President Umar Yar'Adua's wife, Turai, would be less than occupying her status and not focussed on or attracted by the public, especially the media. Is she pretty? Is she a good mixer? To what extent is she bossy or domineering? And especially, how much influence does she wield for good or bad?
It is the same experience of her equivalent all over the world at one time or the other. Hilary Clinton, Imelda Marcos, Maryam Babangida, Eva Peron, Cherie Blair, Maryam Abacha, Sarah Brown, Jackqueline Kennedy, Fathia Nkrumah and Kennedy, Fathia Nkrumah and even Michele Obama. The males like Britain's Prince Phillip and the late Dennis Thatcher were also not spared.

Despite these common experiences, there is a noticeable peculiarity in Nigeria's case. Where she is extrovert or presumed rightly or wrongly to be throwing her weight about (as now being alleged against Turai) criticisms, even if impliedly creep in.
If on the other hand, she is introvert like the wives of ex-President Shehu Shagari, Generals Muhammadu Buhari and The late Tunde Idiagbon, there would still be the focus on them for being restricted under the purdah system. What then should be expected of these poor ladies?
Hilary Clinton for example as ex-President Bill Clinton's wife at White House, tried to expand the health care system to benefit poor and needy Americans but she was shouted down by even fellow Democrats along with the Republicans. Her purely humanitarian gesture was suspected an attempt to exercise executive power not provided for the president's wife under the constitution.

Perhaps so. But the fact is that two administrations after that episode, health care system remains a vote-catching issue in American politics.
The lavish lifestyle of Argentina's Eva Peron was one of the convenient excises for the upriging against President Juan Peron. But the same Argentineans, after tasting at least three other administrations, drafted Juan Peron from exile and duly elected him democratically as president, a post he held till he died.
It remains a contention till today whether Jackie Kennedy attracted more focus as the president's wife or the widow eventually re-married to one of the world's richest men, Greek billionaire Aristotle Onassis. While in White House, the focus was on her youthfulness, dressings, reaction to her husband's past (and later) extra marital affairs etc. as a widow, there was an obsession on her latest dates, prospects of re-marriage, the cruises on billionaire Onassi's yachts, her threat to the man's daughter and finally the marriage. Indeed, when she became a widow for the second time, there was, as should be expected, even more focus on how much she benefitted from Onassi's will.

In Britain, there seemed to be no limit on the focus (more of criticisms) devoted to prime minister Tony Blair's wife, Cherie. Her funny hairstyle, her first boy friend (as a young girl) now a bar man who re-called giving her the first kiss, her allegedly hostile attitude towards particular key female staff she suspected to be too close to her husband, her detestation of Gordon Brown for wanting her husband's job and even her career as a lawyer.
Cherie Blair was specifically criticised for exploiting her privilege as prime minister's wife to earn big money even from public funds. She defended, in law courts, victims of laws violating human rights, the very same laws passed by Tony Blair to contain visiting terrorism at home and abroad.
Cherie Blair handled such cases through the legal aid council and was paid her professional fees. Conflict of interests?
For his self-comportment and dignity in allowing wife, Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher, all the prominence of her office, her husband, Dennis Thatcher was ridiculed for sheepishly following her about.

Prince Phillip, husband of British Queen Elizabeth, was embarrassed most of the time by the media for his alleged secret romantic night outs.
In Nigeria, Maryam Babangida's Better Life for Rural Women Programme last time generated murmured criticisms even from her fellow females. Yet, none of successors ever failed to commence a similar programme. In fact, even governors' wives in all the 36 states each has her own programme. It is simply clear that such initiative is “haram” only because it is not within their reach.

A major focus on Imelda Marcos, wife of ex-President Marcos of Phillipines was that she had at least five thousand pairs of shoes. Whether that was true or not, the charge stuck and partly accelerated the fall of her husband.
These all go to show that whoever is a spouse of a public figure and whatever the spouse (he or she) does will always attract positive and largely negative focus. In Turai Yar'Adua's case, the major impliedly critical assessment is that she has total control on her husband and issues command to wives of state governors.
There may be some exaggeration to assess her control on Umar Yar'Adua as total. Control may even be too strong or wrong. Rather, she can have influence with or even on her husband. We must stop being hypocritical or insincere. If your wife has no influence with you, is she the wife she is supposed to be? She must be a slave while you are a terror in the house.

The chances are that in Turai Yar'Adua's position, wives of the critics will exercise the same if not higher influence on their husbands. In any case, until anybody gets to Umar Yar'Adua's position, you cannot vouch (for) what influence the wife will have with him.
In Turai's case, the findings or at least, assessments are debatable. One, ministers who fall out of favour are reported to seek help from her. Other ministers are said to be reporting to her instead of reporting to President Yar'Adua as mandatory under the constitution.

It all depends on why or for what ministers report to her. That is only assuming that the reports are true in the first place that ministers seek her assistance.
If for example, it becomes impossible or uneasy to have access to Umar Yar'Adua on very urgent matters which may be time-bound, there is nothing wrong for a minister especially as a last resort, to try through the wife. The only caution is that effort must be made not to make such way out statutory.

The major factor should be national interest. In the above case, governance cannot grind even if inadvertently, to a halt because Yar'Adua is too occupied with meetings and official engagements, such as to become virtually impossible for ministers to clear issues which may require urgent or final consent of the president.
There can also be other compelling occasions for a minister, to press home, through the president's wife, a socio-political matter which can be in the national interest. Speculation or indeed, threat of increase in price of fuel product is a good example. On this sensitive issue, civil servants and eye serving ministers always create problems by misleading government with specious data.

Turai is, first of all, President Yar'Adua's wife and more than anybody else, should be concerned about her husband's popularity or otherwise. If a minister (not necessarily of petroleum) disagrees with any projected rise in price of fuel products and cannot convince the president against the decision in view of the inevitable spiral effect on cost of living, job losses arising from increase in production costs, consequent social and economic hardship, such a minister will be acting in the interest of ordinary citizens by approaching Turai to confront her with these details.

If such approach will make Turai to convince Umar Yar'Adua to abandon the proposed hike in fuel prices, heck her influence on her husband.
If however a minister is to be fired for incompetence or corrupt practices and approaches Turai Yar'Adua for her intervention to remain in office, that is not in national interest and it is unlikely she will exercise her influence in such situations. Where she does, it is up to Umar Yar'Adua to count the cost on his own reputation, if he gives in to such pressure.

Another of Turai's alleged influence with her husband is on President Yar'Adua's health and continued stay in office. This is even laughable. Whatever it takes, who can claim to love Yar'Adua being healthy and fit to continue in than Turai Yar'Adua.
Next to the personal physician, who is in a better position to know the state of health of President Yar'Adua than his wife? At the end of each day, when the physician, ministers, party chieftains, friends and family members would have left for their respective houses, who remains with Umar Yar'Adua? Only Turai Yar'Adua. Who therefore is best placed to decide on her husband's state of health? Turai Yar'Adua.

In any case, President Yar'Adua himself has publicly reported his health to be reasonable if imperfect, just like for most human beings. On such assessment, who best placed to publicly support Umar Yar'Adua or is Turai expected to discredit her husband and raise false alarm?
The third area of public focus on Turai Yar'Adua is the reported dictatorial posture towards wives of governors or the so-called first ladies in the 36 states. The title first lady is neither official nor recognised under the constitution. That is total except her fundamental human rights under the constitution, which are rights enjoyed by all other millions of Nigerians.

To be fair to her, Turai Yar'Adua did not acquire the title of first lady for herself. Instead, the media so acclaimed her. Therefore, the title first lady is not personal to anybody her position. None of the 36 wives of state governors also named herself first lady. It was all media frenzy. There is therefore no legal or constitutional basis for the title of first lady.

In the exercise of fundamental human rights, any Nigerian can express a desire, ambition or even decision to be addressed as first lady. That means no Nigerian can stop another or a group of others from addressing themselves first ladies. There is no such law, which even a law court can cite to restrict any Nigerian from addressing herself as first lady.
If, therefore, it is true that there is a standing directive stopping wives of state governors from addressing themselves as first ladies, such a directive should just be ignored and nothing will happen. The onus is therefore on wives of state governors NOT to capitulate to a non-existing law and they would not have breached any law.

Unfortunately, we have a political set-up where state governors don't even know their rights under the constitution. How many of them ever read the Constitution or even have a copy? As of today, even state governors not only panic before, but also pander to anything first lady at federal level.
If for example, a state governor's wife contemptuously disregards a directive to stop addressing herself as first lady, how many of the governors can be bold enough to back his wife on such a fundamental issue? Instead, the governor concerned, would in the first place, have seriously warned his wife never to try it. Disobey the president's wife?

The whole ignorance was inherited from the military. But then, there is a major difference. Under the military, governors/Administrators were appointed more like postings and could be removed at any time if he violated any rule or convention.
It is a different case in a civilian era. The Head of State and governors owe their mandate to the people in an election, even if blatantly rigged as in 2007. But a military governor, (usually a junior officer) owes everything in his career to the wishes and command of his commander-in-chief.
It is not the case that the title of first lady Is officially or legally recognised under the military, to be therefore restricted to only the commander in chief's wife or to constitute any offence if violated by a junior officer/military governor's wife. However, the reality in military set-up all over the world is that the wife of a senior officer, (especially commander in chief) is an authority in her own right, whose wrath or anger is better avoided and order complied with, rather than tested by a junior officer or his/her family.

No such unquestionable claim of command exists in a civilian set up. That was the difference Obasanjo could not appreciate when he took it on himself to be commanding elected state governors one way or the other.
There should not even be any needless row over how many wives of public office holders should be addressed as first lady or not. The concern of Nigerians is on personal security, food, jobs, social amenities like good roads, should education and efficient healthcare.