No stolen money has been traced to Jonathan – Ex-minister Suleiman

Former Minister of National Planning and spokesperson of the Peoples Democratic Party’s Ministers’ Forum, Dr. Abubakar Suleiman, speaks with OLUSOLA FABIYI on various issues including the perceived corruption that took place under the watch of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan

your forum’s first public outing was during the struggle for the appointment of the substantive national chairman for the PDP where you fought against the appointment of Sen. Ali Modu Sheriff and lost. Isn’t that a bad omen?

That was not our first outing, but that could be the first time people would see us together somewhere. For long we had been responding to issues and educating the government of the day. There isn’t anything like lost battle in our stance against Sheriff. When Sheriff came on board, I was the first person to issue a statement followed by Femi Fani-Kayode, to say that the appointment was a misnomer and that it would not hold. The idea or the agenda of those who brought him was for him to stay for about two to three years.  But our reactions, response and resistance to such a misdemeanour made the governors of the party and other stakeholders to say they needed to give Sheriff a soft landing and that was why they said he should leave within the first 100 days. It was a won battle and not a lost one. If not for what Ministers’ Forum did, Sheriff was planning to stay till 2019. The forum rescued Nigerians from the dictatorship of governors. Even the All Progressives Congress should be grateful to us as well because we rescued them from the governors who usually believe they are the lords of political parties. What we did was the beginning of internal democracy in the party.

But nothing has happened to suggest that Sheriff would go on May 21?

The governors, the Board of Trustees and other stakeholders of the party have told us that he would go on May 21 as directed by the National Executive Committee. Sheriff had also come out to say he won’t stay more than the stipulated time. The NEC hasn’t said anything to the contrary even though we don’t believe in that we still maintain our position that he should even go before that time. But again, we still hold them to what they said and we still hold Sheriff accountable to his words. Yet, the fear is there that nothing concrete has been put in place to suggest that he and other members of the National Working Committee are willing to leave. I don’t think the NWC would take us for granted and I don’t think that forces behind them, if there are, would take us for granted. This is not the Nigeria of yesterday. I want to believe that this working committee would leave as stipulated. Anything to the contrary would be fought with everything we have in our possession. The era of impunity in the party is gone. The era of individual dictatorship is gone.

Would you say that all members of the NWC should leave, or that they are free to contest again?

Anybody who wants to contest should be allowed to, if they meet the constitutional requirements. But what we are saying is that we must set a new pace, and we are saying that this NWC as presently constituted should go and they have agreed to go. Having agreed to leave, they cannot swallow their words and say they are not going. We won’t allow that.

And if Sheriff says he’s not going?

He can’t say that. He’s not the PDP and he doesn’t have the wherewithal to say he isn’t going. Even when some people said the former acting chairman shouldn’t revert to his position as deputy national chairman; just one person, backed by some individuals, forced him to go. The courts are there for us to explore. There are so many legal means to address issues. Sheriff and others like him should not try us.

Most of the members of your forum are not even members of the NEC. Does it mean that they are just barking and can’t bite?

They are not members of the NEC, yet they are important stakeholders. These are former ministers, who could be more influential than governors. Governors operate at the local level. Ministers are representatives of the centre whom people outside the country look out for. In terms of influence and clout and reaching out, we have what it takes. Don’t underestimate us.

How many of you are known as grassroots politicians who can win elections?

How many governors do we have now? We have just about 13 of them and we have 36 federating units. Every state had a minister in the past.

How many of these former ministers were used to the party at the state level?

That’s a different ball game. We are talking about 16 solid years now. No state has produced less than five ministers in the past. Thus, if one isn’t useful what about the others? As I’m talking to you, I’m still helping some people for one thing or the other in my state. Not all the governors keyed into this rascality. The majority of the governors have realised the mistake they made in putting Sheriff there and that was why they asked him to stay for just three months.

Some stakeholders have even blamed former President Goodluck Jonathan for the rot in the party adding that his inability to replace the former chairman, Adamu Mu’azu, was due to negligence.

The former President isn’t the only person that makes the party. As at the time we lost the election, we were confronted with so many things, including transiting from one government to the other. He isn’t the type that super-imposes his idea on the others. If he could allow rule of law in his election as fundamental as that poll was to him and allow another party to come to power, you can imagine what he could do for the issue of the party. The decision to allow Uche Secondus continue in acting capacity was a collective decision and he was not out to rock the boat by imposing another person. What they agreed on that time was for Secondus to stay in office for three months after which another person would be appointed from the North-East. It was a gentleman’s agreement. That some people decided to jettison that agreement should not be blamed on Jonathan. That the governors from the zone were unable to agree on a candidate should not be blamed on Jonathan. If Jonathan had done otherwise, they would have blamed him for imposing someone. Jonathan is a democrat, a gentleman to the core. Nigerians should just appreciate this and shouldn’t blame him for not taking a decision which could amount to dictatorship.

Apart from working with Jonathan, you are also very close to him. What kind of person is he that Nigerians don’t know?

He’s a man of unassuming character. A gentleman to the core, and I always describe him as someone who has a semblance of Tafawa Balewa, Shehu Shagari, Ernest Shonekan and Umaru Yar’Adua. All these five persons, are pure civilian presidents. They don’t have military background. The five of them never wanted power. They were dragged into office.

Jonathan never wanted power. If he wanted power at all cost and if he were to be someone with military mentality, he wouldn’t have appointed Prof. Attahiru Jega as the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Why wouldn’t he?

Who didn’t know Jega’s antecedent? Who didn’t know him as an Academic Staff Union of Universities’ activist? I keep on saying it; it is only the likes of Jonathan who could appoint Jega as INEC chairman. It is the likes of Jonathan who could appoint me, another ASUU activist, as a minister after four months of mobilising ASUU against him. Other leaders wouldn’t do that and we must give that to Jonathan regardless of what you have against him. When he sees that you can bring something to the table, he would appoint you. Even when he was under pressure to remove Jega, he said no and that his ambition wasn’t worth the blood of any Nigerian. Thus, if he had wanted power at all cost, he wouldn’t have done that. It is only Jonathan who knew when the whole North-East, (Yobe, Borno, Adamawa states) and others were not for him and still went ahead and approved the creation of polling units for the Internally Displaced Persons in the geo-political zone. He knew that they won’t vote for him. It was only Jonathan that could come up with card readers.

It was the INEC and not Jonathan that did all these.

They were ideas of the INEC under Jonathan and the President could have stopped them. The INEC did all these subject to the President’s approval. He had the power to stop them but he did not. All these novel initiatives that gave credibility to electoral process happened under Jonathan.

But Jonathan won under Jega’s INEC in 2011. What’s special about him losing in 2015 under the same man?

What I am saying is that Jonathan had what it took not to lose the election, but he let go. You think any of these people with military background would allow that to happen? Even when Godsday Orubebe was trying to truncate the whole thing, he asked him (Orubebe) to let go and not to cause any friction. He picked his telephone and spoke with him. President Muhammadu Buhari also acknowledged that. He is a gentleman. Nobody can take that away from him.

Did his being gentle make it difficult for him to fight corruption?

I don’t know what you mean by that. Fighting corruption is not when you see government officials saying, ‘people stole, people looted, we have recovered so, so amount of money and all that.’ That’s not fighting corruption. If somebody put in place a system that would stop the issue of ghost workers, that would put a stop to people collecting multiple salaries and so on; that is fighting corruption.

But after he had left, the current government discovered hundreds of ghost workers….

(Cuts in) If under Jonathan we didn’t see Ghana-Must-Go exchanging hands at the National Assembly, and no minister was asked to pay for clearance; if under him access to fertilizer became so easy; that is how to fight corruption. Are you saying under Jonathan, the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission and Economic and Financial Crime Commission didn’t apprehend people for corrupt practices?

Yes, under Jonathan, the EFCC was arresting fishermen and leaving those who stole billions of naira. Were you not aware?

To me, it is not the ultimate when the fight against corruption becomes a political issue aiming at scoring political goals, a case of propaganda, or a campaign issue. If Buhari leaves today, do you think corruption would come to an end?

Jonathan did his own bit and this should be appreciated. The people that were collecting other people’s salaries appreciated his efforts. People with case like that of (Cecilia) Ibru would appreciate his efforts. The highest level of injustice you can do to humanity is when you are unjust. All these things we are talking about Jonathan and the billions they are rolling out are not peculiar to Jonathan and the PDP.

 But it is the PDP that ruled this country for the last 16 years?

It depends on what you mean; it is a matter of perception. People should look at it from a proper perspective. The PDP is not just a party; it is made up of people. Most of the people we should talk about are now in the APC.

Do you mean the people that collected billions and millions from the former National Security Adviser without doing anything are now in the APC?

Are there no people in the APC that collected money from the former NSA? Is Jafaru Isa not in the APC?  Were they not even trying to mention the name of the President at that time? It is not just a PDP affair. When it comes to the destruction of the country, the President should address the political class and not a political party.  That’s when he would get it right and that’s why he’s not getting it right now because he’s addressing PDP members alone. If he believes that the Nigerian political class has destroyed the country, he can beam his searchlight on them. That’s how he would get result. I have spent just about two years as a member of the PDP and would you now say because of that, I’m among those who destroyed the country whereas the likes of Nasir el-Rufai who spent 12 years in the party is a saint just because he had moved to the APC? Can’t we get it right?

What people say now is that the PDP has destroyed the country. When you talk about 16 years of stewardship, who are the people who made the party? El-Rufai was in the Bureau of Public Enterprise for four years; he was a minister for four years. Rotimi Amaechi was Speaker for eight years, governor for eight years. That’s 16 years. We should get serious for God’s sake. When you are looking for the people that ruined the economy of the country, party platform should not be the basis for identifying them. If you use party platform then you are selective. Don’t forget that three former national chairmen of the PDP are now in the APC. These are Audu Ogbeh, Sen. Barnabas Gemade and Kawu Baraje. Were they not part of the PDP? Why is Buhari not talking about them? Former President Olusegun Obasanjo ruled this country for eight years. He installed Yar’Adua and Jonathan. In other words, he’s been in the PDP for about 16 years but because he’s no longer a member of the PDP, he’s exonerated? People should get it right. Most of the governors in the APC, most of the senators in the APC including the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, were in the PDP.  Thus, it is better we address Nigeria’s political class rather than reducing it to one political party. We shouldn’t see corruption as being synonymous to the PDP. As an intellectual, I won’t accept that.

But there are facts that corruption thrived under the Jonathan presidency.

Corruption thrived under whose presidency? I don’t believe that. When we talk of corruption, it isn’t peculiar to Jonathan’s government. Corruption thrived under all the successive governments. What happened during the botched Third Term? Are you saying that you didn’t know how N50m was being distributed to people and how Ghana-Must-Go was shared? El-Rufai also revealed how some people were asking him for money to get cleared as a minister. Why is the President not talking about the late Gen. Sani Abacha who died years ago and we are still collecting his loot? Is it because the President served under Abacha? All these issues of corruption under Jonathan happened between March and April last year. It was purely an election issue. Nobody has traced any money to Jonathan’s account up till now, but monies were traced to Abacha’s accounts. It is an attempt to decimate the PDP, decimate Jonathan and malign his character. I’m not saying he’s a perfect man, even under the present government, corruption is ongoing. The padding of the budget is part of corruption, the Treasury Single Account issue is part of corruption. There are so many things they are trying to cover up. Corruption is ongoing. The fight against corruption is going to be gradual and must also be attitudinal.  It must go beyond President Muhammadu Buhari’s tenure. The APC government should address that. But it is not doing that. It is addressing perceived enemies. It is not addressing corruption from the bottom. Once you are appointed as a minister, everybody looks up to you. When their wife is pregnant, they want you to pay for antenatal.  When she gives birth, they want you to pay for the naming ceremony. When the mother is dead, you are called to do the funeral. We need to address the minds of the followers. Nigerians are getting disenchanted with the Buhari government because they are not seeing money.

Are Nigerians getting disenchanted because they saw money during the administration of Jonathan?

It is not about Jonathan’s government alone. It is a common thing about our polity. It is what has been there over the years. Are we addressing that? I would be happy if tomorrow I’m appointed and nobody is applying pressure on me to say ‘give me this, give me that.’ When you are not ready to respond to pressure from your constituents, not only would they abuse you, they would rain curses on you. Where do you get the money? They forget that a minister doesn’t earn as much as one million naira a month and they expect so much from you. The perception they had of the former ministers is what they have now about the current ones. How do we address and re-orientate peoples’ mind through new values? Until that one is done, all these things we are doing now would not stand the test of time. Buhari has not addressed that aspect. We need to address the rot from the bottom, not from the top, which is just politics.

You met with former President Jonathan recently, how was his mood when he heard about the stealing of billions of naira under his watch?

Ex-President Jonathan is of unassuming character. He hardly talks, but from his countenance, he remains unperturbed because, he believes that whatever could be the misgivings or the wrongdoing of his government, the proper procedure has not been taken. From his countenance, he believes that he has not been fairly treated. His countenance suggests that this is not a good price they need to pay him for conceding defeat and for allowing peace to reign in the country. And whatever the wrongdoing of his government, there are proper channels to handle things and he believes that, that right channel has not been properly exhausted enough. More is being done to decimate him, to malign his character, to create an impression that suggests that he is a destroyer of Nigeria’s economy; after all he has done for this country. He also believes that there could have been one mistake or the other, but he believes that proper procedure has not been carried out. That’s what I read in him.

Does that mean he’s regretting conceding defeat?

Jonathan doesn’t regret conceding defeat because as a man of God he believes that any blood that is shed on his behalf would be accounted for on the Day of Judgment. He believes that whatever he has done is a sacrifice to humanity and sacrifice to God. No regrets at all, but perhaps, the only thing is that he’s wary of whether we are setting a good precedent or not. Will other leaders come tomorrow and be ready to concede defeat if this is the kind of treatment that would be meted to them thereafter?

Does he feel that there were things he ought to have done while in office that he didn’t do?

As I said earlier, there’s no perfect government anywhere in the world. Every leader after leaving office would always have moments of reflection and when you have that, there would be when you would feel that ‘oh, this one could have been done this way, that one could have been done the other way’ and so on.

The rejection of Jonathan during the last general election came to many people as a surprise as some of the ministers like you, were unable to deliver their states to the PDP? Was his popularity that low?

So many factors came into play. I’m not here to say that the PDP lost credibility. All is now history. But so many factors came into play. The northern part of the country wanted power by all means, they wanted power to shift. It was not because there was crisis or loss of jobs. No, they wanted power. That was why most of the people that voted for the APC were from the northern part of the country. Most of the people that voted for power to remain in the south were also from the south. That election did not show the reflection of an economically vibrant country that we had that time. We shouldn’t rejoice over the outcome of that election. We ought to mourn it. It took us back to 1960 when regionalism and ethnicity were major factors that determined people’s perception of who they voted for. How do you explain it that the entire North except the Federal Capital Territory and Nasarawa State, voted for Buhari  and the South-East and South-South, voted for Jonathan?  The only region where we had a balance was the South-West, where it was 45 to 55. That election suggested a divided Nigeria. It shows that primordialism took the centre stage in deciding who we chose as our leader.  The winner emerged not because of any issue raised during campaign or what, but it was share primordial politics. The North wanted it and I’m sorry to say, the Muslims wanted it. Thus, sectionalism was fundamental in deciding the election.

How come that didn’t apply in the South-West?

Perhaps, the south western people, with due respect to other regions, are the most conscious, educated people in terms of political awareness. That, perhaps informed their electoral pattern. In the South-West, ethnicity and religion are not as fundamental as in the North, South-South or South-East.