Any time successor advancement is recorded especially in politics anywhere in the world, Nigerians moreso at leadership level are always there rather shamelessly to celebrate and indeed overcelebrate more than the owners, as we say down in South West.

Similarly, when humanity is degraded in Africa far lower than even the level we (Nigerians) would not tolerate, we, for some unfair if not warped reasoning, resist the need for the victims to either free themselves or be freed by whatever means even if violent.
What did we not do to acclaim the emergence of Barrack Obama as the first black man to win presidential elections in the United States? Such a feat through democratic elections remains an impossibility in Nigeria till today. When their ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has not only dared everybody that it would rule Nigeria for the next 60 years but is also determined to muscle Nigeria into a one-party state.

Except in China, North Korea and the defunct Soviet Union, could that happen in a democratic and civilised society? Yet, when the American government clearly stipulated each country’s ambassador and his spouse as official guests at Barrack Obama’s inauguration, how many Nigerian public office holders and even some from the private sector went for that jamboree on the ticket of Nigerian tax-payers?

We also over celebrated the defeat of the ruling party in the recent Ghananian presidential and legislative elections, the second time in eight years. Today in Ghana, it is now firmly established that even if a ruling party delivered throughout its two-term tenure, its continued stay in power is at the voting will of the people.
Ironically, the Chief Nigerian celebrants of these feats outside our shores, both far and near, are the same notorious ones making life difficult and perhaps impossible for the ordinary citizen.

The latest in our national amazement is the acclamation of the impeachment for corrupt conduct of the governor of the state of Illinois, in United States, Rod Blagojevich. The ex-governor was impeached for touting for sale the senatorial seat (in the American Congress in Washington) vacated by Barrack Obama following his election as President of the United States.
Again, the Nigerian celebrants of this democratic operation of a simple constitutional process are the same who would never allow such development in Nigeria. Impeachment of the ex-governor of Illinois was strictly in line with the provisions of American constitution.
In short, Americans allowed their constitution to work.

Could we or did we ever allow Nigerian constitution to work on similar occasions? Instead, the usual resort is blackmail, violence, intimidation, group ethnic solidarity and implied endorsement of corrupt practices.
Today, everybody blasts Olusegun Obasanjo for criminal misdeeds during his eight-year tenure as Nigeria’s president. In other words, impeachable offences rightly or wrongly.

Admittedly, Senator Arthur Nzeribe is a political irritant. But the fact of Nigerian political history is that Nzeribe was the first to compile a list of impeachable offences against Obasanjo. If only because of his past political disruptive roles (not the least the controversy he wove round the June 12, 1993 elections) Nzeribe might on that occasion appear to be on another crazy adventure. But then, the way to deal with that was not by disallowing Nigerian constitutional process to operate. The man (Nzeribe) should have been disarmed on the floor of the Senate either by denying him any seconder or defeating his impeachment move massively.

That was the long rope with which Obasanjo was allowed to hang himself on his life presidency ambition.
Instead of similarly allowing Arthur Nzeribe to politically hang himself on the floor of the Senate on his impeachment move against Obasanjo, ethnic jingoists in the media whined all about the place that Obasanjo was to be impeached because he is a Yoruba or a Southerner.

To worsen matters, ethnic sections of the media not only swallowed but also peddled Obasanjo’s desperation against a concocted Northern plot against him. The truth is that if there were no impeachable offences (such as are now being revealed) how could there have been any plot, real or imagined, against him? Whether we like it or not, Arthur Nzeribe today stands vindicated against those who frustrated due process of our constitution on impeachment matters.
Rather incredibly, the same man who ran home for safety among his people in politics and the media, would not allow the constitution to operate in the impeachment of state governors who refused to support his third term misadventure. American President Obama did not unleash the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to intimidate legislators of the state of Illinois to impeach ex-governor Rod Blagojevich. Impeachment was carried out by the state legislators on their own volition.

At the state level, there had also been at least two attempts or even mere speculation of attempt by assemblymen to exercise their constitutional functions only to be forced by unlawful tactics to stop their action. The situation now is that through misuse of power or influence, state governors facing real or imagined impeachment and who, normally should be presumed innocent until proved guilty after due constitutional process, are inadvertently exposed as desperate to cover up whatever corrupt practices.

Otherwise, why for example, at Adamawa State last time, did President Umaru Yar’Adua stop the state assembly men from concluding the impeachment process the assemblymen already commenced? Impeachable charges were compiled and the state governor was served the notice and given his constitutional right to respond.

Instead, the governor abandoned post, rushed to Aso Rock to seek protection. Instead of allowing the constitution to work, President Yar’Adua contemptuously summoned the Adamawa State Assembly leadership to Abuja and stopped the entire process. The governor should either be guilty or innocent of the charges against him. If he was guilty, why should his alleged corrupt practices be covered up?

And if the governor was innocent, why did Umar Yar’Adua not allow the governor to so state, with the exercise of his constitutional right of fair hearing which, in any case, in all impeachment processes, is mandatory?

On their part, ideally, the Adamawa State Assembly legislators should have asserted their independent-mindedness to defy Yar’Adua and complete the process. The issue was not the guilt or innocence of the Adamawa State governor which could have been established after the full process but that Umar Yar’Adua did not allow the constitution to operate.

Clearly, the major handicap of Adamawa State legislators was that they (like their colleagues in other parts of the country) were beneficiaries of the rigging of the 2007 elections. Faced with the origin of their status, they were forced to pay back their party in kind by abandoning the impeachment more.
Such was also the lot of legislators of Ogun State Assembly. Indeed, the silence from that place seems as permanent now as that of a cemetery.
In a sudden and well-plotted political crisis Ogun Legislators, overnight, impeached the erstwhile Speaker, Titi Oseni. Before then, the state governor was generally presumed to have a tight hold on the legislators. When therefore the Speaker was removed without the governor having a hint; it was understandable if he believed (the governor that is) he was the real or at least, the next target.

This was a plausible political assessment. But then, there was yet, not a single impeachable offence leveled against him by the state legislators even up till now.
How far was the Constitution allowed to operate on that occasion? State legislators were subjected to open intimidation and in a few cases, life threatening violence. Traditional rulers summoned legislators representing constituencies in their domain and reportedly dressed them down for daring to be part of the plot to impeach Governor Daniel.

Some legislators were even reported to have been warned that they were not sent to the House Assembly to impeach the governor. Even if a governor deserves to be impeached. When did it become part of democracy or constitutional development for a traditional ruler to instruct a legislator on how to perform or not to perform his duties?

At another level, attempts were made to unseat some legislators as process of recall was instigated against them in their constituencies, all as part of the plan to stop the House of Assembly from operating the Constitution to commence any impeachment move against the Ogun State governor.
If legislators in Ogun House of Assembly won their elections purely on personal or party merit, would any traditional ruler have the right to summon any of them for proper rebuke like houseboys? And even if a legislator faced any recall process for a principle to which he was committed, all he (the legislator) had to do was to explain to his constituents.

The situation now is that Ogun State legislators have been politically castrated. When last was there any news on their statutory constitutional duties?
Again, it must be repeated that till now, not a single impeachable offence has been made against Gbenga Daniel. In any case, if such a move is even made, he has the constitutional right to defend himself. But even in the midst of speculation, the legislators have been intimidated and traumatized not to dream of such a venture.
With such politically backward tactics, do Nigerians have any moral right to acclaim the impeachment of Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich?

The Illinois ex-governor was clearly guilty of corrupting the selection process of his party to fill a vacancy in the senate in Washington. It did not matter to which party – Democrats or Republicans- he belonged. The parties did not interfere. Neither did President Barack Obama intervene to stop a historic constitutional process. Legislators were not intimidated one way or the other.

Not only do we need to learn what is democracy; we must also produce those who will allow our constitution to work. For now, we are gradually unconsciously moving towards authoritarianism, which usually inevitably bursts to make us begin again.