– Nigeria senate president, the non conformist character
– The trial of Saraki is not apolitical, but the right to fair hearing is ensured by the court
Nigeria Senate president, the non conformist character. The trial of Saraki is one that is being followed with keen interest by all over the world. Some have even described it a trial of Nigeria due to the links the outcome of the case appears to have with the stability of the political atmosphere of Nigeria.
This has aroused a lot of questions. If Saraki loses, would he remain an APC member? If he resigns, will the APC allow Ike Ekweremadu, a PDP member, become the senate president?
If the Federal government wins, wouldn’t citizens be pushed to call for the trial of Tinubu and Obasanjo? What happens if Saraki wins? Will everything remain same with and for APC at the senate? How much effect will it have on the fight against corruption? These and many more questions are being asked. But for now the case is still very much on and we are enjoying it so to say.
The trial of Saraki means different things to a lot of people. Some see it as witch hunting, some a fight against corruption.
So good and well, what do I think? Even if it is political witch-hunting, and Saraki thinks he has never done a thing wrong, he has 90 lawyers and he could still get more to help the court prove his innocence.
I must however say, the theatrics of Saraki and his counsels have so far shown he has a thing or two to hide. We are all waiting to see how it ends.
Barely two weeks ago, Uncle Dele Momodu published a polemic where he calls for a sincere war on corruption and not the so called political witch-hunting and ‘’scapegoatism’’ we are currently witnessing.
His reason is summarily to guide against impunity. He called for under the carpet investigation which will be more appreciated not this horn blowing and sanctimonious campaign that may be doomed to fail. We all remember how Nuhu Ribadu started as well as how he ended.
To a large extent, I agree with the points raised by Uncle Bob. And I am most impressed by his decision to stand for Saraki.
But Saraki misinterpreted Uncle Bob’s gesture. He thought he had won himself a famous fan. So to give his fan more reasons to defend him, Saraki chose to put out his own self defense.
After reading his defense, I must say I wished he hadn’t say a thing. Silence would still have been golden. You know there is a way silence covers one’s foolishness and stupidity, people might take it, mistakenly of course for wisdom. But Saraki decided to display his political incorrectness and immaturity once again.
His defense was less tactical. He raised easily questionable points as premises and equally questionable definitive sentences as conclusions. He merely appealed to pity of the average Nigerians to see him as the only white wolf in the ravenous wolf pack. Who care if you are white or black wolf? Every wolf is dangerous, so who cares about the colour? The fact that you are the white wolf might even mean you are more dangerous.
While painstakingly perusing the content of the article, his supposed reasons for being persecuted struck me. According to him he kicked against a Muslim-Muslim ticket. Now that’s the cheapest line of defense.
I have seen a politician use in a long time. And my question is why did he choose to fight against a Muslim-Muslim ticket if that ever was? Who would allow such? In a party where there are quite a number of Christians and a country where the citizens are so alive to issues of religious equality or fairness when it comes to politics? No, that’s too cheap. Honorable Speaker, please try again.
And most importantly, he made a point about the genesis of the whole thing: his emergence as the senate president. He reckoned it was a fatal loss for the party which can only be blamed on the party’s refusal to show at the event.
To him, the party has no other person to blame than himself. And he used the analogy of a football walkover to explain himself. When a team fails to show for a game and its points is awarded the opponent, who do you blame? is it not the team? But his mechanical accuracy was wrong or perhaps his knowledge of the composition of a team on the field of play is flawed.
A team in football comprises not just of the 11 players on pitch but every playing and non-playing member and management of such team.
Before a walkover can happen in a professional football match a team must have failed to show up. And before a team could decide not to show up, an agreement must have been reached by everyone; no member of such team would appear at the stadium. If any player of such team shows up on the field of play to make an open shame of his team then he has betrayed his team.
So let’s assume APC as a team agreed not to show up at the election of the senate’s principal officers, how do you describe the action of Saraki a supposed member of the team who being aware of the agreement still went ahead to mark an appearance on the field of play?
For one, Saraki betrayed his team, made an open shame of the coach and management, showed himself a man mountain, colluded with the opposition to secure himself a one-point victory instead of the three points. The lone point being the position of the senate president. Saraki is not just a non-conformist character, he is a bad one.
In the weeks that followed, he published a release where he famously wrote that his hands were tied. Why won’t that be? He sold his birth right, one that will benefit the whole family for a plate of porridge that will quench his hunger but for a time.
And that is from a supposed member of the team. He wrote how he could not help navigate the emergence of his party members, his teammates become principal officers. And he is a team player?
On his way to becoming the Senate president, Saraki broke every party rule. He failed to attend a scheduled party conference perceiving his ambitions might be overridden.
While it is okay to have ambitions, it is way too bad to be overly ambitious. It is even worse to allow that ‘’overambitiousness’’ get the better of one. Saraki was way too ambitious on his way to becoming the Senate president. And this makes his punishment even more deserving.
If he indeed is being persecuted for his sins, it is deserving. However, he has still not proven his innocence. Until he does, Mr Senate president, you can spare us the tears. Wait till the cane hits your fresh buttocks.
I maintain that this war against corruption cannot be said to be non-political. But if those accused are corrupt indeed, be it political or not, let them be tried.
For Saraki, in a game of football, once you are becoming overly ambitious than your team, you are allowed to seek a transfer.
Saraki however didn’t. In the absence of that, if a player goes ahead to commit an atrocity on or off the pitch that is aimed at soiling the name of the team, such player is duly “persecuted”. Eric Cantona, John Terry, Luis Suares, and most recently Adam Johnson have all been ‘’persecuted’’ for disgracing their teams. And it was not even for their selfish interests.
So our dear Senate President Sir, calm down, and be persecuted. According to the Christian Bible, the Apostles, followers of Christ, who did nothing wrong were persecuted. Sir, who are you not to be persecuted?
A verse in the Holy Bible reads, “But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God”
Mr Saraki, fear not. Do that which is commendable before God.