I did not attend the CPC Kaduna rally but I read Buhari's prepared speech for the occasion which he distributed to journalists. The first three phrases were correctly reproduced in the PCC advertorial. But the last phrase was a misquotation. "a jita idan za'a taba ku hana." This statement contextually means "wait for your votes to be counted and resist any attempt (by electoral offcials or opposition) to tamper with your votes.” Does "resistance' necessarily mean "killing" or "dealing with" the potential riggers as the advertorial infers? I don't think so. There are several ways people can resist a wrongful act. Mahatma Ghandi of India adopted the non-violent resistance to British colonial rule; Dr. Martin Luther King borrowed a leaf to wage his civil right movements against in the United States. Both charismatic leaders won victory for their own people. Back home, the people of Kano and Bauchi had done so during the 2007 general elections. If not for the stiff resistance, the presidential and governorship elections would have been rigged in favour of PDP as happened in several other states. The people of Katsina State could not stand the resistance model enunciated by Buhari, which was why their ballot was rigged in favour of the PDP governorship candidate. What did the voters in Kano and Bauchi do to protect their votes in 2007? They adopted the Buhari model: "A kasa" (Vote), "a tsare" (Protect), "a raka" (Convey) "a jira" and (Wait until the result is announced). "Idan za'a taba ku hana " (Resist any attempt to tamper with the result). They did not hurt a fly or firer a single bullet. They only conveyed the ballot boxes from the voting booths to collation centers where the returning officers announced the result. When the corrupt INEC officials and their PDP pay masters sighted the large crowd waiting for the result to be announced, they had no option but to announce the TRUE winner. The crowd intimidated them and disallowed them to do any dirty dealing. That's how the two states ensured free and fair election. There mere presence of the crowd at the center made the electoral officials to play their role impartially. That's what Buhari's statement connotes, not the fabricated inciting to violence.
Those of us who know General Buhari and have been following his career both in the army and civil political life have high regard for him. We know that he cannot incite people to go violent. A typical example was that during his 2007 presidential campaign, he was billed to speak at a rally in Katsina, the home state of the PDP presidential candidate, Umaru Musa 'Yar Adua (now late). Buhari arrived Katsina with long motorcade. From the outskirts of the city, they received information that Alhaji Dahiru Barau Mangal, 'Yar Adua's frontline supporter and financier, had hired thugs to attack Buhari's and his supporters and prevent them from getting to the venue of the rally. Buhari's supporters were bent on moving forward to meet the PDP thugs but Buhari advised against it. He made it known to them that he did not want bloodshed. Instead, he made a retreat, took another alternative route and proceeded to his home town, Daura. How can a man with this kind of perception of politics incite his supporters to violence? Secondly, if he had wanted, he would have mobilized his supporters to cause trouble when he was robbed of his mandate in 2003 and 2007. But he resorted to courts to seek redress. He moves from the election tribunal, to court of appeal, and later to the apex court - the Supreme Court. Most Nigerians knew that the Supreme Court judgment was defective in many instances, but Buhari remained calm. He only expressed his disagreement with the judgment but said he accepted it in good faith. In our time the truth is gradually coming to light that PDP did not win the presidential election. Somebody with this kind of experience should not be expected to remain silent. He must mobilized his supporters and ask them to protect their votes in any legitimate mean possible (not necessarily legal). I think guarding the votes is one of such alternative means of ensuring that each vote is counted and every vote counts in 2011.
Nigerians cannot waste their precious time to register for the election and cast their votes only for some crooks to render their votes useless! They will defend their votes! If the riggers use violence to perpetrate their acts, it is obvious that Nigerian voters will not stand and watch them. They will retaliate in the same manner and make sure their votes count. So the violence that PCC alluded to is a misnomer, unless they have a plan to use violence as their rigging trick. If they have such a plan, then they are really inviting a retaliatory measure. The courts may eventually end up trying cases of electoral violence instead of cases of electoral malpractices.
Nobody in his right senses will incite his supporters to violence in an election that he has a stake; in a country which he has no other. Buhari is more patriotic than most of us, including those in Aso presidential villa. He has fought to keep this country together; he has sacrificed his personal comfort for eight years to engage in politics so that he can change things for the better. He used every opportunity he got to serve to improve the lots of Nigerians. What else do we need from a man to accord him the status of a patriot?
Those linking him to the Suleja bombing and accusing him of inciting violence are probably afraid of his political stature and the massive support he is receiving daily from Nigerians. They think he is aspiring to govern to enrich himself simply because majority of them are in politics for this purpose. We have watched this man for over three decades (1976-2011), from his days as a military governor of former North Eastern State, Federal Commissioner, as Head of State and Chairman of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF). He has remained as constant and consistent as the northern star. Nothing can change him! This is why he is trusted and trustworthy.
His War Against Indiscipline (WAI) is a reminder to the sad commentary of our national life from 1985 when he was ousted to date. His successors have squandered our national commonweal and rendered us poor! If we cannot find a successor that will attempt to do half what he did after 26 years, we have to ask him to come back and continue with the good work that he started in 1983. We have no alternative to him for now!
No comments:
Post a Comment