Dog Naming, Lopsided Appointment And Its Repercussions

By Carl Umegboro
(Published by The NATION Newspapers on 02, September 2016)
(Published by SUNDAY TELEGRAPH Newspapers pg 11 on 18th September,2016)
OGUN State Police Command’s arraignment of Joachim Chinakwe Iroko over alleged attempts to cause ethno-religious violence for naming/labelling his dog with “ Alhaji Buhari” believably after President Muhammadu Buhari and paraded in a community largely dominated by northerners has generated uproars in the society.
A faction accused the President of civilian maladministration, deficiency of ideas and autocratic tendencies and categorically, tagged him ‘a man who pursues rats when his house is in flames’ on account of the economy which, to admit is in a calamitous condition is affirming the reality.
Apparently, no offence was committed by mere naming of a dog after President Buhari or any other persons. Usually, animals are named based on traits. Characteristically, a fighter-dog could be named after a renowned soldier.  Suffice to say, no mischief was done to the President by the act. However, the locus situ (place of the event), inferred intentions and the manner it was done could competently make it constitute a crime in law, particularly attempt to cause a breach of public peace. If the accused only named his dog without deliberately parading it in Hausa-Muslim community, his arrest by the Police would have amounted to false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and breach of his fundamental rights available to all. The Police is duly vested with powers of ensuring a peaceful society. Commendably, the arrest of the suspect and largely the situation as a preventive security is a desideratum beyond the reactionary security, particularly his arraignment in court strictly within time. Interestingly, the court is the temple of justice and the focal point of the judiciary; the last hope of the common man. Hence, if truly the president is linked, he still deserves no condemnation since the cardinal purpose of a court is justice.
However, Buhari should be disassociated from the matter since it isn’t a civil matter. For the fact the accused was charged to court timely should be viewed extensively as a dividend of democracy knowing that both parties will be accorded fair-hearing which is sacrosanct in a court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, to label the President a tyrant over a civic responsibility, is regrettably a misnomer, rather affirms him as a democrat who believes in the rule of law and equality before the law; the hallmarks of democracy.
Admittedly, Buhari avidly prepared for a positive change in leadership, but unconsciously threaded a wrong track by his extreme lopsided-appointments which clearly favoured the north with almost all key positions. Regrettably, this action, apart from working against the laid down concept of Federal Character in the 1999 Constitution poses a threat to his good intentions to reciprocate the trust reposed by Nigerians on him. Insentiently, the one-sided appointment stands strappingly to frustrate the doctrine of transparency and accountability which are pivotal to eradicating corruption in the society; the President’s core policy.
I still believe the President should freely appoint a dependable team for impressive service-delivery on account of the havocs perpetrated on the economy by the squandermania-PDP governments for 16 wasted-years.
No doubt, the 1999-Constitution allows exercise of discretions on some positions since it didn’t specifically enlist some for its application, however, its emphasis on ministerial appointments ought to serve as a guiding principle on all putting into consideration that Nigeria is a multi-ethnic society. I thus disagree with the position of the presidency that Buhari has not violated the Federal Character principle. This is because, by commonsense, the Constitution couldn’t have endorsed a situation where most of key positions of a central government of a country with diverse ethnic groups are lavished on a particular ethnic group at the detriment of others except ministers.  Sadly, the utmost threat of this blunder, if unchecked, is the high probability of disintegration of the nation after Buhari’s administration. This position is bolstered by the obvious temperament of the northerners who may resort to all manner of combats against a future southern President’s government rather than tolerate to wail as the southerners do presently when power eventually shifts out of the zone with reference to the Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen and others obnoxious activities from the zone.
I believe these anomalies could be controlled if the federal government is more philosophical in reflecting the federal character in its appointments as the mindfulness of having all key positions manned by fellow tribesmen is rationally to a section, a stimulus to trample on the rights of others. Reasonably, how could average northerners submit to the laws guiding their relationships with other tribesmen when only their relatives respectively head the Presidency, Army, Navy, Police, Airforce, Security Adviser, Judiciary and even the Office of the Secretary of the Federation? Grossly, this is a blunder, aberration and nonsequito. Above all, indistinguishable from British historian, Lord Acton’s statement, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The over dominance of a particular tribe in the central government invariably will send wrong signals to the average class pointing to exercise of absolute powers similar to “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, hence, a tendency of bitterness among the intimidated section.  
As a solution, let the President reorganize his cabinet strategically to invoke the spirit of oneness, such that culprits will be made to squarely face the consequences of their actions irrespective of ethnicity. Until justice is done, injustice will naturally triumph, therefore, continued heinous attacks on helpless citizens even while asleep as are now repetitive in Enugu state and other parts of the country. Similarly, citizens’ actions must reflect neighbourhood principles. Aimless actions capable of hurting another should be overtly discouraged knowing that where the rights of one ends is where another’s starts. Anarchy doesn’t know boundaries or relatives, and could destroy beyond imaginations. Prior to some actions, self-scrutiny for merits or demerits in the interest of the society at large is necessary, meanderingly, a core concept of community-policing. 

Umegboro, public affairs analyst, Lawyer and publisher of Pinnacle infoGallery writes from Igboekulie.

No comments:

Post a Comment