Alhaji Mahmud Yayale Ahmad can be described as one of Nigeria’s outstanding technocrats, who has had the rare privilege of serving at the top echelon of the nation’s political class, public service and the defence institution.
After a flourishing career with the Bauchi State Government and the Federal Civil Service, he was named the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation HoS in 2000 and was immediately announced as the Defence Minister upon completion of his tenure as the HoS in 2007.
He was brought into the political power house of the late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua as the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, SGF, in 2008. It was during his tenure as the SGF that the intrigue over the
transfer of power from the ailing President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua to the then Vice President Goodluck Jonathan played out, leading to the adoption of the now famous ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ to salvage Nigeria from the brink.
In this interview, Yayale speaks on his role in the battle to make or not make Jonathan President, how the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ became imperative and how northerners accused him of selling out their interest to make Jonathan President. Yayale also reminisces on why the Yar’Adua administration granted amnesty to Niger Delta militants and what Boko Haram should do in order to enjoy same pardon. Excerpts:
Looking at the way things are going in the country, are you worried, or disappointed like those who have predicted that the country will break up because of the dangerous signs that are visible?
As a patriotic Nigerian, I’m worried and disturbed. Worried not because of the fear that Nigeria may break up tomorrow but because Nigerians, who constitute Nigeria as a people, are not sincere with themselves. I am worried because certain things that are happening these days should have been avoided.
Ordinarily, Nigerians have faith in their leaders but most of the leaders do not have faith in the nation. So, what is basically wrong is that there is near complete absence of patriotism and the commitment to the nation at the leadership level. When I say leadership level, it does not mean the President or those who constitute government. I mean every leader, including myself.
I say so because ample opportunity has been given to all of us to really do something that is positive in terms of changing the fortunes of the less privileged but, over the years, we have really taken a different course of action by taking the interest of ourselves first, then others and the nation last. What I see as various happenings, especially those that will put the nation into threat or disintegration, are many but my worry does not extend to entertaining the fear that Nigeria will break soon.
Why I say this is because I have studied the various groupings in this country, past leaderships, those who knew Nigeria, know Nigeria and are passionate about Nigeria and I have not seen a situation whereby some of these critical people have started to show lack of confidence in the federation.
But if they start talking, I would be worried. Past leaders, politicians, military leaders- most of them do have the consensus that Nigeria should not be dismembered and this gives me hope despite all the challenges facing Nigeria.
What is the way out ?
The truth of the matter is that we have all wronged ourselves. We have wronged each other. It is not the issue of saying that the North or the Hausa Fulani have ruled this country for more than two thirds of the time and, therefore, responsible for all the crises; it is not the issue of the Igbo trying to secede and coming back; it is not the issue of the Yoruba trying to dominate the economy.
Each of us wronged one another. Let us accept this as a bitter pill and identify the areas we have wronged one another, assess their implications and, with deeper sense of sincerity, apologise to one another.
The second stage of coming out of our problem is to identify a political system and how to sustain it. How do we give viability to a political system?.
A political system is viable if it enjoys the support of the electorate, the party and the government. It will enjoy support from the party because parties are primarily created to sell their manifestoes and win election with a view to forming government either alone or in coalition with other parties.
So, parties are not just created to be insulting or condemning one another or being smarter than the other. So, the whole regime of the political parties is not well entrenched as to assist the Nigerian political system.
Both the so-called opposition and the party in government hardly recognise this vital role of making sure that the objective is to win election, form government either alone or in coalition and when they lose the election, they form a very credible, sustainable opposition that does not oppose the existence of Nigeria or does not work against the interest of the nation. This is for the party.
And for the regime: Any regime in power-whether the party or the platform in which the President and other elected officials came into being-must know one thing: once you are in government, you have to do what government is supposed to do. Government is an institution formed through election or appointment with the hope of managing the resources belonging to the union with a view to uplifting the quality of life of the populace.
Once you miss this, you are in trouble. It should not be a government whereby its preoccupation would be that of sustaining itself for future elections and giving out resources in a manner that does not really touch the lives of the ordinary man. So, as far as governance is concerned in this country, it does not give support to a viable political system.
Now I come to the electorate, whose decisions create government. They have to be very civic but in a very subjective political culture that we have in Nigeria, they don’t mind through which source a leader emerges with the result that since they are marginally attached or related to governance, all they think they should do is that during election they are bought to do the bidding of the leaders.
So, in between them, you have the institutions, one of them being the electoral umpire-the electoral commission. Whether you call it independent or not, the main thing is that if it is not well established, well organised and funded to conduct election, you have a problem.
In between INEC, you have other supporting institutions during election but, since all of these do not really perform their duties as it should be, you end up having an election that goes to answer a question and you will always have what we call the rigging culture in the Nigerian political system. Insofar as the means and ways of putting leaders into positions remain corrupt, so long as the subsequent actions of these leaders in government will continue to be corrupt.
I think the citizens have been held hostage by the system since it does not really allow votes to count and they should not be held responsible for the electoral misfortune of Nigeria.
Why was this not possible during the First Republic?
It is like the new leaders have fashioned a new political culture in Nigeria to suit their whims and caprices.
Look, let me tell you, the people are to blame for the political problems we are facing today.
But in reality how do we come out of the quagmire?
We have to strengthen the political system.
How? Do we need more laws to plug the loopholes in the political system?
No, we have more than enough laws in this country. In fact, they are too many but our laws are like the proverbial elephants. It is like standing in front of a big town city gate and, as a stranger, you are afraid to go through it but the city dweller will tell you ‘don’t be afraid, go through it, it won’t harm you’.
So all the laws are there but they are not effective. We only need to make them more effective. Unfortunately, the people who should make them effective are not sincere. This brings me to the absence of sincerity in the management of public affairs. This is the main problem with Nigeria.
Does this also explain why budgets do not work?
There are so many things that make our budgets not to work. Budgets that work are based on National Development Plans. When we started in 1962, the first National Development Plan, everything went into it and nobody had any power to introduce any item of budget when it was not in the plan.
There may be projects, whose life of completion may be three years in that development plan, which was based on five years; you therefore had to get what was called estimated cost of the project and you had also to identify the sources of revenue for that particular project. You had to make sure that all revenues were collected and were judiciously expended.
Why we fail is that, basically, we have abandoned National Development Plans and anything short termed is never a solution. If you want to know, try short term marriage and see whether it is a solution to your problem. Without development plan, you are forced to resort to medium term or something else and you open the budgeting process to the whims and caprices of the political leaders-whether they are in the executive or in the legislature.
They will dictate whatever project they want for their respective constituencies and the country ends up having projects whose relevance in terms of overall national development is not there and it can collapse with the exit of the ‘’owner”. This will then open up the whole public service to everybody that this man or that must be appointed whether you need him or not, thereby continuously increasing the number of heads and recurrent budget as it were.
You do not spend all your recurrent revenue on recurrent services; you must make savings and transfer to capital. But you find out that nowadays whenever people are defending budgets before the National Assembly, very little attention is paid to revenue drive, not knowing that people must be ready to generate every kobo that is budgeted for the year.
Nigeria is dependent on oil, which often results in excess crude sales. So, the money is presumed to be available for spending.
That is another reason our budget fails because of the over dependence on oil as a single source of revenue. It also explains why people, who are asked to collect revenue do not think it is their job to do so. But as people do not show commitment to revenue collection, the budget will remain deficient. That is one.
Another thing is that while the national budget is being prepared, members of the National Assembly should ordinarily channel their requests through their party organisations so that the executive will have one budget. But since the advent of democracy, we have been having two different budgets both in terms of revenue and in terms of expenditure. In terms of revenue, they benchmark it.
If the executive puts a benchmark, the NASS will raise it and, in terms of expenditure, if they put projects to be done, the NASS will have its own getting around them. This situation has brought about the formalisation of this alien way of budgeting by what they call constituency projects apart from other projects, which they also influence. In budgeting system, this should not be allowed.
The time it takes to consider projects is unnecessarily prolonged because in it there is also the fact that people are taking advantage of leakages and what they will get out of the negotiations. Having said that, by the time the budget is approved by the legislature, the executive hardly receives a budget that resembles what it proposed. So, there has been this kind of negotiations and horse-trading between the executive and the NASS over budgets.
Nigerian budgets contain a lot of deficit financing which make capital projects to suffer and leads to an increase in internal debts for the nation. By the time it comes to implementation, which is the sad phase of budgeting, the most of the actors would like to be quick in implementing projects that have direct impact on their lives rather than on the life of the majority of the people.
You worked closely with the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, whose government granted amnesty to the Niger Delta militants at the peak of their agitation. Currently, we have the Boko Haram crisis and one would like to ask you if it is advisable for the Federal Government to do the same thing it did for the Niger Delta militants to the Boko Haram members as a condition for them to lay down their arms and embrace peace.
Well, my simple answer to this is that if conditions are made the same, Boko Haram should enjoy amnesty but the conditions are not the same and they can hardly be made the same. Why do I say so? As you rightly observed, the Niger Delta militants were occupying a known territory, their objectives were known, their leaders were known, their locations were known.
Even though the locations could not be reached because they were very lethal, we were able to make contacts with their leaders, who were not in the creeks. And having started series of meetings first of all, under the chairmanship of the then Vice President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, now Mr. President, and later on under the SGF, Babagana Kingibe, and later under the leadership of the Minister of Defence and later under myself but coordinated by the Vice President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, we were able to identify these people, talk to them and sometimes meet continuously for two weeks and we knew exactly what they wanted.
They had a defined territory and objective and it was easier for us to know what they wanted and what was happening. In the case of Boko Haram, they say they are in the Northeast, but they are invisible. They are invisible to the point that you can hardly trace them and they may be part of your household and you may not know.
Secondly, their demand is such that is not economically based or a social emancipation. Their demand is, crudely put, a religious demand, which even the constituency of Boko Haram actors, that is Islam, is not comfortable with.
And, basically, it is the responsibility of government to provide for everybody and, in the kind of Constitution we have, government does not have the right now to identify and adopt a straight religion and it is difficult for you to give amnesty to them. To achieve what? An Islamic state? It is a dilemma really.
So what should we do to get out of the crisis in the land?
We should apply more justice in our governance. What I mean by that is that when we are catering for people especially in those states where there is insurgency, we must do something that is people-oriented.
The continuous increasing recruitment of innocent boys and girls into Boko Haram means that government at the state or local government level does not really do what it is supposed to do in terms of the provision of basic necessities and asking or enticing these young men and women not to take to that particular way of getting money.
If we have not paid particular attention to job creation, poverty alleviation and education, then we have a problem. But, more importantly, it is the complete lack of discipline on our own part. Chad and Niger Republics are poorer than us but there has not been this kind of serious insurgency in their countries because the system still works.
So, is this a failure of government?
It is a failure of government. Even the Niger Delta crisis was as a result of government’s failure; the Boko Haram insurgency is of a different dimension. It is a failure of government.
Before Yar’Adua finally passed on, there was a prolonged tussle for the transfer of power to the then Vice President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. At the peak of the crisis, a strange option, which has now come to be known as ‘’Doctrine of Necessity” was adopted to bring in President Jonathan in the saddle. As the SGF at the time, what brought about the doctrine and what was it to achieve?
Well, if you go a little bit into history, you will discover that the “Doctrine of Necessity” was first used in Pakistan in 1954, when the Chief Justice of that country ruled that the President had the power to dissolve the constituent assembly and this was not in the Constitution.
But the judge knew that there would be some circumstances whereby unconstitutional actions would result in good governance and better management of crisis, thus the “Doctrine of Necessity” became imperative.
In Nigeria, there are three specified ways of removing a President from office or to make him not to function. These have been clearly spelt in Sections 143 to 145. Section 143 talks about how the President should be removed through impeachment.
Section 144 deals with how the members of the Federal Executive Council can by simple majority vote to remove a President if they feel that the President can no longer function. They can write to the NASS to remove him. Section 145 talks about the President transmitting a letter to the NASS that he can no longer function due to some factors of ill-health or incapacitation.
President Yar’Adua could not be impeached because there was no reason for that. Secondly, it was very difficult to invoke Section 144 of the Constitution because not only were the cabinet members appointed by President Yar’Adua but because it would be very inhuman for a person, who was really in a very bad shape and their benefactor to be removed by the cabinet.
Thirdly, we continued to argue during that particular period of uncertainty that President Yar’Adua and Vice President Jonathan enjoyed the same ticket and so whether he was declared acting or not acting President, it was the responsibility of government to continue moving. So many things happened whose details I would not like to reveal now. But at the end of the day, the NASS moved towards applying the “Doctrine of Necessity”.
First of all, the members reasoned that the interview the late President granted the BBC was enough declaration that he was sick and unable to discharge his responsibility to the nation. So, they took it as informal communication and transmission of letter.
Secondly, they invited the SGF to tell them the state of health of the late President. That we did and having confirmed to them that I had not had the opportunity to see or discuss with Mr. President they saw that he was incapacitated.
Lastly, the Governors’ Forum was so eager to move forward because those of them, who thought that trying to hold the nation would be beneficial to them, started to see no hope in the survival of our late leader. They were quick enough to go to the other side and say that they have saved the nation.
So the NASS heard all these and after some advice from jurists, they found it very easy to adopt and declare that the late President was no longer capable of running the affairs of the nation and, therefore, under that particular circumstance, the Vice President should act. This is not in the Constitution but it was desirable to save a precarious situation and that is why it is called “Doctrine of Necessity”.
But you and some others were branded as being among the hawks, who attempted to stop Jonathan from taking over?
Well, in most cases, from what I saw in the newspapers and the text messages I received, I was declared an enemy by some northern people that I was serving Jonathan. I was insulted especially by the group which was bent on pretending that my friend, boss and leader, Yar’Ádua, was okay.
They even took me to some Emirs that I was selling out the interest of the North but one of the Emirs told them that I was doing my work as the SFG. The emir told the northern people that I had maintained that if I was not removed as the SGF, I would continue to covene meetings of the FEC because I had to invite the members against threats from lawyers that I was doing that illegally and should stop but I ignored them.
How did you get to all the top posts you occupied in Nigeria? Did you lobby for any one?
It is not good for me to answer that question because if I say I did not lobby for any, some cynics would still not believe. But I would like to challenge anybody who would say that I lobbied for the positions I occupied in life. But I would say that I lobbied greatly from my creator who continued to protect me and give me the positions I occupied.
But of all the posts you occupied, which would you describe as the most challenging?
Indeed, it was the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation that was the most challenging to me. This is because at the time I took over from Babagana Kingibe, who is my very good friend and brother, people were saying that I was bent on taking away the office from him and it was very embarrassing to me because people just wanted to plant tell lies against me. I know how many times the late President Yar’Adua wanted to make me to take over as the SGF and I did not show interest.
Secondly, I knew that to be an SGF at a very trying period, one had to stop everything personal and concentrate on the job. Personal enjoyment was not for me because I made sure that I served my master to the best of my ability. Thirdly, there were occasions whereby relations between ministers and other actors and or minsters of state became very challenging and we had to do some corrections.
Fourthly, when Yar’Adua came in, there were merged ministries and in order to get more ministers, we had to de-merge them and I was given that responsibility, which was very challenging. Lastly, during the transition crisis before Jonathan took over, I was almost left alone and I suffered not because I could not have joined but because I thought that the nation was more important than anybody and if I could lose my chair because I was part and parcel of the national conscience that says that we should do the right thing, I would not have regretted. But I went through hell but I am very strong and I survived because I believe in my creator.
Do you have any regrets in all the actions you took while in office?
There are so many actions that I took while in office. Some were harsh but I take full responsibility for them and have no regret.
Do you remember any of them?
I do but I will keep them secret until I write my memoirs.
What makes you happy and sad about Nigeria?
I am always happy and proud about Nigeria because any where you go you see people who are genuinely happy, ordinary people who love each other. I am also happy to be part of a big nation that has a big share of influence in the world. I am happy to be a Nigerian because despite all the challenges we are developing solutions gradually to survive.
What makes me sad about the country is that we have a bunch of insincere lots in terms of the leadership and the elite. The percentage of sincerity being applied to governance is less than 10 percent and if we have gone up to 30 percent, Nigeria would have been a better place for everybody.
Sadly too, we don’t care about the monster called corruption. We are deeply in it and even if you are not corrupt in the country, and no matter how white your dress is, once you pass through a palm oil seller you will find a dot. That is Nigeria.
Given what the country is passing through today, what advice would you give Mr. President in order to move the country forward?
First of all, I would advise him to be a statesman rather than a leader coming from a political party. He should know that he is the father of the nation and, as the father of the nation; he has both bad children and good ones. But as the father of the nation, he also has brothers and cousins, who are always with him surrounding him as advisers.
He should be bold enough to look critically into his team and get advisers, who will be committed, passionate, and patriotic and have the interest of the nation at heart. He should de-emphasise the issue of patronage and emphasise the issue of good governance. This cannot be done if the whole system is geared towards maintaining an election chair rather than maintaining a legacy of service.
Politics should be public service and not a commercial venture and he should know that God has given all what it takes to be a man and really have that confidence to tell the people the truth and act the correct way. We should continue to identify things and continue to do them correctly over the years. If this is done, he would find that mischief makers would not find a place with the man called Goodluck Jonathan.
Source vanguard
