A Second Republic lawmaker, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, shares his concerns over President Muhammadu Buhari’s return, his health and administration, in this interview with TOBI AWORINDE

How did you feel when President Muhammadu Buhari returned from his medical trip to the United Kingdom?

I felt happy because like the rest of the country, I had thought that the President was coming back in better health – probably in a better state of mind – to tackle the problems of the country, which in the 104 days of his absence have been compounded. They (the problems) have taken some ugly dimensions, which would require very careful handling. That was exactly my mood: I thought that the country would be better off by his return because he’s not a private citizen. I believe that even those who are now projected and presented as (unsupportive) people towards him are also Nigerians and they must have voted for him – or at least, they are concerned about the mandate he is holding for all of us. So, it was important that he came back in good health. That was my feeling.

Do you agree with those who believe it was the protests in Abuja and London that forced him to return home?

Honestly, in my entire public service career, I have never been given to speculation and thoughts that are not helpful. Secondly, they tend to create more dust than they really settle any problem. So, I wouldn’t want to speculate on that. But if actually, he came back as a result of protests on the streets and in the public domain, on social media, it shows that, at least, he is trying to be a listening president, which was not the case in the past two years that he has been in power. And perhaps it was time for a change to assert himself instead of allowing his mandate, which is legitimate and moral, to be exercised and abused by the cabal (he’s surrounded by).
There was a lot of fanfare when Buhari returned. Do you think it was genuine?

There was nothing genuine about it. They (the people who jubilated upon Buhari’s return) were rented crowds. We know how they were recruited. Some of the characters in the cabal and their lackeys have a voice in the media. Their thugs in town were the people who were given money and some transport was provided for them. Some came from as far as Kaduna, Jos and other areas — so, I’m not surprised. In my own experience in politics, if it is anything to go by, rented crowds don’t confirm or deny anything. And anybody who has been in (Nigerian) politics for over 40 years will tell you that rented crowds don’t prove anything and they don’t disprove anything either.

Are you saying Nigerians are not as happy or excited to have Buhari back as was portrayed?

I think the dominant mood is not one of excitement. It is one of relief because when we were voting for Buhari in 2015, we did not envisage this kind of situation; that within two years, half-way through his mandate, he was going to be completely ‘paralysed’; the government was going to be in complete doldrums — nothing is happening, nothing is being done — and that the entire nation is going to be consumed with speculations about his clinical and mental health, and many other things happening now. This is a nation which is already in economic recession. This is a nation also confronted by the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East and (militancy) in the Niger Delta. This is a nation being challenged by secessionist agitations in Igbo land. You can see that, really, we didn’t bargain for any of these. We wanted a government that fights corruption, maintains law and order, and he was a relief.

When former President Umaru Yar’Adua was away on medical leave before he eventually died, Buhari was one of those who said he should resign, instead of holding the country to ransom. What do you think about the length of time spent by Buhari outside the country?

Firstly, I don’t know if the constitution provides the minimum or the maximum number of days by which a president should be away from his duties. If a president is hale and hearty, even if he’s out of the country, it is assumed that he is exercising the powers of the president. So, wherever the president is physically is not as important as the fact that he is performing his duties. But his (Buhari) shutting himself in Abuja House in London and making himself accessible only to his blood (relations), particularly members of the cabal like Mamman Daura, has done this country no favours. Frankly speaking, he is there to be the President of all Nigerians and those who should have access to him are those people who have reasons to have access to him, not those who are his blood relations – who have been doing their utmost to mess up the government and his (Buhari) legacy.

We are supposed to be concerned about the state of the country — recession, armed robbery, kidnapping, militancy in the Niger Delta and terrorism in the North-East, economic mismanagement and the compounding problem of corruption. In addition to these challenges, it is really unrealistic to expect Nigerians to be happy, Buhari’s presidency has added more to the challenges. We now have a situation whereby the presidency is becoming too powerful, and unfortunately, the president is not in charge. There are some shady characters whom nobody elected. Mamman Daura has never been elected into any office in his life. As I speak, the man does not hold any piece of paper indicating that he has held any position. But he is more powerful than Buhari. He is effectively in charge of the country, under the presidency. This is a scandal, and if Buhari doesn’t see this as a scandal, it’s a shame.

How would you rate the performance of Prof. Yemi Osinbajo as the acting president?

Below par. He didn’t performed as well as I expected him to perform. The first time Buhari was (out of) town, he (Osinbajo) maintained the presidency on an even keel. Services were being maintained, people were being encouraged to be good citizens, and the country was at the forefront of his concern. Now, he decided to play politics. Firstly, he started by issuing irresponsible – and what I would regard as emotional – statements, saying that hate speech is equal to terrorism. In fact, lawyers are questioning whether there is any law (that prohibits hate speech) — and he (Osinbajo) is a professor of law. He should point out any law which shows that hate speech is a crime. In addition, he made some reckless appointments which favoured members of his tribe and church – he was careless in making appointments based on sentiments, not on merit, and not making sure that the people who were nominated were morally fit for their positions. You remember what happened with the ICPC (Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission) appointments and that became a morass. The cabal did not have the ‘free hand’ they had in the first absence of Buhari; it does not mean that Osinbajo did well during the second spell of Buhari’s absence. He did not.

Do you feel there was pressure on Osinbajo from those close to Buhari not to outshine the President?

I suspect that there might have been a political plan by the cabal, especially by Mamman Daura. But it is not a direct interference. They would go and put ideas into Buhari’s head. Sometimes, Daura was in the habit of trying to reach out to Osinbajo and suggest what Osinbajo should do and should not do. Mamman Daura has been known to be making intemperate and irresponsible statements that the government belongs to him and his ilk and they will do all they can to run the government. The grapevine in the North is very leaky. We talk to people who talk to him. We talk even to (Buhari’s) family members who are unhappy with the way things are going. They (the cabal) are ruthless. If they find that they can have somebody who will replace Buhari and do their own bidding, they wouldn’t mind collaborating with him.

How easy will it be for Buhari to free himself from the cabal?

It is not going to be easy because he has already given the impression that he is under the cabal’s spell – some people in the North are even talking about marabouts, mallams or from Senegal or Morocco, etc. Frankly speaking, even if he was to be conscious of that fact and he would want to free himself from these characters, I think it is almost too late. So, Buhari and Nigeria will have to live with the consequences. What makes it even worse is that Buhari’s nuclear family is also bearing the brunt of what is happening now.

How is Buhari’s family bearing the brunt?

First, you must realise that over a year ago, the wife (Aisha Buhari) came out and spoke about what she saw at close quarters how certain policies were being carried out; how certain individuals, who had nothing to do with the party, are being smuggled to Buhari; and how in fact some of the things that she raised and cried out against ended up being public knowledge in terms of being used to castigate her. Now, if you castigate a president’s wife or a member of his nuclear family, you’re castigating the entire family. In the case of Buhari, you’re castigating his entire family—his children, grandchildren and what have you. And some of the things we have been getting are not only from outsiders like us, but are also from within the family itself. And the only quarrel the mafia and the cabal have against Buhari’s wife is that she has been crying foul and telling Buhari contrary views to what they believe and what should be happening.

Given Mrs. Buhari’s social media post last month that hyenas and jackals would be ejected from the proverbial kingdom, do you think the president’s family has overcome the cabal?

I don’t know because I don’t like getting involved in the family affairs of my friends. I’m not close to the First Lady, but I have a feeling that, if there’s any (problem), I’m sure somebody within the family will speak out, especially among the girls, who are very well educated. Even the First Lady is well educated; you don’t marry that kind of wife and expect that she will stay at home and behave like a typical woman in purdah. I’m not surprised at all. The cabal hates her like no man’s business and she also returns the favour by hating them, especially Mamman Daura, who she blames for a lot of the dangers and the influence these people are wielding against the historical legacy and achievements of her husband because they are misadvising him and make it impossible to have people who are decent, pragmatic, have political gravitas and know their onions as far as governance is concerned.

Buhari, in his post-resumption speech, said comments made on social media crossed ‘national red lines’ and said they were a step taken too far. What do you think?

I agree with what he said entirely and I believe it needed to be said. By and large, the concerns he expressed were legitimate and as the president of Nigeria, he is the embodiment of our national existence and sovereignty. So, I expect any president in that kind of situation to express a concern. Secondly, he must have hinted at the uncivilised discourse we have been having on the social media – and the fact that it has been abusive and I don’t think anybody would expect any solution for any problem to come out of that. In addition, he hinted that he might have supported restructuring in the past. I don’t know if he understands the implication of those who are clamouring or agitating for restructuring in the past wanted. If you are in the habit of reading what other people have written for you, you have to be very careful because you’re likely to find yourself in a situation whereby your speech-writers have an agenda, which you might not comprehend. You will have a problem because people will then put words into your mouth and people will say, ‘But you said so.’ The way the restructuring debate is being couched, I will not be supportive because it is divisive, irresponsible and gives the impression that some people are trying to blackmail the country and the government of the day into taking certain steps.

Also, there are clearly stated provisions in the constitution and other laws of the country, which spun out that if you want that kind of arrangement for the country, you have to follow certain steps. These matters have been subjected to the National Assembly. A bogus N17bn was spent on (former President Goodluck Jonathan’s) constitutional conference, of which I was a participant. So, what makes anybody who lost at the constitutional conference and at the National Assembly to now say, ‘Because Buhari is now back, this matter must be re-introduced’? They should be careful what they wish for; because if they want a showdown, they would be surprised. The people they think they can blackmail will have the upper hand. The constitutional conference was skewed against northerners. It wasn’t a mirror image of the country. When we got there, they (pro-restructuring agitators) could not have the upper hand easily as they thought, despite the billions spent in bribing (the delegates). And some imagined — because they are such geniuses in politics, arrangements and collaborating in intrigues — that they were going to have some kind of unity between the South-West, the South-East (and) the South-South, and with that, they could pull off Jonathan’s agenda. But they lost out. So, if they want to have this kind of comprehensive discussion about the future of the country, they are as good as anybody else; they can commence it and let us see how the discussion goes. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. It is even a democracy, so numbers matter. You cannot just force your views, which even within the South-West and the South-East are minority views, and say that it must be accepted because they are special (to you).
Concerning the right to free speech and agitation against marginalisation, you once said Buhari’s political appointments favoured northerners.

No, I didn’t say that. Don’t put words into my mouth. If I said it, I must have known what I said. I spoke about nepotism. I didn’t say Buhari was favouring the North, the East or the West. If anything, what Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Babatunde Fashola, has been doing has been completely and openly against the North. We know what the projects are. Since Buhari came to power, there hasn’t been a single project in the North. So, it would have been completely useless, unnecessary and uncalled-for, for me to say that there was marginalisation in favour of the North when there was none. In fact, what I said was that people like Fashola – who have an anti-northern agenda, have been doing their utmost to mess us up and Buhari – is incompetent in addressing problems.

But I think the converse of free speech is hate speech. I have not been addressing any issue on free speech or hate speech. But if you say free speech is at stake when somebody is saying something you like, you must be prepared also to listen to somebody else invoking the same concept of free speech against what you stand for or what you like. So, it is a double-edged sword. Nobody should use the issue of free speech to encourage people to be irresponsible or to bring into question the existence of the country because the only thing that binds you and me is the country. Without the country, we have nothing in common. So, we have to be careful.

Buhari, in his speech, also said Nigeria’s unity is settled, not negotiable. Shouldn’t there be an open discussion about self-determination?

I have no problem with the sentiments expressed by Buhari. I believe it is the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. I also believe, as an elected president of this country, he has the right and the responsibility to say what he said. But my concern is when he either before or after that statement, he used the fact that he, as a personal citizen, before he became president, had had a discussion with another personal citizen, (late Chukwuemeka) Ojukwu, who went to his house in Daura (Katsina State). For all I care, what Buhari, as a retired general, and Ojukwu, as a retired military officer, discussed was entirely their private affair. There was nothing they discussed or agreed which was binding on anybody else, including their wives or their children. I have no doubt in my mind that we have a responsibility to maintain peace, order and good governance in this country. I am concerned that since he (Buhari) came into power, there has been very little evidence of that. But I have no doubt in my mind that no matter what he or anybody else says or may have said, if Nigerians do not care about Nigeria and they don’t want to keep the country united, then there is nothing he can do.

But if Nigerians are keen about it, then they should speak up and say, ‘Look, there is a limit to what we can take.’ At some point, there has to be a critical mass of people who must believe in this country and say, ‘Enough of this, Enough of that.’ But as regards the right of people to secede, I have no problem with that. I believe, in the next constitution whenever we have it, there should be an opt-out clause, which allows any group of people within a country, provided they go through the basic, democratic process of running a referendum which will be supervised either by the Independent National Electoral Commission or the United Nations to leave. And we have had situations in 1962 when the Northern Cameroon and Southern Cameroon, which used to be German Cameroon in the past, were given the opportunity by the UN; Northern Cameroon chose to be with the North and they are still part of the North. Southern Cameroon made a choice; I think more on sentiment than the rationality of the moment. Those who declared Biafra in 1967 did not address the issue of how they could make Biafra survive and how they could maintain peace and prosperity in those areas; and how they could accommodate the people who had been forced to leave other parts of the country and survive on their poor soil. And of course, what happened was a major tragedy for the whole country. It’s blight on our history because over one million people were killed in the war. It was too much of a price to pay and I believe if they want to go that way, they are likely to have themselves visited by a similar tragedy.

Punchng