This headline is somehow refurbished from an earlier one in this column less than two months ago. But there is no more appropriate way to assess this week’s tragic developments in the West African State of Guinea Bissau with a population less than that of Ajegunle in Lagos.
The country’s President Joao Bernardo Vieira was assassinated by the army last Monday in retaliation for the murder of their boss, Army Chief of Staff, General Tagme Na Waie.

Coming only six weeks after ECOWAS leaders deluded themselves by arrogantly and self-servingly finalising their annual jamboree in Abuja with a seeming decree unworthy of the paper carrying the order that military intervention would not be tolerated in Africa, especially West Coast of the continent, the latest minicoup in Guinea Bissau is a vindication of the criticism and dismissal of the ECOWA’s leaders’ decision in this column on Friday January 16, 2009 under the headline: “Mauritania, Guinea, probably more, so?”

The decision of the ECOWAS gang last time in Abuja clearly was telling the average defenceless Africans in all parts of the continent that no matter the height of abuse of office by any African leader, including the use of armed soldiers and para-military forces to commit murder or indeed genocide, that should not be the business of any necessary and appropriate counter force.

In short, if any African leader commits genocide to keep himself in office as in Kenya Zimbabwe and Sudan, that is alright legally and constitutionally with their colleagues in African Union, ECOWAS and other regional groupings. African leaders thereby turned themselves into thin gods hell-bent on preserving their murderous satus that military intervention is unacceptable. What is unacceptable? A good case was the situation in Guinea Conakry last time.
Instead of facing the reality of the inevitability of certain political/constitutional development in any country concerned, ECOWAS leaders lost balance by claiming to have sanctioned the Guinean military rulers. As if instantly owning up to the worthlessness of the sanctions, the same African leaders immediately established a face-saving International Contact Group. Why bother to contact a regime already sanctioned? Are sanctions not meant to isolate the target? A typical case of dogs going back to their vomit.

As argued here last time against the sanctions read out by ECOWAS leaders, the strategy would not work and did not work against military intervention in any African country, at least, till last Monday when the military hierarchy decapitated the brutal civilian regime in Guinea Bissau.
The assassination of President Vieira last Monday, was to end his reign of terror which reached a climax a day earlier when he violently killed head of the armed forces. If ECOWAS or indeed African Union’s doctrine of zero tolerance of military intervention in politics were to apply, President Vieira would have got away with that murder. Is that what a responsible continental body should be legalising?

And how hypocritical is Nigeria especially in the latest development in Guinea Bissau, saying, “we won’t accept any coup”? Who are the “we”?
Surely not Nigeria, considering our history on a similar situation. In Guinea Bissau, a military officer, was killed for whatever reason. In retaliation, the military struck in revenge.

In Nigeria in January 1966, senior military officers, the Prime Minister and two regional premier were needlessly killed by their subordinates in a failed attempt to change the government. Six months later, another set of junior officers also killed, on a more massive scale, their seniors, colleagues and even juniors in a successful move to change the government. Only about a year ago did General Theophilus Danjuma shocked Nigerians with his claim in media interviews that the July 1966 coup was a retaliation for the January 1966 coup in Nigeria.

What then is the difference between Nigeria’s record and the mini-coup in Guinea Bissau this week? Even with the chairmanship of ECOWAS, Nigeria is unfit to normalize on military intervention in politics. Notwithstanding the number of military coups in Guinea Bissau, the country record is lower than Nigeria’s, if only we can reflect and do the arithmetic.

Nigeria’s Umar Yar’Adua must aim at history by standing out among his colleagues in African Union and ECOWAS. Instead of echoing the bad men, Yar’Adua must distinguish himself by choosing international fora to demand strict constitutionalism as the only guarantee against intervention of the military in politics.
And should the need arise as in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Sudan, it is diplomatically indolent of Nigeria to allow Britain, United States and European Union to speak for defenceless Africans in those countries.

Sceptics may, of course, assume a point that Umar Yar’Adua has clay feet on such a posture, considering the brazenly-rigged 2007 elections which brought him to office. This cannot be entirely tenable. First, he did not conduct the 2007 elections. Second, his election was legally challenged up to the highest court in the land which upheld his election. The test therefore comes for him on any election he conducts in the future.

In addition, Nigerians are waiting for the electoral reforms which Yar’Adua promised. He is therefore well-placed to carry electoral reforms to all parts of Africa and thereby earn the distinction of being most constructive in engaging military intervention in African politics.
Otherwise, ganging up at ECOWAS and African Union to reel out tin gods’ commandments or threats of sanctions will not stop even ordinary military intervention in African politics.

When an African leader gets into office and manipulates the rules and the constitution to perpetuate himself in office thereby violating the legal tenure limit, he must be challenged by any means including violent military uprising should he employ security personnel to suppress legitimate opposition.
Obasanjo tried to perpetuate himself in office again the eight-year tenure limit and was resisted by Nigerians. In the end, he was sensible to go quietly.
These ECOWAS and African Union leaders are pathetic. Did the army just intervene in Guinea Bissau last Monday? If an African leader provoked the armed forces by initiating violence, should he be allowed to get away with murder? Guinea Bissau’s late President Vieira was bad enough to return to power in a military coup in the past.

It was worse for Vieira not to learn from history when he failed to comply with constitutional regulations of free speech, free press, free elections etc. As commander-in-chief, the man also had the right to disagree with the Chief of Defence Staff. Yet, did the same President Vieira have the right, legally and constitutionally, to assassinate the armed forces chief by bombing him to death on Sunday evening? Why did he not sack General Tagme Na Waie as armed forces chief and appoint a mumu as new chief of defence staff?

Did ECOWAS gang expect the Guinea-Bissau army to remain quiet after their boss was assassinated? Armed Forces set up is such that an attack on the latest recruit is instantly repulsed with or without the knowledge of a Chief of Defence Staff. That was the point being made last time by (now retired) Air Vice Marshal Nurein Imam when he said military men react like mad dogs to any unprovoked attack against one of them.
In a way, that is the new posture being assumed by African politicians who would never condemn one of their lot no matter the depth of bad governance and yet the same African leaders would gang up in defence of any dismissed bad leader.

Now the question. If, after assassinating the Chief of Defence Staff General Waile, Guinea Bissau President Vieira was not assassinated in retaliation, would ECOWAS led by Nigeria’s Umar Yar’Adua have similarly instantly reacted by condemning the murder of the Chief of Defence Staff?
In the present circumstances, retaliation is a legitimate form of defence, even in the form of attack. What is more, President Vieira had a history of staging coups and power struggle with either prime ministers or heads of army. For such a man, he might appear invincible for so long but he needed to lose only one battle and would not live to tell the story.

Nigeria’s Umar Yar’Adua as ECOWAS chairman described events in Guinea Bissau as “reprehensible and acts that undermine democracy, peace and stability” in that country. Completely wrong assessment. Were there peace and stability in Guinea Bissau all along when President Vieira was rampaging all over the place? Did ECOWAS or African Union ever bother to whip him back to civilized standard of governance?

Those who undermine democracy are the very same African leaders in ECOWAS and African Union who manipulate themselves into office and perpetuate their rule in repulsive violation of the constitution. Otherwise, in a nation of under two million, why must one man rule for 20 to 30 years or be committing genocide while other African leaders either acquiesce or look the other way?

All over Africa, the standard practice for any ruler is to employ heavily armed police or even the army to brutally suppress protests against bad governance or resistance against one man-rule. Is genocide or assassination (of Chief of Defence Staff legitimate in governance? What had been Africa’s response to the genocide in Sudan? Complete silence.

The International Court of Justice had to intervene with threat of or actual warrant of arrest against Sudan’s President Al Bashir for crimes against humanity. And suddenly the useless African Union rose in defence of the Sudanese leader on the spurious excuse that such arrest would jeopardise peace efforts in Sudan. What lie and callousness. Did it require International Court of Justice warrant to make African leaders realise genocide was being committed in Sudan?
And which peace efforts in Sudan? Where hundreds of thousands of supposed fellow citizens are wiped out as state policy on no other ground of being non-Arabs? In that situation, why should the army not intervene to halt the genocide?

Laughably, ECOWAS hurriedly assembled some foreign ministers of member countries to mediate in Guinea Bissau? Among them are the foreign ministers of Bourkina Faso and the Gambia. Are those in ECOWAS secretariat knowledgeable at all or at least adequately?
Blaise compaore’s regime in Bourkina Faso till today remains a product of a military coup far bloodier than the recent events in Guinea Bissau. Compaore assassinated Captain Thomas Sankara in broad daylight sitting under a tree in 1987. Is it not ridiculous for the foreign minister of such a country to be on a peace delegation to Guinea Bissau?

And the foreign minister of the Gambia on the same delegation? Why does former Gambian president Dauda Jawara live in exile today in Britain? A military leader overthrew him over 15 years ago, who, since then, has perpetuated himself in office as an elected civilian leader, the same potentially explosive situation which erupted in Guinea Bissau this week.

Can these African leaders differentiate their left hand from their right hand?
The new hopes of democracy especially in West Africa are Liberia, Ghana and Sierra-Leone. Why couldn’t the foreign ministers of these countries replace the foreign ministers of Burkina Faso and the Gambia? Current administrations in Ghana, Liberia and Sierra-Leone are not trained with military coup, bloody revolts or perpetual rule of one man.

Too early in Ondo State

Either for the fun of it or in all seriousness, it is just too early to threaten the political rascality as it seemed in Ondo State last week, only days after the rightfully-elected Governor, Rahman Mimiko moved into office.

Confronted with the mess going on after the exit of his predecessor, Mimiko froze the local government accounts. When he froze the local government accounts, (even if that was true) Mimiko had no alternative. There were reported unusual sudden withdrawal of public funds by local government councils during the short vacuum of ex-governor Olusegun Agagu’s exit and the swearing in of legitimate Governor Olusegun Mimiko.
Perhaps, the man violated the Constitution in the process or not. Whichever, that is no convenient excuse for the Ondo State House of assembly legislators to be threatening impeachment of the new governor.

For a start, it is some relief that both sides have ironed out their misunderstanding of the situation. Otherwise, the legislators would be taking frontally on Ondo State electorate, who knew their choice for governor now legally and constitutionally in office.
The violent reaction to the rigging of governorship elections in 1983 was no child’s play and nobody should be seen, even remotely, to be inciting a repeat as inherent in the threatened impeachment of Governor Mimiko.

If the people of Ondo State (unlike in 1983) kept their cool inspite of electoral provocations since 2003, if people kept their faith in judiciary, and if the judiciary now discharges its obligation to restore people’s verdict, nobody or group of people should mistake the peaceful nature of the redress achieved by Ondo people.
For freezing the local government council accounts, allegedly being freely looted , it might even be correct that Governor Mimiko violated the constitution. But he did not just get up to violate the constitution. Strict adherence to the Constitution is presumably for public good. There is therefore, in this case, something discernible if the Constitution was violated .

That is public good or public interest. In short, in freezing the local government accounts, the end could be offered to justify the means. Now that he has settled in office, Governor Mimiko, in addition to de-freezing the local government accounts, should not fight shy of establishing his original good intention.
This he should do by inviting Farida Waziri’s EFCC investigators to establish the purpose(s) of the sudden large-scale withdrawals from local government accounts, which compelled him to freeze the accounts in the first place.

If these withdrawals were for legitimate purposes, EFCC and Ondo State government will report to Nigerians and there will be no bad feelings. If on the other hand, the huge withdrawals from local government councils accounts were for criminal purposes, those concerned should be made to face the music.