Sheriff is stubborn, he must prove he’s not a mercenary – Secondus

In this interview with JOHN ALECHENU, former Acting National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Uche Secondus, speaks on the crisis within the party, President Muhammadu Buhari’s anti-corruption war among other national issues

You were at the helm of affairs of the Peoples Democratic Party before Senator Ali Modu Sheriff came on board. Why did the party pick him ahead of other longstanding members?

It was both the North-East (chapter of the PDP) and the leaders of the party that came together and resolved to pick Sheriff. I believe at that time, it was based on his experience as a governor and senator and that he could foster relationships between members of the party, governors, senators and other members of the National Assembly. And since we are not also in power at the centre, we saw him as someone who could easily coordinate and interact with the several segments of the party. Even though there was some opposition, eventually it was resolved.

With the benefit of hindsight, would you say the party made the right decision?

To me, politics is dynamic. At the time that decision was taken, it was in the best interest of everyone. With what has happened now and the dynamism of politics, unfortunately this is the situation we’ve found ourselves.

Do you agree with those who say this crisis has the potential of obliterating the PDP as a political platform?

I totally disagree. Yes, we have not had it so rough but we will overcome it. By the special grace of God, we are working towards putting these issues behind us. I believe that in a political party just like anywhere in the world there must be a time for challenges like this. And in the case of the PDP, we will overcome it.

From your experience, would you say the crisis within the party is without external influence?

I can’t rule out external influence because you can see what is happening especially in Edo State where they don’t want us to have a candidate for the governorship elections. Our opponents are afraid that we will bounce back. Like I said before, it is nothing new; we will overcome.

You have in recent times appealed to Sheriff and his supporters to embrace dialogue and tow the path of peace. What informed this decision?

My take is this, if people are saying that Sheriff is a mercenary, it is left for him to prove them wrong. It is not enough for him to deny it on the pages of newspapers. It is for him to come forward and join the rest of the party. Take for instance, all the governors, all the National Assembly members, former members of the National Working Committee, BoT (Board of Trustees), various caucuses and National Caucus of the party are on one side; they support the National Caretaker Committee. Why is Sheriff on the other side? He should come over and join us if he says he is not being used as a mercenary. Ninety nine per cent of the members of the party are on one side. The issue of division does not even arise. It is just a case of one man being stubborn and refusing to join the majority. You know, the media is also enjoying the whole show. We know the judiciary is the last hope of the common man and they have done the right thing already. The judgment in Port Harcourt is declaratory. There is no ambiguity. The judgment said the court upheld the decision of the convention held in Port Harcourt which appointed the Ahmed Makarfi-led Committee. The convention of any political party is the highest decision making body of the party. The convention can decide to dissolve the party; the convention can do and undo as far as party administration is concerned. It is higher than the NWC (National Working committee), NEC (National Executive Committee) and all of us.

When you were the Acting National Chairman, a former Presidential Adviser, Ahmed Gulak, went to court to force out the National Working Committee you led because you were reluctant to leave office after the expiration of your tenure. What happened?

We had earlier on thought that before Gulak went to court, the party would be run in such a way that we could manage ourselves until the national convention. But the insistence of some of our members that the acting chairman must come from the North-East where Adamu Mu’azu comes from in line with our constitution led to legal issues and the involvement of the courts. We didn’t want to break the law, we wanted to carry everybody along to the convention but there were some people like Gulak who were agitated and went to court. We said look, ‘there is no hard and fast rule’, and we gave way for the people of the North-East to produce the acting chairman. Prominent leaders of the zone, precisely the governors of Taraba and Gombe states who were the ones in charge and some other leaders from the zone, came together and made nominations. There were several people but finally, we resolved to settle for Sheriff and I believe that if the party had allowed my working committee as at that time to continue acting, it would have been a peaceful transition.

Why would it have been peaceful?

It would have been peaceful because there was nothing that we were looking for than to conduct a transparent national convention for all. But one has to obey the rules of the game and the constitution. That was what happened. We had actually wished that we had continued so that the whole process would have been very peaceful.

Your party has this history of upheavals each time a leadership change is imminent. I can’t remember any National Chairman from the late Chief Solomon Lar right down to present day; who was allowed to complete his term …  (Cuts in)

No, I don’t agree with you. Let me correct that impression. I think Solomon Lar completed his term, Dr. Amadu Ali completed his tenure, Audu Ogbeh resigned on principle, (Vincent) Ogbulafor resigned voluntarily, Barnabas Gemade resigned voluntarily, there was no controversy. The transition was smooth.

What about Bamanga Tukur?

He too resigned voluntarily, there was no controversy. I disagree with you on your earlier assertion. The only one I will agree with you that is controversial is that of Sheriff which we are still trying to resolve at the moment.

You said your party’s constitution guides the process of choosing your leaders. If you recall, the North-East presented Babayo Shehu as National Chairman, but somehow, Bamanga Tukur emerged. How do you reconcile this? 

Yes, the zones are allowed to pick their representatives for offices zoned to them. But it does not mean that the zone will produce the national chairman. It has to be a consensus between the zone and all other leaders from all the other zones because he is not going to be the chairman for only the zone, he is to be national chairman. If he were to be the chairman for the zone, nobody would contest it with them but when the person is to be the national chairman, the area the position is zoned to will have to have to market him to all the other zones for them to make an impute to ensure that he is an acceptable candidate. That was what happened in the case of Babayo and Bamanga Tukur. Babayo got the support of the zone but apparently in all the other zones, he couldn’t get the required support rather it was Tukur that got the support and since it was a national office and not a zonal office, Babayo’s choice couldn’t stand.

What is your response to allegations that the PDP began to decay when the party leadership handed over its functions to the executive each time the party won an election?

I think this is mere speculation. I believe that when you are in the political system just like you have in the United and the United Kingdom, office holders are leaders. Take for instance, the Republican Party in the US, the speaker of congress who happens to be the leader is a member. The same thing happens here even though it is not written down in the constitution per se, yet in practice. I have been in this party over the years; this has not taken away the constitutional powers of the officers of the party. When (former)President Olusegun Obasanjo was there, Amadu Ali was a very powerful chairman. The thing depends on who is at the helm of affairs. The president and the governors, no one has ever taken over the functions of the party executive or usurped their powers as is being alleged. I am not in agreement with this at all.

Many members of your party are being investigated by the EFCC for alleged corrupt practices. Would you say the rule of law is being adhered to or is it a witch-hunt? 

There is absolute absence of the rule of law in the pursuit of this anti-corruption crusade. We in the PDP are in total support of the anti-corruption fight but we believe that due process and the rule of law are not being followed. We are not in a garrison command structure, a person can be invited or arrested if he resists but the rule of law must be followed. The EFCC cannot constitute itself to be the judge, jury and turn itself into a court and become a law onto itself. Virtually all we have seen in the past one year is that even before they go to court, the EFCC has already condemned the accused persons. This is wrong in the eyes of the law. Allow the courts to make the pronouncement; it is not for the EFCC to make the announcement. We believe that there is complete absence of the rule of law and that the government is carrying out its prosecution based on a one-sided agenda. We know there are ex-governors who are ministers now, why are they not probing them? Why are they not inviting them? It is absolutely wrong. It has to be holistic. If you say you want to clean up the mess go ahead and do it but it has to be everybody that was there. There are some former governors who were in the PDP before but are now in the APC as senators and ministers. They have become untouchable. Is that how to fight corruption? The partiality is obvious now, and Nigerians know; the world now knows that the agenda of this government is to kill the PDP.

The APC through its National Chairman, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, had challenged any of you who have evidence against any of its members to present same to the EFCC. Why have you not done so?

I can tell you that many states including Ekiti and Rivers have written several petitions against these persons and nothing has happened. I can tell you that nothing has happened. Who is fooling whom?

Critics of your party have said the PDP is so comfortable with corruption that it has no interest in the anti-corruption fight. How do you respond?

This is wrong, absolutely wrong. Let me ask this question, if the PDP had no interest in fighting corruption would we had set up the EFCC, ICPC (Independent Corrupt Practices Commission) and all other institutions? All these institutions were set up by the then President Olusegun Obasanjo who headed a PDP-led government. We established these institutions with good intentions. The PDP as a party has not done anything to undermine the anti-graft war even in the face of glaring provocations. As many as this government wants to go after let it go ahead, all we are saying is that the rule of law must be followed. The truth will prevail; some may be found guilty, others will not be found so. But it (anti-corruption war) has to cover those who were in the PDP before and are now in the APC and also those who were APC governors; that is the issue.

Has your party dealt with the contentious issue of zoning because politicians are already talking about the 2019 elections?

Yes, that has been spelt out at our last convention in Port Harcourt. A motion was moved for the zoning of the Presidency to the North and it was accepted and another motion was moved that the party national chairmanship position should be zoned to the South and that was also accepted. We didn’t say any specific zone in the North or South we just said North and South that had been accepted. It is now our rule that we must follow with these two offices. I think the issue has been resolved.

Sheriff has insisted that a court judgment given in his favour by an Abuja Court says his tenure ends in 2018. How do you resolve this?

There is nothing like that. What Mu’azu came to do was to complete the unexpired tenure of Bamanga Tukur. I don’t know where Sheriff got the 2018 thing from because Tukur’s tenure is four-year tenure. He started it before Mu’azu tried to complete it but resigned before Sheriff came on board to complete the same tenure. Thus, there is no issue here; that tenure has since expired. The decision of the convention has been upheld by the court of law.

The governing APC had declared the 16 years your party spent in power as a waste. The party also blames the hardships being experienced by Nigerians today on your rule. Do you have a response?

We are very grateful to Nigerians for the votes they consistently gave us and kept us in power for 16 unbroken years and of course they can today see the dividends of democracy we were able to give Nigerians within those years. For instance, the current railway line between Abuja and Kaduna which the APC government is planning to commission is the product of the PDP. The APC has done nothing in the last one year to add to that. The PDP revolutionalised the mobile communications system; we enhanced the freedom of speech and the press. These were signed into law by the PDP administrations. Nigerians are now more than ever before more enlightened. They now know the difference between propaganda, sloganeering and facts, real facts and figures with records of achievements. To say the PDP did nothing in 16 years is uncharitable and an attempt to turn facts and figures on their heads. What the APC should concern itself with doing now is how to fulfil all the promises they made to Nigerians and come out with an economic blue print on how to deal with the economy.

Do you share the sentiments of those who allege that appointments so far made by this administration are lopsided?

Oh yes, the appointments are lopsided. The Presidency did not follow the dictates of the principle of federal character in most of his appointments. Yes, he has the prerogative to make these appointments but in doing so, a true leader must take into account the sensibilities of the component units of the nation we are all trying to build. He (Buhari) has to carry all the sections of the country along. In this case, it is one sided.

Can you confidently say your party will be ready for the big stage come 2019?

Nigerians should hold the APC accountable for all the promises they made and have so far failed to deliver. On our part we are ready to provide equitable leadership that all Nigerians will be proud of because in a country like Nigeria with over 170 million people, you need everybody to be on board. This is absent in the case of this APC government. In our process of administering this nation when we return, we won’t fight the National Assembly like they are doing now, we won’t fight any section of this country, we will build the nation not divide it. Nigerians have a choice to make come 2019; it is left for Nigerians to look before they leap when given the opportunity. We have learnt our lessons; our challenges will be resolved sooner than later.

The APC has not hidden its disappointment that one of your own, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, emerged as the Deputy Senate President. Is your party bothered?

What is democracy for? It is the government of the people by the people and for the people. The choice of the majority must be obeyed and respected. It is not a question of whether or not Ike Ekweremadu was elected, the issue is due process was followed; Senators exercised their rights to elect their leaders as stipulated by law in a free and fair contest. From our experience, there was a time the PDP made a choice of who should be the Speaker of the House of Representatives but some other person emerged and we quickly embraced him. Even at that, he moved to the APC but we did not remove him because we respected the separation of powers as democracy dictated. All those elected are Nigerians. What should bother this government as far as we are concerned is the fact that the economy is in shambles because they have no plan for it. Banks are throwing out workers every day, unemployment is at its highest level in recent memory but we have a government which does not consider these issues worthy of its attention. This has to change.