Our attention has been drawn to the December 1, 2010, ruling of an Abuja High Court on the contentious issue of zoning in the PDP. According to reports, the court presided over by the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, Justice Lawal Gummi unambiguously held that “the provision of Article 7.2(c) of the PDP constitution as amended recognizes the principle of zoning and rotation of party and public elective offices. The said article is subsisting and biding on the party, its organs and members…”  

While some people have tried to ethnicise or regionalize the PDP’s zoning arrangement, the premise of our support for it has always been that if you choose to become a member of any group or association, you must be prepared to abide by that body’s ground rules or Constitution.

We have consistently argued that to join any group and use the rules of that group to get to the top, and then unilaterally urinate and deny the existence of such rules, amounts to impunity and dishonesty.

We refused to waiver even in the face of sponsored attacks or denials that  zoning existed within the PDP Constitution or the use of other spurious  arguments such as that zoning contravenes the country’s Constitution.  The court has now unambiguously upheld that zoning is in the PDP’s constitution and is binding on its members.

The judgment is therefore a great victory for honesty and integrity and a rebuke against arbitrariness and impunity.  It is also a victory against “majority tyranny” because the PDP’s zoning arrangement was derived from the principle that in a heterogeneous country like ours, with unequal distribution of populations among the federating ethnic nationalities, an unfettered electoral competition based on one person, one vote, will lead to majority tyranny, and denial of opportunities to ethnic minorities. 

Though Justice Gummi was quoted as saying that he is “unable to make declaration that the North is entitled to bear the presidential ticket of the PDP for two consecutive terms i.e. 2007 and 2011 respectively as the South did in 1999 and 2003 same being political question and therefore not justiciable,” the moral burden on President Jonathan arising from this important judgment cannot be denied.

At issue here is the President’s decision to place his ambition above the rules of engagement of his party and the implications of this for legitimacy – his moral right to contest.  Certainly despite the knee-jerk recourse to ethnicity, subterfuge and obfuscation, the President has never denied being the 35th signatory in the minutes of a meeting held on December 2002, where the issue of zoning was re-affirmed to enable former President Olusegun Obasanjo run for a second term in office.

We maintain that the decision of President Jonathan to contest the presidential election can send the wrong signals to groups and organisations that painstakingly develop Constitutions and ground rules to guide their operations. 

 Certainly it will be a contradiction in terms to urge Nigerians to obey the laws of the land when the President has refused to obey the rules of his party.

The new Nigeria we all dream of cannot be realised without respect for rules or upholding the sanctity of agreements. Above all,  respecting rules and agreements is vital in building trust, which is in itself an essential ingredient in fashioning out a viable nation from a mosaic of previously independent nationalities that make up our dear country. 

Now that the Court has unambiguously supported our position on the issue of zoning, we call on President Jonathan to do the right thing by recognising that he entered this race in error. Certainly it will not be a sign of weakness for a leader do the right thing. On the contrary, it takes courage for a true leader to admit that he or she has made a mistake.

...... Pro-Jonathan Group “Author” Plagiarised Atiku Policy Document - Atiku Campaign

The Atiku Abubakar Campaign Organization has clarified that the Pro- Jonathan Campaign group which accused it of plagiarism was out to mislead the Nigerian  public in its desperate quest to benefit from the $50,000 per group bazaar in  the Presidential Villa.

The campaign in a statement affirmed that its policy document on power and  energy is not only original; it is indeed the man who was credited with the  original work that plagiarized the Atiku policy document.

“While it is public knowledge that Atiku formulated his Policy Document after  series of studies and consultations culminating in a retreat of 150 Nigerian  scholars, professionals, experts and critics from all walks of life in June, 2006, the publication which the pro-Jonathan campaign group said is the original  document published widely on the internet and newspapers including the Punch and Independent,” the Campaign Organisation said.

The organization stated that the material alluded to by the pro-Jonathan group was actually published in the Punch Newspaper of November 16 and 17, 2010, four clear years after the Atiku Policy Document was published.

“We are certain that the pro-Jonathan campaign group knows the difference between 2006 and 2010 and that a publication of 2006 could not have plagiarized a work of 2010,” it said.

We, however, wish to acknowledge that the pro-Jonathan group applauded the quality of Atiku’s ideas about solving the electricity problem in the country.  In the words of the pro-Jonathan campaign group, the policy initiatives are “intelligent enough even revolutionary as it outlines some of the issues prevalent in the sector today and concisely proposes quite interesting solutions to their resolution.”

The Campaign Organisation advised the Jonathan camp to tell Nigerians what it will do if elected rather than embarking on a voyage of misinformation.