620 Days Of Buhari Administration And Its 310 Lies Without Borders And Decorum
(Intersociety, Onitsha Nigeria: 15th February 2017)-It may most likely
be safe to hold that image and information management departments of
the Government of Nigeria headed by Retired Major Gen Muhammadu Buhari
have become liars without borders, decorum and decency to the extent
that in the past 620 days of the Administration (1st June 2015-15th
February 2017) or 20 months and a half; not less than 310 lies have
been presidentially told and taken beyond borders, decorum and
decency.
That is to say that at least one falsehood is presidentially dished
out and told in every two days since 1st June 2015. This presidential
lie policy has reduced the Buhari Government to a government of
hopelessness and made itself very difficult to be believed by most
Nigerians and international watchers.
It is recalled that the present Buhari Administration came to power
via a highly divisive federal poll on 29th May 2015. The lies under
reference, also called presidential falsehood or presidential info
virus; are told with reckless abandon in the presidential
pronouncements or government positions on key issues bordering on
defence and security including government handling of Boko Haram and
Nomad Fulani insurgencies and the recent IDP camp bombing; human
rights and rule of law including citizens and criminal justice
management; government killing of unarmed and nonviolent citizens such
as mass killing of Shiite Muslims and Pro Biafra Campaigners.
Others are economy including budget presentation, defence and
implementation and general economic policies; anti graft management
including placement of allegations or charges on citizens, their
arrest, detention and prosecution and government disobedience to court
decisions and pronouncements; executive-legislative relations; general
administration including non formation of federal cabinet for 150
days; lies associated with President Buhari’s ill-health, his vacation
and whereabouts; and regional and international relations and other
diplomatic conducts; to name but a few.
The official lies under reference also have mothers-general; and one
of the mothers-general is a recent official statement of the Buhari
Administration’s Information Minister, Mr. Lai Mohammed; to the effect
that “the stories of Muslims killing Christians anywhere in Nigeria
are fallacies”.
The presidential lie policy also took an international dimension
recently when the report of sketchy diplomatic call at the instance of
President Donald Trump to ailing President Muhammadu Buhari was
flamboyantly and noisily reported and celebrated by Nigeria’s
Presidency; forcing many informed and doubting Nigerians to instantly
pick holes particularly as it concerns who President Trump purportedly
called (Acting President Osibanjo or ailing President Buhari), the
location of the call and what was actually said or the true contents
of the call as well as government oiled media noise that accompanied
such a traditional and routine diplomatic exercise.
We had two days ago or on 13th February 2017 issued a statement on the
issue and held that the said diplomatic call between President Donald
Trump and President Muhammadu Buhari and its contents might most
likely not have taken place and were utterly sketchy; a position we
maintain till date. The link below contains the said statement of
ours: http://www.intersociety-ng.org/component/k2/item/217-re-trump-speaks-with-buhari--invites-him-to-washington .
We had also on 22nd January 2017, issued another statement in which we
rose in strong condemnation of the wanton killing and widespread
wounding of unarmed and nonviolent Pro Biafra activists, who assembled
in Port Harcourt, Rivers State to mark the inauguration of Mr. Donald
Trump as the 45th President of the United States. Nigerians and
members of the international community were alerted to watch the
unfolding events in the coming weeks including the desperation of the
Government of Nigeria to turncoat so as to get the attention of the
new Government of the United States desperately or at all costs.
As we had correctly observed in the statement, less than two weeks
after same, the sketchy Trump’s call to Buhari, its contents and
accompanied controversies hit the global air and news waves. The link
below contains our statement under reference:
http://www.intersociety-ng.org/component/k2/item/213-pro-trump-rally-killings
Our Resoluteness And Unresolved Controversies Trailing The Sketchy
Call And Its Contents:
(a) Criminologically and common-sensually, such weighty diplomatic
discussions or phone calls can only take place between two mentally
coherent and physically healthy Presidents. It is still a settled
opinion in general quarters that all is not well with President
Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria in spite of wherever he is, with a serious
doubt rising day and night over his health capability to engage in
such weighty diplomatic conversations. The latest clarifications made
by the White Press Secretary, Mr. Sean Spicer has further worsened the
sketchy status of the said call and messed up its authenticity.
Agreed that under existing international diplomatic rules and
conventions including the Vienna Convention of 1961 on Diplomatic
Relations (ratified all member-States of UN including USA and Nigeria)
and the Vienna Convention of 1969 or Laws of the Treaties of 1969,
diplomatic conversations between two or more world leaders are routine
and periodical; provided laid down procedures are followed; such as
use of official modes of phone communications domiciled in respective
communicating governments’ seats of power.
The White House Press Secretary failed to say who President Trump
actually called as “Nigerian leader”, the location of the
guest-recipient of the purported call (i.e. President Buhari) and what
was truly said in the purported call. The White House’s website page
for press statements where the readout of President Trump’s phone
calls with foreign leaders are published has no update on the said
interaction with “Nigerian leader” till date; which has entered its
72hrs today.
(b) Circumstantially, affirmative statements contained in Mr. Femi
Adesina’s over blown statement, which were credited to President
Donald Trump, such as “striking a deal for the provision of military
weapons to Nigeria to fight Boko Haram”; “commendation of the Nigerian
military over its strides”; “commendation of President Buhari and
encouraging him to continue the good work he is doing”; and “bilateral
cooperation in the fight against terrorism” etc; are not only strongly
suspected to be Aso Rock planted, but also circumstantially premature
to be discussed by the Trump Administration barely one month of his
Presidency.
In other ways, several US policies including its policy on Nigeria are
apparently at “review stages” for the purpose of policy reversal, or
retention, or modification, or consolidation, etc. This is more so
when there is a change of guard at the White House (i.e. from out-gone
Democrat Government and its policies to the new Republican Government
and its new policies). We maintain that such affirmative diplomatic
statement on Nigeria possibly falsely credited to President Trump is
totally un-Trump and un-Republican like.
That is to say that the US Policy on Nigeria under the new Trump and
his Republican Administration is circumstantially and realistically at
review stage. If any call has taken place at the instance of President
Donald Trump to ailing President Buhari, who is missing in office for
more than three weeks now it should strictly be on commiserative and
health grounds. US Policy on Nigeria under the new Trump
Administration particularly in the area of military pact or supply of
weapons is most likely to undergo a surgical review; to be tailored in
the Leahy Law and the Republican Foreign Policy tradition.
“Encouraging and commending President Buhari to continue with the good
work he is doing” (i.e. raging State terrorism and widespread rights
abuses); is totally untenable and most likely Aso Rock planted.
(c) Diplomatically, Presidential diplomatic conversations or telephone
calls between two world leaders are totally official and
internationally customized and recorded. They are official to the
extent that official government communication facilities domiciled in
respective communicating governments’ seats of power are used. Such
call facilities may most likely exclude private or mobile phone lines
of the persons of the two leaders.
If this is the case, then our question is: does it mean that
President Muhammadu Buhari was quarantined wherever he is together the
Aso Rock seat of power call facilities? Or did President Trump call
President Muhammadu Buhari on his private mobile phone? Or was it that
Acting President Osibanjo that President Donald Trump called? Our
major point or ground of disagreement till date is that President
Donald Trump never called ailing President Muhammadu Buhari in the
atmosphere of physical and mental coherence and calling an ailing
President who is not on seat for over three weeks and who is outside
his sovereign territory; may not validly constitute international
diplomatic calls or conversations. Such a call, among other things, is
far from being official.
(d) What May Most Likely Have Transpired: It is recalled that the
Buhari Administration got enmeshed in diplomatic blunders when it
blindly and vindictively supported; some say in cash and kind, the
former and failed Obama Administration and its Democratic Party.
Following the emergence of the new Trump Administration, the Buhari
Government circumstantially and diplomatically became jittery and
desperate; fearing among other things, the possible policy shift by
the new Trump Administration particularly as it concerns the Buhari
Administration’s heinous and widespread rights abuses and its
hard-line posture towards Christians, the Igbo Race and Pro Biafra
Pacifist Self Determination Campaigns.
It is on account of the foregoing that we renew our earlier call on
the White House Spokesperson and the Assistant Secretary of State for
African Affairs of the new Donald Trump Administration to issue
detailed written statements or address the media over the issue with a
view to stating what actually transpired. Such clarifications must be
explicit and clearly answer the questions as: did President Donald
truly call “Nigerian leader”? If yes, who was the “Nigerian leader”
called (Acting President Osibanjo or ailing President Buhari? What did
President Trump tell the “Nigerian leader” that he purportedly called?
Through which communication modes was the purported call made? Private
mobile phone or domiciled call facilities in Nigeria’s seat of power
in Abuja?
Signed:
Emeka Umeagbalasi, Board Chairman
International Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of Law (Intersociety)
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Mobile Line: +2348174090052
Website: http://www.intersociety-ng.org
Barr Obianuju Igboeli
Head, Civil Liberties & Rule of Law Program
Mobile Line: +2348180771506