Noun. The quality of being convenient and practical, despite possibly being improper or immoral; convenience.
A ready argument frequently employed in favour of political expediency is to maintain that no law has been breached by a particular action of an individual who holds a position of political leadership. The row over the purchase of a 90-hectare farmland at the Aviation Village by the President of the Federation constitutes the background for the present discussion. An advertorial had been placed in the newspapers claiming that the President had incorporated a company which was used to acquire the said land. As expected, the main opposition party, as well as other social commentators, were quick to condemn the President’s action, the acquisition being said to have been made barely seven months after assuing office. As usual with this administration also, the President’s handlers were quick to deny any wrongdoing, claiming that no law of the land had been breached, since all public officials are allowed by law to be involved in farming. The land, situated in the Aviation Village, is intended for farming, even if up until now no farming activity has commenced on it. The intention is all that matters, and it absolves the President of all guilt in the matter. Right?
It is the Apostle Paul, writing to the believers in Corinth, who was inspired to give expression succinctly to the kind of mindset that is required of those who fully appreciate their position in society and are conscious of the fact that they are being watched. He wrote the following: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” (I Corinthians 6: 12). Deep and powerful words which every leader would do well to seriously reflect upon.
Should leaders be mindful of the fact that they are being watched, and that their “actions speak much louder than words”, to use a familiar expression? Absolutely. One is bound to wonder what the primary motivation of a leader is who goes on an acquisition spree upon getting into office – service to the people or feathering one’s nest? Several pertinent questions could be asked regarding the specific case in point: for example, what was the original purpose in earmarking that portion of land as the Aviation Village? Did it envisage selling portions of it to public officers? If yes, how much of it would each officer be entitled to? Was farming among the activities to be encouraged?
Beyond these questions of legality, however, is the more important one of the spirit of leadership. How sad, indeed, when leadership seems unwilling to submit to the unwritten laws of decorum, propriety and morality, and seeks instead to justify every action by holding on tightly to the letter, the small print of the law! One is reminded of the pardon granted to a former governor who had been convicted of criminal offences against his people – and the argument given was that the President is empowered by law to grant a pardon to anyone he so desires to pardon. Shikena!
No wonder we Nigerians remain in dire need of political heroes – that is, beyond those whom we had in the early days, right after our independence. If an important role that leaders should fulfil is that of inspiring their followers, how on earth do we stand a chance of this happening when it is the leaders themselves who seek to deaden our sensibilities and offend our sense of propriety? Should it not be clear to everyone that a sitting president cannot compete with other citizens for anything, since there can be no way of ensuring that those whose duty it is to grant what is being requested for would be blind to the president’s position? Why is it, for example, that when companies have promotional activities where special prizes like cars or huge sums of money are to be won, they normally forbid their own employees and their family members from participating? Would there not be accusations of insider manipulations if an employee’s family member ends up winning the special prize? Does the perception of the public not matter?
Last week I had written on the need for greater legislation to curtail the activities of public officers, especially since they seem unwilling to apply the generally accepted laws of common sense. But really, do we have to go as far as legislating that a sitting governor or president shall not be allowed to use his or her office to gain undue advantage over other citizens in acquiring any kind of property? Are there not certain laws of proper, decorous behaviour that we Nigerians, just like other human beings in other climes, can equally hold to be self-evident? Why is it that our leaders choose to assault us in this manner, as if determined to completely erode the very moral fabric of our society? What is their purpose? Simply the satisfaction of personal ambition? Do they ask themselves: Is it worth it? So, after they have acquired all the land, built all the castles, stuffed all the banks in Switzerland with petrodollars, bought all the private jets, yachts and expensive cars, then what? Go to their graves in peace and tranquillity, content that they have robbed millions of even the most basic necessities of life? Fat chance!