Nigerians are too harsh on my father, says Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo's daughter, Senator Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello bemoans the barrage of criticisms of her father's eight-year civilian administration, regretting that Nigerians are in the habit of pulling down their past leaders. In this interview with BAYO OHU, the former first daughter said she could not have contemplated advising her father on issues of governance because he would not have listened to her advice. Obasanjo-Bello, who had engaged in a running political battle with Governor Gbenga Daniel of Ogun State and the state chapter of the PDP, especially her recent clash with the governor's security aides at Ogbomosho, Oyo State refused to comment on the crisis. She said the national leadership of the party has intervened and barred the two sides from making further statements on the crisis. Excerpts.

What will be your reactions to the barrage of criticisms that the past civilian administration headed by your father has been subjected to?

Of course it can be annoying and aggravating, but I think that that is how we have become in this country and it is very sad because now we are seeing a transition in the US that is from one party to another and it is not even as bad as the transition here that is within the same party. In fact, what we have also seen is that Obama is going back to the Clinton people and there is continuity from the last democratic era. It is a shame that we feel that denigrating our past makes our future better. It is not even about this immediate past administration, if you look at our history, you will discover that we have no hero, if you name anybody from our past we pull him down and I think that if we look at the history of the US, the founding fathers of America were not perfect people to the extent that if you go and study their life story, you will find out that they are full of all kinds of bad things and until you check out all these, you will not here about them. People build the good parts so that children can look at the good parts always. So, in this country, we criticise everything in the past and we never had good government, hero and now everything is in cycle. The fact is that people should be objective in what they criticise and allow the present administration to concentrate on its task of building the nation. Again, people should be objective in what they say by looking at what was this country like in 1998 and what it was in 2007. So, when we do this objectively, can we really criticise that much? Yes, mistakes were made and some things were not done right and this is because we are all human, but some things were planned and were not implemented right and other things work. This is all what governance is about; we should look at the mistakes and learn from them in order to build upon what we have.

Have you any reason at that time to advise your father on issues of governance?

The fact is that I have never had to advise him on work because he doesn't listen and I know he would not listen. But I have had to advise him on personal family issues which we talked about a lot but on his work I don't because I know he too cannot advise me on my work, so there is no reason to start a process and that means if he takes my advice, then I have to take his too and I think we are both endowed individuals with enough talents and common sense and I think that we do our best and I have done my life and career to the best, but on the personal level and as father to daughter, we do have things that we talk about, but not on national issues of governance because he already has more insight than I do, so why should I go into all that and unless if I have a question and I have had a very few of it over the years.

Does it mean you are not rattled or embarrassed by what is happening?

I have been there before even at that time when I was much younger than I am today. So, now I am a little bit stronger and I have the stomach for it. You know in 1979, it was much worse. People were saying they should kill him, some said he should be hanged and he has been in jail, a political prisoner and he has been sentenced to death and you know in Nigeria even if you are jailed for doing nothing as far as they are concerned you are a pariah. So, people kept away from us and they were not talking to us. Therefore, we are used to it and we have seen everything, especially that of 1979 was so bad and I was still in school, so, you can imagine. After that there was an Abacha government and he was in jail, no Nigerian wanted to talk to us, but the most important thing is for someone to have the right conscience and always do the right thing and we have to do the right thing for our country to move forward.

Can you say something about how you have been coping with the job of lawmaking at the Senate?

Good so far, at least giving my experience in other things that I have done so far, I think it is good and I think that is the process, the lawmaking process is a very serious business but I have always thought that we have a lot of problems in this country and that we can move faster, but I also think that it is good to be thorough because we will have to review a lot of things and if you understand that most laws are made within the committees of the House and not on the floor. I read about this in the case of the United States of America that the Senate at work in chambers is the senate on show and that the senate in committees is the senate at work. So, really we do most of our actual work, including making laws, considering of the national budgets and others at the committee level but it is a slow process, but it is good.

With your experience so far, how would you assess the performance of the current Senate in carrying out its over-sight functions?

I think it is wonderful and I have nothing to compare it with. As a citizen before now watching the Senate, I can only see it from outside but as an insider now, I think we have done a lot and performed tremendously well and I know that every committee is really going out to try to understand what is going on in all the areas under them in terms of ministries, agency and other sectors. So, I think that a lot of work is going on, a lot of oversight functions on budget implementations in other to make sure that what is budgeted for is being done. For instance this year, we all know that our budget is not going to preclude the fifty percent implementation. So, I think everybody can come to that understanding and it will be very good and it is a learning process. Most committees have settled down to work and we shall see if we can exceed that, but it is part of our work and we will get better since this is a new administration and a new senate, and we are one in the first four year term but I am very sure that we will work together very well.

How would you react to talks that due to his military background, the leadership of the Senate is dictatorial?

No! Not at all. As an insider, I think I have worked under so many people in my young life, I have worked in the US and have bosses of different races and of different background, I noticed that I have never worked with anybody with the leadership qualities of Senator David Mark. I believe he is a wonderful leader which I think comes from experience because what people call military background is a diverse experience, having been a minister, governor, commissioner, worked in the private sector and see life in all the aspects of public administration. I think he is one of the best leaders I have ever worked with and this has to do with the military experience to help. Also, the knowledge of the country is helping because the military has been in control of the country for a longer period and more than any other set of people and you find out that people with background have more experience and this is the truth of the matter. They have been in leadership position more than the people in the private sector and they have the diversity of friendship and knowledge since they have worked in virtually every sections of the country where they have friends and interacted with a lot of people and this gives them the experience and the knowledge of the country that cannot be bought with money. Therefore, I think we have put solid leadership in the senate.

How far do you think the Senate can go in its plans to review the 1999 constitution?

I don't know because I am not a member of the committee set up for the job but I do know definitely that it is a difficult process to review the constitution of any country in the world and to amend it. My own feeling is that we should take a little bite by taking something very small to work on. If you look at the United States, their first amendment was something very solid, the same thing with their second amendment. The fact is that you cannot do an amendment and take about forty items at a go, it will fail, but if we take a few items, it will work out very well and Nigerians we know that this particular senate was able to achieve the amendment of some certain sections and then we live the rest for another senate to come. So, we should not take too much because if we do it will fail because there will be too many competing interests, but I do believe that every constitution is a work in progress and that is why you should be able to change and adapt, and so, I am hoping that we can succeed in the exercise.

As a senator representing Ogun State, what areas would you like to be affected in the review?

I cannot say because constitution is not about a state. A constitutional review is about a country and there is nothing I can say or do about it because if I limit my thought on the constitution to my state, then I have defeated the purpose of my being a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. So, if we narrow constitution review to a particular geographical location, then we have missed the point all together. But as far as I am concerned, I want the best constitution for my country and I will look at the ideas of various people, argue and see if I can be convinced that one way or the other is the best way to go. Therefore, I really don't have any fastidious issue about it, even though I want my section to benefit and move up, but then the best way to go about it is for other sections too to benefit from the exercise because if I want to benefit to the detriment of others, then it cannot work and the nation will be retrogressing.

Then, what specific areas do you have in mind that the review should cover?

There are so many and the constitution is so verse and I would not want to be specific because it is an intellectual process and if I start to discuss that with you here, it will take a long time, but I don't want to go into the specifics because we have not got to the level where we discuss specific issues. Actually and as a matter of fact, most of my ideas or thoughts may not even come up for discussion in this present review process.

Do you subscribe to this practice of 'take a bow' when the senate is screening ministerial nominees?

I don't subscribe to it all because it is my belief that these people are capable of answering any questions throw at them and I think we actually do the candidates a disservice by not putting them through the rigours of screening because the image for somebody in that capacity is that they are taking the easy road and that they do not have the capacity for where they are being put. So, this is not something that I will subscribe to , but then people say that if you are an ex-senator and you are coming in to serve as a minister, maybe you will not think that way. But personally, I think everybody should be good enough to show their stuff, but if it is a tradition and the senate and parliament all over the world have the tradition and once you have a tradition that is very difficult to break, then I have to accept and honour it the way it is since the tradition had started before my time.

How do you think the senate can ensure a smooth working relationship with the executive when it comes to budget consideration?

I think we don't have any real problem because we have actually tried to accede to what the president wants. The budget that was brought was amended and they went back to amend it to the original and we agreed. But this is the way it is; this is what democracy is all about. The difference between military dictatorship and democracy is the house of parliament, which is there to checkmate the executive, and if people want us to accept everything that the executive does, then we are not practicing an executive democracy. So, this has to be part of the system because we cannot agree all the time and we have to negotiate things out because everything has to do with talking and getting what the constitution says we should do. If Nigerians want the three arms of government to always agree, then we are not running a democracy but a dictatorship and because we have been used to dictatorship, we don't even realised that it is the parliament that stands between you and a dictatorship.


Quote:

The fact is that I have never had to advise him on work because he doesn't listen and I know he would not listen. But I have had to advise him on personal family issues which we talked about a lot but on his work I don't because I know he too cannot advise me on my work, so there is no reason to start a process that will not work because if he takes my advice, then I have to take his too and I think we are both endowed individuals with enough talents and common sense and I think that we do our best and I have done my life and career to the best, but on the personal level and as father to daughter, we do have things that we talk about, but not on national issues of governance because he already has more insight than I do