That
Dr. Olubukola Abubakar Saraki should honourably resign as the Senate
President or be impeached is beyond debate. Through the history of his
past and present, he has brought dishonour to the Senate. While the
court has the final say and we should wait for this, however the reasons
justifying why Saraki should resign now or be impeached are factually
overwhelming, while the defence of those who hold brief for him is
miserably weak.
Those who defend Saraki range from journalists
such as Olukayode Thomas, who tries to put an “argumentative” face on
his defence of Saraki to Ilorin clannishness, and Ilorin clannish
defenders such as the spokesperson of Ilorin Emirate Descendants
Progressive Union, Mr. Abdulhamid Adi. The form of both types of defence
is the same, for they both commit laughable errors in reasoning.
In
his defence of Saraki, Thomas dances around while evading the
substantive issue. Coming from the Sarakists, this evasion strongly
suggests that the Senate President has no real defence of the allegation
against him beyond deploying an irrelevant appeal to pity, a sense of
“persecution” and legal technicalities, in order to stop the court
process. Thus, for failing to address the substantive and factual issues
against Saraki, Thomas only ends up strengthening the allegation
against Saraki.
This is because Thomas is not saying that Saraki
is not guilty due to the facts of the case. Rather Thomas is suggesting
that Saraki ought not to be tried, or everyone should be tried if
Saraki’s is being tried! While Thomas is correct in asking that corrupt
people should face the law, it is a bad argument to suggest that if all
corrupt politicians are not tried then Saraki ought not be tried. That
all corrupt people should be tried and that Saraki is being tried are
two different issues. Hence, Sarakists such as Olukayode Thomas are
unhelpful for their failure to speak to the substantive facts of the
allegation against Saraki. Thomas’ defence of Saraki ends up showing
that Saraki has a case to answer, and he must answer this case.
What
nails the Senate President and makes his case incurably bad, at least
in the public domain, is his resort to ethnic self-help and clannishness
of the Ilorin type. Nigerian rulers are known for their ethnic
clannishness. For example, until he proves otherwise in the next four
years of his presidency, the first faulty steps of current president
Buhari has shown that there is no difference between his Daura
clannishness-in relying mostly on Daura men and women (a bad action
which Buhari himself defended poorly when he appealed to clannishness to
justify clannishness!) in his first line of strategic appointments-and
the Otuoke clannishness of his predecessor-ex-president Jonathan.
No comments:
Post a Comment