justices has a majority from the north. As the present number of northerners is today it is in violation of the Federal Character provision of the Constitution.

WHAT WAS NOT ANTICIPATED

The "Founding Fathers" never anticipated certain developments, which later arose and became obvious after the promulgation of the Constitution into law in 1978. Let me cite some cases. The "Founding fathers" did not anticipate

1. That a former Head of State would still be a partisan politician.

2. That the emergence of the Head of State would be by the bullet instead of by the ballot box.

3. That Nigeria would be dealing with so many military Presidents or Heads of State from one section of the country.

4. That Nigeria would have a military appointed Head of State like Head of Interim National Government.

Consequently, in view of the foregoing, the "Founding Fathers" had in mind three things:

1. That Nigeria would continue to have an elected President.

2. That a change of democratic order would be an aberration and would be short-lived.

3. That those who brought about a military change of government should not permanently benefit from it by providing for them in the ensuing democratic order.

These are the three issues that would be discussed in this paper.

FORMER PRESIDENTS AS A PARTISAN POLITICIAN

I raised this question in 1983 in an academic forum, whether Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the first and only Nigerian CEREMONIAL President in the nation's history and living then could rightly be called the predecessor of the first elected President, Alhaji Shehu Shagari. Nigerians who did not want the matter to be raised at all ignored this matter. There were some members of my party who advised me that if it was to be raised at all, it should not be by a former Chief scribe of the party, which had Dr. Azikiwe as its party leader.

I decided to take the matter to the media with an essay titled "Who is the Predecessor of President Shagari?" This matter generated a series of articles in the Sunday Times edited then by my former student, late Andy Akporugo who saw merit in the question and thought that the issue was of public interest and invited the public to take it up. The debate ran for many weeks of accusations and counter-accusations between me and some Ndi Igbo who did not want to contemplate the fact that Dr. Azikiwe was only "a former ceremonial President". Were they not disingenuous? When I raised the question it was not intended to undermine his position in Nigerian history.

The question I raised in 1983 was a genuine one, which I thought would have engaged the minds of lawyers and political scientists and not necessarily of politicians. The responses to my question in 1983 were mainly from a certain part of the country and of course, instead of addressing the issues I raised, I was called all sorts of names.

Let me reiterate today the issue I raised in 1983. I did not raise that question to undermine the position of the revered Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe in the nation's history. What bothered me then could be summarized in the following way since I cannot lay hands on the series of newspaper debate, which the question generated in 1983.

I argued then that nomenclature aside, the position of the "President" under the First Republic was different from the position of the "President" under the Second Republic. One would have thought that this was common sense. It was not so to some Nigerians who saw everything in ethnic terms.

The political party in power appointed the President under the First Republic. For how Dr. Azikiwe became the first Governor General/President see the authentic account by the last British Governor General, Sir James Robertson in his memoir, Transition in Africa (London, 1974). It is a common knowledge how the Nigerian people elected Alhaji Shehu Shagari of the National Party of Nigeria, the President in 1979 under the Second Republic.

The President under the First Republic was a ceremonial one. Meaning he had no executive power as the executive power resided in the elected Prime Minister. The President under the Second Republic is both ceremonial and executive.

I then argued that Dr. Azikiwe under the Republican Constitution 1963-66 was only occupying the ceremonial arm of the position of the new President under the 1979 Constitution, who combined in himself both the ceremonial and the executive. To that extent, Dr. Azikiwe could be called the predecessor of Alhaji Shagari with respect to the ceremonial aspect of his office and could not be the predecessor of Alhaji Shagari with respect to his executive aspect of his office.

It should be obvious that Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa could be said to be the predecessor in office in 1979 to Alhaji Shagari with respect to his executive aspect. I then raised the question whether the new President, (ceremonial and executive) could actually be said to be the successor of the ceremonial President.

My argument then was based on my understanding of the intentions of the "Founding Fathers" of the 1979 Constitution. Alhaji Shehu Shagari was to be the first in the line of former democratically elected Presidents. He as an elected executive President was to be the beginning of a line of democratically elected Presidents. This meant that President Shagari did not have a predecessor. It also meant that President Shagari would later be the predecessor of other elected Presidents in future.

It is my argument that Alhaji Shehu Shagari would be the only predecessor of President Olusegun Obasanjo, as both of them were elected and came to office by the 'will of the Nigerian people' and NOT through the bullet. By the qualification of the 'will of the people', President Obasanjo would be taken as the successor of President Shagari and the second in the list of former Presidents of Nigeria.

This also means that other military President or Heads of State would also call themselves successors or predecessors of one junta as the case may be.

General Babangida is one of its kind as one and only military President in the nation's history.

General Gowon, General Buhari, General Abacha and General Abubakar are in the same category as former military Heads of State.

Chief Ernest Shonekan as the Head of Interim national Government is also one of its kind.

A CEREMONIAL PRESIDENT IN PARTISAN POLITICS

Nigerians would recall why Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe "reentered the orbit of partisan politics" in 1978. The reason he gave then was that despite all that he contributed to this land, he never ruled Nigeria for one day. My view then as the protem National Secretary of that party and as one of those who organized his reentry into the orbit of partisan politics, Dr. Azikiwe's notion of 'ruling this country' was as the executive Head of State or President and not as the ceremonial Head of State or President. Dr. Azikiwe, as a Political Scientist knew of the distinction. His experience in 1964 further taught him the distinction that he was just called the "Commander in Chief" just as the Queen of England and that the real Commander in Chief was the Prime Minister who had the power to order the operational uses of the armed forces.

Dr. Azikiwe's decision to seek the exalted office of the President of Nigeria in 1978 on the basis that he never ruled this country for one day meant that he did not see himself as the former President of Nigeria as provided for under the 1979 Constitution. This means that Dr. Azikiwe's notion of Alhaji Shagari's predecessor would have had an executive component to it and would have a popular mandate to how it should emerge. These two qualifications were never discussed after Dr. Azikiwe became the presidential candidate of the NPP.

What I was trying to argue in 1983 was that Dr. Azikiwe as the 'father of the nation' as he was popularly referred to was in a world of his own. He could not be in the same status with Alhaji Shagari or of the Prime Minister under the First Republic. Even the elected Prime Minister, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was the predecessor of Alhaji Shagari with respect to the executive component of his office. Those who would want to know of the experience of Dr. Azikiwe in 1964 should refer to the plan of Dr. Azikiwe to give some interpretation to his ceremonial title, Commander in Chief during the crisis after the Federal election of December 1964. Readers would recall how Dr. Azikiwe wanted to flex his muscles by refusing to call the winner with the majority seats, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) to form the government. One would recall how Dr. Azikiwe was upset with the process leading to the election and the aftermath of the election. When Dr. Azikiwe as the 'Commander in Chief'' wanted to summon the Service Chiefs and Police, he was rebuffed. The Service Chiefs and the head of the Nigeria Police who were all expatriates declined to meet with Dr. Azikiwe because for operational purposes, they were answerable only to the Prime Minister. Dr. Azikiwe was saved by the timely intervention of Dan Ibekwe and the Chief Justice of the federation, Justice Adetokunbor Ademola. Some of us lived through this phase in 1964.

A FORMER CEREMONIAL PRESIDENT/HEAD OF STATE AS A DEFEATED CANDIDATE

The decision of Dr. Azikiwe to be a candidate in 1979 raised another critical issue never anticipated by the "Founding Fathers" of the 1979 Constitution. Assuming the "Founding Fathers" of the 1979 Constitution did not think of the distinction between the two types of former Presidents, how could the "Founding Fathers" have dealt with the new situation created by the status of Dr. Azikiwe as the defeated presidential candidate of the Nigerian Peoples Party? I sought solution from the debate in the proceedings from the Constituent Assembly. It did not provide any help in resolving this problem. It is still a problem today.

An identical situation arose in April 2002, the moment General Muhammadu Buhari indicated his intention to seek the office of the President through the All Nigerian Peoples Party (ANPP), the party in opposition to one of President Obasanjo. The debate in the Constituent Assembly would not help. Should it not have been obvious to General Buhari to resign his seat in the Council of State as he did with the Arewa Consultative Forum?

Did the "Founding Fathers" of the 1979 Constitution anticipate that a former President whether ceremonial or executive should still remain a member of the Council of State once he renounces his status of a former President and joins the fray of partisan politics?

Could Dr. Azikiwe, a defeated Presidential candidate of the opposition party be an adviser to a President (Shagari) who defeated him? This is applicable to Buhari a former military Head of State who turned a partisan politician. Would he be in a position to be an adviser to the President who defeated him? This is the situation Nigeria is in today.

Could the former ceremonial President-turned Presidential candidate be in a position to give advice to an elected President of another party when faced with critical issues affecting the State where his party or governor from one of his party states is one of the factors? This was the issue that came to light after the 1979 election. President Obasanjo was faced with this situation in 2000 from the northern former heads of State over the Sharia issue.

Between 1979 and 1983, there were many security issues where NPP states were involved. A typical one was what to do with the dispute between the Police Commissioner under the control of the federal government and the Governor of the State of Anambra? Was the former ceremonial President, who later turned a partisan politician and a defeated Presidential candidate of the party of the Governor be in a position to advise the new President who saw the action of the Police Commissioner as proper and in the best security interest of the country? President Shagari and Governor Nwobodo are still alive and could discuss the crisis over the police in Anambra during this period.

Is this not the situation that President Obasanjo faced recently when three former President or military Heads of State assumed partisan garb and openly disagreed with President Obasanjo's call for caution on the politics of Sharia and on the need to return to normalcy and to the status quo ante? Just as Alhaji Shagari refused to take to the Council of State security matter involving the states where Dr. Azikiwe's party was in control, would a situation not arise when President Obasanjo would decide to take off the table matters involving the north in the Council of State? What use will they be then? Does this not mean that as long as the former Heads of State are still actively in partisan politics or in support of a position inimical to the national interest, the President should not take them into confidence? What use would they be therefore as members of the Council of State? This is a clear case why General Buhari as along as he remains the presidential candidate of ANPP and disputing the legitimacy of the President, would not be a fit and proper person to advise the elected President.

PRESIDENT OBASANJO IN PERSPECTIVE

It should be noted that it was General Obasanjo as the military Head of State who handed over to Alhaji Shehu Shagari as the elected President in 1979. It should be further noted that they are the only two elected Presidents or Heads of Government of the Federation in the nation's history so far.

President Obasanjo as an elected President was looking forward to another former elected President to join him in upholding the new democratic order. Certainly President Obasanjo was not looking forward to a collection of former "political generals", "professional coup plotters" who undermined the democratic order in the professional career. This is an additional reason why General Buhari and other political generals who stole the peoples mandate in the past should not benefit from anti-democratic act in the past and be rewarded being members of the Council of State.

The episode over the Sharia openly exposed General Buhari that in the final analysis he is a religious/regional/ethnic leader. General Buhari in a public statement, unprovoked and without respect to the man who looked up to him for support when the country was on fire over the Sharia disappointed the new President. This was the reason why Chief Solomon D. Lar wanted him removed from the Council of State. This could not be dealt with without amending the Constitution, hence I proposed that the instrumentality of the National Conference should be used to amend the Constitution and remove religious such a religious bigot as General Buhari.

In his conduct of public affairs, General Buhari demonstrates that he is always acting as a northern leader and out to defend the special interest of the north against the national interest, which the Council of State was out to defend. Is this not a partisan activity, a qualification, which is no different from Dr. Azikiwe's with respect to the government of Anambra state? Does General Buhari qualify to be a member of the Council of State and as one of the predecessors of the new President? These are issues, which should be further examined. I am sure today that he openly engages in partisan politics, he should no longer use the institution of the Council of State to confront the elected President on behalf of the ANPP. This is what General Buhari has been doing since 2002 when he became a partisan politician. Should General Buhari be allowed to continue to use the Council of State to confront the President? Should General Buhari be allowed to take the matter discussed in the Council of State to the national and international media as he did on many occasions? I am therefore of the opinion that as long as the former Head of State still has partisan interest, he should be debarred from the Council of State. Should there not be a constitutional amendment to exclude former Heads of State who are still in partisan politics?

THE BUHARI SAGA, AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT THE COMPOSITION

It is a matter of record that General Buhari still harbored some grudges against the new President from General Obasanjo's campaign against his authoritarian rule when he (Buhari) was the Head of State to his decision on the Petroleum Trust Fund (farmed out to him by Abacha), which he President Obasanjo planned to cancel as soon as he took office. In fact, General Buhari believed that one of the arguments IBB used to mobilize against his administration was from the speeches made at various times by General Obasanjo. There are some elements of truth in this. I had the opportunity to listen to some of the military officers who said that General Obasanjo spoke their minds on the high handedness of General Buhari. IBB and his co-plotters did not have to search for how the nation would take his overthrow. They took the speech of General Obasanjo seriously to mean that there must be a change of guards. General Buhari believed that it was General Obasanjo who actually called on the troop to remove him from office as he virtually called him a disgrace to the armed forces by his lack of humane treatment of Nigerians and by his inability to come up with a political program.

OBASANJO QUESTIONED BUHARI AND HIS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC LIFE

It is a matter of record that there were many members of the political class including the former President and his deputy and the State Governors who were behind bars. It is also a matter of record that Head of State, General Buhari did not think that a transition program was necessary even though he called his administration a continuation of the Murtala/Obasanjo regime what ever that meant. In fact, the military officers even said that whenever General Obasanjo spoke, they usually believed that some changes were in the offing.

LONG LIST OF FORMER HEADS OF STATE FROM THE NORTH UNACCEPTABLE

Did the "Founding Fathers" anticipate that there would be a long list of former Heads of State from the north when they were naming the former Heads of State as members of the Council of State? The answer is no.

At the time the "Founding Fathers" came up with the institution of the former Heads of States as members of the Council of State, it was anticipated that there would only be one former military Head of State after the 1979 presidential election. That was General Olusegun Obasanjo. The other former military Head of State, then Mr. Yakubu Gowon as he was called then having been stripped of his title of General. General Gowon had some problems with the military under whom the Constitution was put together. No provision was made to accommodate him for obvious reasons.

The "Founding Fathers" of the 1979 Constitution only had General Obasanjo and Dr. Azikiwe in mind as the former Heads of State to be members of the Council of State. They did not anticipate the situation, which led to so many former military Heads of State as we have it today.

WHAT TO DO? REVIEW STATUS OF FORMER HEADS OF STATE.

From the foregoing, may I suggest that the new President and the political class should take a hard look at the institution of the Council of State and take the matter to the National Conference. The present composition should be reviewed to prevent the situation just described above. May I therefore suggest matters for the consideration of thePresident and the political class.

1. That the notion of former President should be qualified to exclude those who are still in partisan politics such as General Buhari.

2. That the notion of former President/Head of State should exclude the "Political Generals". By this I mean those military officers who were made Generals by virtue of their different roles in politics. All the former military Heads of State or former military President from 1966 to 1999 (Generals Gowon, Murtala Muhammed, Olusegun Obasanjo Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha and Abdulsalami Abubakar). They are those who came to office by the 'force of the bullet' and sustained their rule by force. This means that former military Heads of States, Generals Gowon, Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida, and Abubakar should not be members of the Council of State. From their mode of coming into office and their mode of rule, they could not work to sustain a democratic order. Since they did not have democratic experience, they could not be made to advise a democratic President on how to maintain order in a democratic situation.

3. That the Council of State should exclude those who were appointed by the military on an interim capacity such as Chief Ernest Shonekan. The record is clear that Chief Shonekan was technically Head of 'a Government' in Abuja with no control over the Defense matters based in Lagos under General Sani Abacha. His experience in public life was very limited and this was under a military regime. Most seriously, he had no record of participation in political life to be credited with experience of how he dealt with security issues, which could arise from partisan issue as the politicization of Sharia in 2000. Chief Shonekan today does not therefore, possess the qualification of an elected President that comes to office through the 'will of the people'. He does not possess the qualification of a former military Head of State that comes to office by the 'will of the bullet'. These are two ways of becoming the Head of State historically in Nigeria. His was an aberration not contemplated by the "Founding Fathers". Therefore, Chief Shonekan does not possess the advice that would be made available to the new President or any President who comes to office on the basis of the 'will of the people' through his participation in the Council of State. This does not mean that he could not advise the President on how to deal with business issues, which he spent all his life managing on behalf of the British private interest. Maybe the man who kicked him out of his interim administration General Abacha knew his qualities hence he named him the coordinator of his economic program.

4. That the Council of State should exclude ceremonial President/Head of State. We have no Dr. Azikiwe in the list of former Presidents or Heads of State to contend with today. May His Soul Rest in Peace. What I said about him in the past when I raised the innocuous question in 1983 which elicited so many violent comments from many Ndi Igbo leaders as if I was bent on denigrating the exalted status of the revered former Governor General and the former President are still valid if we are to change to a Parliamentary System contemplated by some Nigerians. If we remove the sage from the long list of former President/Heads of State, my argument would still be valid today.

5. That what I said then about Dr. Azikiwe in respect of his partisan posture after his tenure as President could today be used to deal with the exclusion of Alhaji Shehu Shagari, a former elected President of Nigeria between 1979 and 1983, if he decides to take to partisan politics. Luckily he recently renounced partisan political life that now makes him eligible as a bona fide member of the Council of State as the only democrat that can advise a democratically elected President.

6. That we should exclude all traces of the former leaders of the military regimes in the past. They like Buhari and other "political generals" have nothing to impart to the new democratic regime. Because a military regime is a 'fraud', as General Babangida puts it, the leaders of all military regimes who came to office through fraudulent means and sustain their regime through fraudulent means should not be allowed to pollute the mind of an elected President. We should not allow them through some institutionalized means such as through the Council of State to benefit from the fraud they engineered and should not be allowed to pollute the democratic order. They should not be allowed to offer advice to an elected regime that is only meant to protect their vested, selfish, narrow, ethnic and religious interests as Buhari did.

7. That on the vexed question on the politics of continuity, the regimes of northern political/military leaders that are bankrupt in democratic ideas and ideals should not be the predecessors of President Obasanjo. From the feelings of the south arising from the conduct of the former military leaders, they should be excluded from the Council of State.

8. That we should formally acknowledge that the present democratic dispensation that commenced in 1999 should be seen as a watershed and the beginning of democratization in Nigeria. This means that only the elected Presidents beginning with that of Alhaji Shehu Shagari and the dispensation under President Obasanjo would have the right to qualify for positions in the Council of State from now on. Now that Alhaji Shehu Shagari has renounced partisan politics for life, he is only former President/Head of Government that could advice an elected President. President Obasanjo after his two terms would qualify as the second President to have the right to be the ears of his successor through the Council of State.

I hope President Olusegun Obasanjo and the political class would consider this prescription as a contribution to democratization in Nigeria.

I hope the media would give this case the widest appeal for Nigerians to weigh in on the rationale for removing the former military Heads of State from the Council of State in a democracy.

I remain

Yours sincerely

Professor Omo Omoruyi, mni

Professor Omo Omoruyi is former Director General, Centre for Democratic Studies (CDS), Abuja, Nigeria. He is currently a Research Fellow at African Studies Center at Boston University, Boston, MA, USA and CEO, Advancing Democracy in Africa (ADA)