Engr Sunday Babalola is a former governorship aspirant in Kwara State. In this interview, he speaks on Nigeria’s democratic journey since 1999 and other national issues
Nigeria currently has experienced 26 years of uninterrupted civil rule after many years of military interregnum. How do you assess Nigeria’s state of democracy?
I think we have done very well. It’s not perfect, but it’s okay. We went from one government, handing over to another government of another party.
That has never happened in Nigeria before. Even the ruling party at that time; the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)) said they will rule for 60 years but democracy prevailed, they lost. Whether genuinely or not genuinely, they lost, they handed over to another person who is not of the same party.
Today, we have a lot of improvements and innovations that are taking place in the political climate. One of them is the financial autonomy for the local governments, which this government has done. So, we are seeing improvement on a daily basis. We have been wobbling, but we have been moving forward. Gradually, we are going to get there.
Even the big democracies of the world are still having problems too. So, our own is not unique. We saw what happened in the United States, for example, where the then presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump was shot during the last electioneering period.
There were also lots of impeachments and accusations on one party or one person. So, they are struggling too, sincerely speaking. Because democracy is about power, so people will do anything to gain power. In fact, anything legitimate and even illegitimate, and that is what is happening here.
In our democracy, we declared a state of emergency in some states in the past, and the states were back on track. Even currently, we have another state of emergency, in Rivers State. We will get over of that also, and everything will work perfectly. So, I think we have done well in the last 26 years.
Looking at the last two years that President Bola Tinubu has been in charge, hat would you say about Nigeria’s democracy given allegations that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is muscling opposition and that Nigeria is heading towards a one-party state?
We don’t have anything on the surface to be able to judge what is happening. We don’t know why the governors that are changing parties decided to change parties. We don’t know the things that are lying under. Were they muscled to do it? Were they blackmailed to do it?
If they were not; I will say it’s a free country, one can move from one party to the other. But we have a lot of positive things like the local government autonomy, and the same Tinubu government did that although it is not working properly, especially in my state, Kwara.
I don’t think local government chairmen have access to the council’s money. Maybe, they have it, I wouldn’t know. But things are really moving better and forward generally in the nation. Nigeria is still a free country, where you can enjoy freedom of expression.
I have not heard that anybody was arrested because of what he said. And I have not heard of any political assassination because of what people’s opinions are. So, there is enough freedom of expression for people to actually go out there and say what is on their mind. That puts the government on its toes, and I think that’s the way democracy works.
But members of the keep accusing the ruling party of harassment…
If you look elsewhere, like the United States, you will realise how much Donald Trump was harassed for doing almost nothing or things he even did before the election and things they claim he did before the election. It got to the point of calling him all kinds of names and people targeting to kill him before he got there.
That is harassment. The things they said are happening in Nigeria are nothing compared to the ones that happened in the United State. I may not know of the person you are talking about but I don’t know how Peter Obi is being harassed. Who stopped him from talking? Who stopped him from walking around?
Who is targeting his life? I don’t know; he may have proof but I see them all over the television, joking, talking and walking around. Nobody is calling anybody Hitler or Mussolini or whatever. That is all politics. You can say you are being harassed, so that you can garner public attention.
The Supreme Court gave a judgement validating local government autonomy. But it appears that the governors have sabotaged that as it has not effectively taken place nationwide. It is not certain that money is being sent directly to local government accounts in many states, contrary to the judgement of the Supreme Court. How would you respond to that?
People of every state choose people who promised them that their local governments will be fully autonomous. Some people have been eating something for some time and you expect them to easily drop what they have been eating like that; it won’t be easy.
And I don’t see it happening with some of these people in government now. I mean with some of these governors. If it happens, we will give kudos to them.
But the reality on the ground is that people should start checking who they are voting for. While it’s one thing for you to make the rule and the Supreme Court to give the judgement, it’s another thing for both the rules and the judgement to be implemented the way it ought to be implemented. My advice to people generally is that they should use their votes well in the next elections.
Most of the state electoral commissions just do the bidding of the governors and they appoint people they want; those who will be loyal to the governors
They should not let money rule their voting decisions. The Federal Government has done the right thing by saying that it will not be sending money to the state governments the way it used to do but that it will send it directly to the local governments. I believe they have been doing that.
However, there are allegations that the governors also went behind and they probably found a way to corner the money. I don’t have the details, so I wouldn’t like to talk about things that I don’t know.
If actually the governors sabotaged the full implementation of the Supreme Court verdict on financial autonomy for the local governments; what does that portend in terms of administration of justice?
That point is that we should look at our laws again and remove things like immunity clause for everything that they do because the governors are not answerable to anybody until they leave office. When you know that nobody can stop you, that nobody can do anything to you, you do whatever you so wish.
That is what is happening and there is nothing we can do about it. Whether they sabotage it or not, you can’t sue them because they hold the executive power.
So, we need to look at the immunity clause. I’m sure if the clause was not there or it doesn’t totally protect them 100 per cent, some people will probably challenge them in court and say this man is not doing this.
And if the governors know they will be in trouble, you will see that they will all put their hands inside their pockets and not extend it elsewhere. They will really work for their states and deliver good governance and dividends of democracy.
Can’t the Federal Government stamp its feet and ensure the implementation of that Supreme Court judgement.
There is a limit to what the Federal Government can do. Like I said earlier, what it has done is to say that it is not paying to the state the local government allocation again. That has been done. They are paying to the local governments but there are a lot of things we need to correct.
One of them is that local government elections should not be conducted by state electoral commissions. Most of the state electoral commissions just do the bidding of the governors and they appoint people they want; those who will be loyal to the governors.
When the chairman of a local government knows that he is there at the mercy of a sitting governor, he will be ready to obey the governor and do nothing for his people. All he is looking for is: I’m the honourable chairman. They mention him everywhere, and say: ‘let’s welcome our chairman.’
They are looking for those accolades they are going to have here and there even if they are doing nothing for their people. That’s the kind of situation we are in.
But I think the Federal Government has done its own part. It is limited in powers to command the state governments not to do certain things as the states are subnationals.
The best it can do is that it is not paying directly to the central purse that most of the states have created by law; that it is going to be paying the local governments directly, which it is doing. If they have done that, and the state government says, you have this money now, you cannot spend it.
Bring it back to this place. The local government chairman, because he’s there at the mercy of the state governor, will obey, except he’s a very stubborn person. If he is a stubborn person, he can say, ‘I’m not bringing it back.’ However, before you know it, the governor will just suspend him and he doesn’t want that.
So, there are certain aspects of our law that we should change to make those things effective. What I have said is my opinion. Really. I don’t have the details, but with what I’ve seen on the surface, my opinion really is that the Federal Government has done what it needed to do.
