Professor Solomon Ebobrah, is a professor of law in the Niger Delta University, with specialisation in International Human Rights Law and the Law of International Institutions.
Ebobrah, who is the Director of the Institute of Niger Delta Studies, in an interview with FEMI FOLARANMI declared that until there is a realisation that the well being of the Niger Delta region is critical and fundamental to the wellbeing of Nigeria, the country cannot make progress
You have been quoted at several fora to have raised the alarm over threats to the 2023 elections with the continued attack on INEC facilities. Are the threats still valid?
As of today, I think they are still very valid, especially in the South- East but not only in the South- East. The ones we have read and have heard are those where INEC facilities and offices are targeted and attacked indiscriminately in the South- East.But a more subtle threat exists. It is latent in the sense that it is not very obvious yet and active but it exists in all places you have violence in parts of the North even in some parts of South- South. The threat against INEC and the 2023 elections remains very strong.
Does this threat include political violence by political parties?
If you look at it critically, some people would say that the political violence in the sense of political parties or thugs attacking each other is slightly lower in this dispensation. I don’t think there is any data for us to verify if it is lower. But we have heard reports of political campaigns being attacked, various political parties and candidates being attacked by opponents. Those threats still exist but I don’t think they are part of a coordinated attack process. The violence against INEC facilities that we see in some parts of the country, to the best of my knowledge, is not part of the political violence that we see among politicians and political parties. There are separate events but of course they are all threats against credible elections in our country.
What do you think should dominate discussions as we approach the elections?
I have said it before that the focus of our security agencies should be the protection of voters and voting materials, INEC officials and facilities, and ad-hoc- staff because there is a tendency to protect politicians and VIPs. I don’t think we have sufficient manpower to protect everyone. I think the voting booths and other strategic places where electoral materials are kept should be the priority of both the government and security agencies. I think this is critical. We need to be very sure that our attention is on the electoral materials and the voters rather than VIP and politicians.
Security agencies have been accused in the previous election cycle of compromising the electoral process. But recently there have been assurances that they would be neutral. How do you see this reassurance?
There has been a lot of focus in our national discourse on the misdeeds, if I should put it that way, of security agencies. But we need to draw a distinction between the institutional position and the activities of individual security agents. The security agencies as institutions always insist that they are not involved and do not compromise elections. But as everyone else who has been involved in elections knows, some of these security agents have been used by politicians. There has been a reduction because it looks like the leadership of the security agencies have become aware that attention is on them. This has greatly reduced interference in a way we cannot categorically say for now.
I think the other part of it is to say the federal might will be brought to bear in an election. It might not be very obvious if it exists in this election because the incumbent is not running for election. So our expectation as civil society and people in the academia is that the fact the incumbent is not running for election would free some degree of loyalty of the security agencies. Whether this would actually play out in practice is anybody’s guess.
Academics have also been accused of being at the service to politicians to compromise election
During the ASUU strike, we were hearing stuff that Professors and others were partly responsible for the woes of the country. I don’t think that it is in our character as academics to have loyalty to any political party. But before people were academics, they were private individuals, so I think you cannot rule out the possibility of one or two or three individuals having personal relationships with particular candidates and therefore falling for the temptation of compromising. Institutionally, I don’t think academics have a penchant for interfering with elections. But like I said, individuals are individuals and sometimes the individual values of a person override their training and all of that. Academics are not trained to interfere with elections, even the very fact that we were chosen is a testimony to the confidence that those who make policy have in academics. But then you can’t rule out one or two isolated cases.
With the degree of success in Ekiti and Osun governorship elections, do you have faith in INEC to conduct credible 2023 elections?
I am glad you asked this question. You see, the election INEC is conducting seems to be getting better in terms of freeness and fairness of the process. So we can only get better, if what we have seen is anything to go by.
Some would argue that the successes of the election is because they are isolated off-season elections and the entire focus of the country and international community was on the election and INEC has no choice than to do well and that the ball game would be different if several elections take place at the same time, that we cannot rule out. But if the conduct of those elections is anything to go by, our expectations are slightly higher than previous ones.
As Director, Institute for Niger Delta Studies, how comfortable are you with the electioneering campaign?
From the perspective of the Niger Delta, because our political parties are not significantly different in terms of ideology, all the political parties seem to promise everything. For us in the Niger Delta, the issues that concern us are not hidden; they are known. These are access to resources we find in our locality; oil pollution, environmental injustice and even related issues, even the voice that we had in making decisions. We have seen a few candidates come to see strategic groups in the Niger Delta, asking what the issues are and putting forward what they intend to do. But I do not think issues of the Niger Delta have been put on the front burner in this electioneering campaign. Maybe people are more interested in the stomach infrastructure due to the high cost of living etc. So people are not too concerned with issues in the Niger Delta. But these are issues that are sacrosanct and we must still address them. I don’t think the political parties and candidates have spoken to us to tell us about resolving the issues affecting the Niger Delta region.
So how do we place these issues on the front burner?
A part of it is on us, the people of the Niger Delta. We also need to raise these issues in our meeting with the candidates. I know that groups like Ijaw Elders Forum have written some letters to Presidential candidates highlighting issues that are of concern to us. But it is a two-way traffic stuff. It should come from us and get a response from the candidates and the political parties.
From your experience, who do you think should take the blame for the underdevelopment of the Niger Delta?
It is a collective responsibility. It is collective in the sense that the political leadership we have in the Niger Delta seems to be caught up on issues that take their attention from us. Our political class has not sufficiently raised our matter.
At the federal level, the response has also been mostly what I would call a bribe. They do something, target a few individuals and sections and hope that those people would not interrupt the process of oil production. There has not been that honest and genuine intention to develop the Niger Delta and our political leaders in the Niger Delta have not sufficiently raised those issues in their engagements with federal authorities. It is a collective responsibility.
For us ordinary people in the Niger Delta, our level of poverty and insufficient awareness has made it such that we have also not been able to consistently insist on development of the Niger Delta. So we have not played our part. We have not sustained our demands. So the Federal Government and its agencies have not been sufficiently pushed to do what they need to do. So we are in this limbo where the Federal Government and its agencies do something very little, sprinkle something out there and take those who are seemingly making demands, engage them and then let things go. So we are in a terrible situation.
There are views that the Niger Delta, having been given NDDC, Ministry of Niger Delta and Presidential Amnesty Programme, that these are more than enough to develop the region.
Are they? Frankly this is why I said it is a collective thing. So some bribes have been given to us. Do we really need these agencies if you are honestly interested in developing this area? Because frankly the Federal Government, whoever is there, including our own people, if they want to do something, they know what needs to be done. But now they have decided to operate through interventionist agencies. But who do they put there? Where does their loyalty lie? Is it to the Federal Government that appointed them or the people of the Niger Delta?
Yes there are some appearances of activities but those activities are not genuine, and that is what we are saying. If they are genuine, you would engage with the people and ask what they want. What we are currently having is a top-to-down approach. What we need is a bottom-to-top approach. Engage with us at the communities’ levels and at the state levels. They should not frame political interests as community interests; we need to draw that distinction. So in a situation where one party gets into power and appoints its loyalists into these agencies, those loyalists have their loyalty to those that have appointed them, not to the Niger Delta people. So the agenda of these organisations then becomes something that is not in our favour. For me, that is the major issue.
Do you think a Southern President can reverse the issue of Niger Delta underdevelopment?
We have had a Southern President before. That is why I said it does not matter who is there. Right now it is looking like anybody who gets into the political class becomes one tribe. I see two tribes in Nigeria. I am not the first to say that. These are the politicians and the rest of us. Maybe we just need people who realise that the wellbeing of the Niger Delta is critical and fundamental to the wellbeing of this country. It doesn’t matter where the person comes from, just get that realisation that the wellbeing of the Niger Delta is critical and fundamental if this country is going to move forward. So anybody who has that realization, it does not matter where they come from, it does not matter what they profess, and they are willing to engage the people of the Niger Delta, I think we would make progress.
So, in other words, are you arguing in favour of restructuring?
Restructuring is one of the political concepts we have in this country. I don’t know which restructuring you are talking about. But I have always said that it is the mindset of the people who operate our constitution that determines where the constitution is going. So if your understanding is that we should decentralise governance without making it personalised governance, then I am with you. Because you can restructure and accumulate powers at a low level, in an individual or a group of persons, you still have not achieved the goals you want to achieve. So people must be able to be honest in their dealings with people and know that decentralisation is decentralisation and not personalisation of power in another person. What we have now is personalisation of power in this country. If the President is not around, then nothing happens. So you need the President to give a word for everything. At the state level, it is almost the same. Right now, decentralisation seems to mean removing some powers from the President and accumulating it in the governor. We are saying that is not the decentralisation or restructuring that would favour us.
Restructuring should be such that the separation of powers is respected. So that both the National Assembly and State Assembly should have sufficient say in governance. Because when you look at all those countries where governance works, it is because no single individual or group of persons have so much power accumulated in them. So it is not the constitution that I find as a problem; it is the operations of the constitution. So if we are genuine to ourselves, you would notice that this constitution we are complaining about, it would work in a way that favours everybody. I think what we need is a change of mindset, a reorientation of our attitude to governance.
Vote buying has been identified as one of the greatest threats to credible elections. Do you agree?
Yes completely. But that again is the function of the poverty in the land. People always say after now I won’t get anything from the government, that this is an opportunity to get something from the government. It may be N5 or N1000. I think that it is a function of the state of our minds. We do not see the connection between election and performance in office. Our style of governance and the level of poverty in the land ensure that vote- buying would continue and this is a very major issue because at the end of the day people are more interested in stomach infrastructure than anything else. And you won’t blame them. So vote buying is a major threat to credible elections in this country and I don’t know when we are going to get out of it.
So can the monetary policy of the CBN curb vote buying?
I really wish it can. My experience in this country is that as you take one step as a government, Nigerians take two or three steps in reaction to the one step the government has taken. You can already imagine the innovative and creative way; politicians are already processing on how to beat the CBN policies. Maybe to an extent it would reduce it but to eliminate is what we don’t know. I imagine that people have been given IOUs. And Nigerians are very creative in this direction. I think for me, a re-orientation of our thinking and values would work better than these policy actions the government is taking. This is a long term process.
As a Professor of law, what is your view on the recent alarm by INEC concerning the high number of litigations involving it? Do you think the judiciary can protect democracy?
At a recent programme we had at the Yenagoa branch of the NBA, we asked a very senior judge to address the question whether there is a judicialisation of politics in Nigeria. Our idea was that the judge should address the question whether Judges are becoming too involved in political decisions on who to occupy office. The judge answered that so long as politicians bring their cases to court, the court must take the necessary action.If you look at the United States, the Supreme Court said there are some questions that the court would not dabble into. The court should not be the one to decide who to govern.
In Nigeria, because of our peculiar context, I think it all comes back to the fact of politics being a lucrative venture that anybody can engage in. Currently that is what it is. I don’t think our politics has always been people who go there to serve. It is a do-or-die affair. And if it is an investment you are getting into, the chances are that you would always fight tooth or nail to get into office. I think that is why the cases get to court because everyone is desperate to be the one making millions and billions. Therefore everyone wants to be in office. It is not the problem of the judiciary; it is the politicians that insist they must be in office. They are the ones that engage the lawyers. And then the lawyers take the matter to the court and the judges would only answer questions posed to them. They would not go and answer questions not posed to them. If INEC is complaining, well that is our system. Until we are able to create a system where business pays you more than politics we would continue to have this kind of highly legalised political process because these processes must end in court. We have seen governors and local government chairmen getting into office through the court.
What is your agenda for the next President for the Niger Delta?
I think the focus seems to be on human capital development. Even that is not genuinely done. Processes are on but you have to be a ‘criminal’ to qualify. When you say, you are targeting ex-militants, those who have picked up arms against the state. Don’t get me wrong I am not calling my brothers ‘criminals’. In any ideal society, taking up arms against the state is criminality; here it is not because you are looking at it as a political cause. When the state says you must have carried arms against the state before you qualify for scholarship, you are saying, you must be a criminal before you qualify for these things. So, that needs to change. We are not saying it should stop, we are saying don’t tie it to criminality.
If you want to engage in human capital development, structure it in such a way that communities can nominate people to qualify. You don’t sit down and say come and show us your guns if you have to qualify. Even people who have not carried guns would go and buy guns and show it to you. So do not criminalise the process of human capital development.
Two, infrastructural development in the Niger Delta needs to be prioritised. We must come to the fact that because of the peculiar terrain that we are in, the cost of doing anything here is likely to be higher than anywhere else. Environmental justice is very important. About a year ago there was this major blow-out in Nembe. Till date, nothing has come out of it. The federal agencies that are responsible were even blaming the Bayelsa State Government for what had occurred there. So you are actually victimising the victims.
We need to first of all ensure that we do not make human capital development a function of criminality. We need to make sure that at least the basic minimum infrastructure is put in place in the Niger Delta. We need to make sure this environment is restored. Even if it is not what it used to be but makes it easy for us to live. There was a time you came to Bayelsa and you put your hand in your nose and you saw soot. They say there is soot in Port Harcourt but it is in Bayelsa too. People are dying without knowing what is causing their death. Unfortunately we are a society where the infrastructure for science is so low that we are not able to draw this link between the pollution of the environment and the state of health.
There has been clamour for amnesty for Boko Haram like that of the amnesty given to Niger Delta militants. What is your take on this?
You need to ask yourself whether the circumstances of the two are similar. I am not saying Boko Haram should not be given amnesty, where are the funds going to come from? I have been involved in a process where we said the United Nation, ECOWAS and the International Organisations should provide resources for that. The resources you are using for the amnesty in the Niger Delta is from the Niger Delta, and that is a major distinction that needs to be made. Nobody is saying you should not give Boko Haram amnesty. If it works for them fine, but be sure that the resources you are using are sourced from appropriate quarters from the national purse. As long as you don’t rob Peter to pay Paul, it is fine.
As a Professor of Law, what will you recommend as sanctions for electoral offenders?
Sanctions have always been there, but some people believe they are not severe enough. My thinking is that education achieves more than sanctions. The reason being that once sanctions become unreasonably high, you see a lot of avoidance. And the society we live in, whether we like it or not, once sanctions are high, those responsible to bring people to book would demand more gratification. This is what I mean: if the offence is two years in jail, the bribe may be N20, 000, if it is life imprisonment, the bribe may rise to N500, 000. We have to be honest with ourselves. The question is how many convictions can we secure? So my take is yes, it is good to use the stick. In our kind of society, the stick and carrot approach will be better. Or if you are to sanction, sanction the politician that gets into office, because if you are to lock people up, politicians can sacrifice anybody just to get their result. So it is better to give the political thugs the incentive not to do what they are doing. For me those are the things criminologists should look at. Can we say sanctions and imprisonment are really serving as a deterrent in our society? If they were, a lot of crimes happening in our society wouldn’t be occurring.