Tukur shouldn’t have been PDP chairman –Junaid Mohammed

Dr. Junaid Mohammed, speaks on the crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party, the reported resignation of the party’s national chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, and the long awaited federal cabinet reshuffle.


What in your view does the reported resignation of the national chairman of the PDP, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, portend for our polity?


First and foremost, I think the alleged exit of Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, no matter how, by whatever means, is a welcome development; what I will describe as good riddance to bad rubbish.

He should never have been made any chairman of any political party in any sensible, democratically conscious country. Having said that, I have always maintained that the Peoples Democratic Party has a responsibility, as a preeminent political party in this country, to address some of its undemocratic structures. The PDP can choose to be undemocratic or to have certain structures which are not democratically based like its Board of Trustees, which exercises maximum power but are not elected. That, in itself, will sabotage democracy where the other parties, particularly the APC and other opposition political parties do this sort of thing. It has proven to be counter-productive for democracy in our terrain.


It has been mentioned that in the past, the President used to single-handedly hand pick and foist individuals as chairmen of the party. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo in particular was guilty of this misbehaviour and undemocratic practice. He imposed Solomon Lar first, then Barnabas Gemade, then Audu Ogbeh, then Dr. Ahmadu Ali and so on. That of Audu Ogbeh became celebrated because of the length Obasanjo was ready to go to remove him from office.


It was also ultimately connected to Obasanjo’s third term agenda. The idea that the President shall use armed security personnel to go and literarily arrest the chairman of his own party from his house to the Presidential Villa and force him at gunpoint to write and submit a letter of resignation is the height of political irresponsibility.
Why do you say so?


The fact that nobody in the PDP came to the rescue of Audu Ogbeh or even came out to say what Obasanjo did was irresponsible, undemocratic, was callous. That to me, was an indication that the PDP was not and has never been a democratic party, it can never be the leading party in any democratic set up.


The latest development is more or less along the same line. There was a ridiculous zoning policy where the chairmanship of the party was zoned to the North-East, there was some kind of mini delegate conference in Bauchi, where two or three people stood out. Tukur received only two votes and Babayo Shehu got 16 votes. Somehow, the way things are done in the PDP, the more you look the less you see. Tukur somehow emerged as the chairman of the party, chosen by the North-East caucus and he came down to Abuja and was now rubber-stamped as the chairman of the party.


That certainly cannot be democratic by any standard and clearly, that was a terrible example. It was an indication that the Presidency and the President were desperate about 2015. And they are only willing to expect and impose a chairman, who is going to be a willing attack dog for them and who has no respect for democracy and who is going to do anything in order to see that the President emerges as the candidate and also cooperate with the security services and INEC to rig the election no matter what the cost is to the country.


It is not a question of just making a few statements; you have to look at the genesis of Tukur himself. You have to look at it this way, if Jonathan is going to learn any lesson from this whole thing at all. He has to learn to be a democrat because, so far, he has not been a democrat. If he is being hounded by his colleagues in the PDP, goodluck to him and to them. If it comes to similar situation, he may also have to be hounded by other members of the party. I hope and pray we have heard the last of Bamanga Tukur throughout our lives.
The President recently announced that the list of ministerial nominees is ready for transmission to the National Assembly. Which ministers do you think should be dropped and what kind of people should emerge as their replacements?


There should be certain criteria for the appointment of an individual to occupy the office of a minister. These would obviously include competence, performance and the ability to add value to the process of governance. In all the criteria I have listed, I have not included an ability to get the votes out come 2015; frankly speaking, that, to me, is irrelevant.


None of those to be ‘shuffled out’ or ‘shuffled in’, will have any meaningful contribution to vote getting should the President decide to take the dangerous decision to contest in 2015. No matter how good or how popular a minister is as a local champion in his village, his ward or local government or state, or region or zone, if the President himself is unable to perform, there is nothing any minister or any appointee in any ministry, department of government can contribute to his political fortunes come 2015. As far as I am concerned, these are the criteria I hope against hope will be used in the appointment of ministers. However, I can tell you that these criteria are not going to feature in the calculations of the cabal around the President or in the convoluted thinking in his own mind.