Shinkafi on the Nigerian situation
Alhaji Umaru Ali Shinkafi, ex-NSO boss under Shagari, has won considerable damages from the BBC on a corruption charge about which this magazine interviewed him last week. In this follow-up, he gives his impressions about the Nigerian political situationIt was the type of interview that one could not help but get excited about. We reckoned if anybody knew exactly what had happened during the second Republic in Nigeria, it would have to be the Director of the National Security Organisation. He would know who did what and when and we did. want to try some of our own prejudices on him.
The good news was that he was in a good mood. Alhaji Umaru Ali Shinkafi the Director of NSO under ex- President Shagari's government had just 'won' his libel suit against the BBC - or at least the BBC had agreed to settle out of court and also pay him substantial damages.
The bad news is that once we got the case with the BBC out of the way, the security man in him came to the fore. He was choosing his words very carefully...
As the person in charge of security would he accept that part of the blame, a substantial part, in fact, for the coup ought to be laid at his door?
No, he would not accept such blame. He believed he had done his job under very trying circumstances. The problems were many.
But what about corruption? Was there indeed massive corruption in the government, surely he as the Security boss should have known about it, and what did he do about it?
Well, one ought to realise that it is so much more difficult operating under a constitution, especially with a president like Alhaji Shehu Shagari, who insisted on keeping strictly to the constitution. Almost nothing new has been found in the way of wrong doing since the coup. The cases that are being tried before the Tribunals - there were rumours about all those things which we investigated. However, under the Criminal Code it is very difficult, almost impossible, to make any successful prosecution. We never got enough evidence that will stand in a court of law. For example, if you hear rumours that a Minister had been given a bribe by a contractor and you investigate and the contractor refuses to give evidence, there is not very much you can do. Now, however, they are operating under decrees and are there- fore able to impose sanctions. I doubt if there can be a successful prosecution of any of these cases under the Criminal Code.
What were the most pressing problems of the Second Republic from his perspective?
Constitutional government expects to work on the understanding that there would be cooperation from all sides, but this was not forthcoming. Even though under the presidential form of government, there was not supposed to be an opposition as such, one party leader declared himself as an opposition and announced his intention to bring the government down.
The opposition was most destructive and the Legislature was not cooperative, they appeared to be more interested in seeing to their own financial arrangement and fixing allowances for themselves than helping the Executive. I don't think that in the more than four years they passed more than 20 Acts. Government cannot operate successfully in such an atmosphere.
And from the perspective of the Security forces, you should not forget that the country was just coming from 13 years of military rule, suddenly the rules had changed and many things that the security people could do before, they could not do any more. Suddenly, we were finding ourselves in court every day, but I personally felt it was a good thing, because each time we learnt something. Don't also forget that there were some of the operatives who had never even worked under a constitution before and in many cases, there was the need for retraining. We could not cut any corners because the President insisted on keeping to the letter of the constitution, he was insistent upon that.
The indications from the start of his (Shagari) second term were that he had learnt some useful lessons from his first term and he'd shown a determination to do something about it.
You knew Alhaji Shagari very well and worked with him very closely. Was he as weak as he has been made out to be?
No, he is not weak at all. But he was very fair and wanted everybody to be treated fairly. That is not to say that that is necessarily what was needed. I suppose a bit of ruthlessness in a political leader does not hurt. President Shagari's pre-occupation was with keeping to the constitution, he believed in it.
But was it working - better still, would it have worked eventually?
I believe so. The indications from the start of his second term were that he wanted to improve on his first term and had shown a determination to do something about it. I don't recall that there is anywhere in the world where a head of government had sacked almost 90 percent of his cabinet, but President Shagari did and I believe he would have made a breakthrough, at least he would have been more effective. Of course, there remained the problems of a destructive opposition. There were governors who were releasing murderers and other criminals from jail under a so-called prerogative of mercy and thereby undermining law enforcement. What about the coup and the present administration?
They are effective. There now exist sanctions against public officers who do wrong and sanctions have been imposed on those who we could not prosecute before...
But are there sanctions on those currently in power, is it not only those who have been unfortunate enough to be overthrown who are at the receiving end of the sanctions?
A governor has even been sacked, you know that, there are sanctions...
But that governor was sacked for undisclosed misdeeds which occurred before he was appointed; what about those currently in power, does it mean that now there is no wrong doing and is government clean?
Well, they are also human beings, so people will do wrong. But there are sanctions now and they are being enforced, that is one big advantage.
What is more, there is a sense of unity now, the discord brought by party politics is going...
So does it mean that military rule is the answer, how long will that have to remain?
We have no choice but to go back to constitutional rule, at some time, to the rule of law, that is the only system that has stood the test of time...
When the interview was over, he was anxious that we emphasised that he saw salutary and positive effects of the present administration. We wondered why. Possibly it is the Security man in him being over cautious, or could it be a reaffirmation of the belief that only the rule of law has stood the test of time?
Send your letters and views to The Editor Talking Drums
