Photo credit: Pius Utomi Ekpei/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Yesterday marked 78 days since Umaru Yar’Adua left Nigeria for medical treatment in Saudi Arabia without officially transferring his presidential powers.

Yesterday also marked the Nigerian legislature’s official recognition of Mr. Goodluck Jonathan transition from Vice President to Acting President of Nigeria.

Mr. Goodluck Jonathan, 52, who is from the Niger Delta, governed Bayelsa state from December 2005 to May 2007 and is a member of the ruling People’s Democratic Party. In Nigeria, the ruling party alternates leadership between the North and the South, making the transition of power to Mr. Jonathan a moment of promise for the Niger Delta.

However, Mr. Jonathan’s position is far from secure.

Since Mr. Yar’Adua’s departure in December and a federal court’s handing of power to Mr. Jonathan as Acting President in January, some challenged Mr. Jonathan’s authority, arguing that the President had not followed official procedures requiring a formal statement transferring his power. Both houses of Nigeria’s legislature voted yesterday to accept the broadcast of the President’s statement to this effect (in a January 12 interview with the BBC) as sufficient notification to satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Whether Mr. Yar’Adua’s supporters, among others, will accept this statement as legally binding remains in question. As Nobel Prize winner Wole Soyinka told CNN, the ruling party has acted slowly to address the president’s absence because “certain elements within the ruling party love this hiatus, they love the headlessness of government because they can proceed to loot and create their own little empires while the president is away.”

Watch CNN International’s Christian Amanpour interview with Mr. Soyinka and Nigeria’s Attorney General, followed by a 3-minute video clip from the film Sweet Crude (featuring interviews with Oronto Douglas and Michael Watts):

For further reading, see articles from these media outlets:

BBC

Sahara Reporters

New York Times

Next

Nigeria is known for its fraudulent elections and politicians who employ armed thugs to ensure votes are cast in their favor. The Nigerian government faces a crisis of credibility that has the potential to become volatile, if members of minority communities and residents of the politically disenfranchised economic engine of the Delta continue to feel that they do not have any real power or say in their own governance. In fact, the armed insurgency that gained world attention by disrupting oil operations in the Delta has its roots in the gangs armed by political candidates. Electoral integrity and the ability for all citizens of Nigeria’s democracy to participate meaningfully should be high on Secretary Clinton’s agenda.

Legendary for its high levels of corruption, Nigeria must institute real reform. For those living in the Niger Delta, corruption means that the majority live in poverty while the approximately $700 billion in oil revenues earned over the last fifty years was split between the Nigerian government and the oil companies, with which the government partners. Although the Nigerian government claims to send a small percentage of its oil revenues to the communities where it is extracted, and although oil companies claim to provide local community benefits, the majority of those living in the Delta’s oil producing communities live on less than $1 per day and have seen their living standards decline over the years. Secretary Clinton must insist that the Nigerian government institute measures to ensure greater transparency and accountability, which are critical to ensuring that the country’s revenues benefit the many and don’t just line the pockets of a few. Ultimately, U.S. businesses will also find it easier to operate in a less corrupt environment.

The Niger Delta and its oil resources fuel the Nigerian treasury, which depends upon oil for 80% of government revenue. The oil of the Delta is important to both countries. In 2006 more then 40% of Nigeria’s oil was exported to the U.S. and it represented 15% of the U.S. supply. However, a political militancy has reduced Nigerian output for the last few years. Output has been even more dramatically reduced since May of this year when militants began blowing up oil installations in reprisal for an ongoing series of attacks by the Nigerian military claiming to be rooting out militants, but destroyed local villages and displaced, killed and injured innocent civilians who still cannot return home. The political militancy of the last five years arose after 45 years of peaceful protest by villagers yielded no major improvements for local communities whose quality of life was decimated. When Secretary Clinton meets with President Yar’Adua it is imperative to U.S. economic and energy security, to the stability of Nigeria and to the lives of those who live in the Delta that she urge President Umaru Yar’Adua to:

• Withdraw the Nigerian military forces from the Niger Delta and institute an official ceasefire;
• Initiate third party monitored diplomatic talks that include all stakeholders;
• Allow free and unfettered access to all parts of the Delta by journalists, humanitarian aid groups and human rights organizations;
• Make real investments in the development of the Niger Delta and rebuild villages destroyed by the recent military attacks.

Electoral integrity, transparency and accountability and addressing the root cause of the troubles in the Niger Delta are interconnected issues that we applaud the Obama administration for publicly stating are on its agenda. JINN hopes that in her discussions regarding the Niger Delta that Secretary Clinton recognizes the imperative of seeking long term solutions that will meet the real needs of villagers in oil producing communities while once again increasing production output and oil revenues.

MEND, the political militant group is rejecting the amnesty for now, saying that the amnesty plays into the hands of those who are criminals with no political agenda and does not address their concerns of federalism, resource control, extra-judicial killings by the Joint Task Force (JTF) and development of the Niger Delta.

Civil society also does not believe that the amnesty offer has much strength.  Felix Toudolor, the Chairman on Security and Community Development of Ijaw Youth Council told a Nigerian publication called NEXT that there is an urgent need to address the problem of crime and violence in the region. He explained that the council had come up with a road map to achieve a genuine resolution of the crisis and that granting amnesty to militants without fulfilling certain conditions would be fruitless. He said that a peaceful agreement and a national conference of all stakeholders should be convened before the implementation of the amnesty.

Below is a commentary on the amnesty from famed Nigerian author, Wole Soyinka

The Times of Nigeria: Niger Delta: Between Amnesty And Amnesia

26 June 2009

By Wole Soyinka

Bleak as the Delta situation appears to be, given the recent escalation of violence, we may actually be approaching a stage of possible resolution – touch wood! This is why, albeit with much reluctance, I feel I should respond publicly to the spate of entreaties and expressions of anxiety coming my way over my perceived adoption of a ‘siddon-look’ attitude towards the troubled region.

Professor Wole Soyinka

Such pressures have increased dramatically over the past few days, following – perhaps non-coincidentally – public responses by presidential candidate Pat Utomi, Ambassador Segun Olusola and others to President Yar’Adua’s latest offer of an Amnesty offer to Delta militants.

Let me begin by conveying my full endorsement of the position of these two. The offer of amnesty is worthless if it is not all-inclusive, and embraces those who are currently in state custody and/or on trial. The attempt in some quarters to confuse issues by refusing to separate the principled militants, such as members of MEND and its affiliates, from the opportunistic mercenaries and criminals, has always struck me as dishonest and diversionary. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a simple enough process, one that can be undertaken by a miniaturized Truth and Reconciliation version of the South African original, adapted to our own unique set of circumstances – and preferably with a change of emphasis that substitutes ‘Restitution’ for ‘Reconciliation’, keeping the latter on the agenda however as the implicit, ultimate destination. This has always been my position even over the South African process.

May I comment here also that the excitement over the ‘discovery’ of documents in one over-run insurgent camp, implicating well-heeled citizens as backers of the resistance has been nothing but amusing.  Read Full Article