Debate

View All Debates

Posted On: December 24, 2014

Nigeria: 2015 Election Debate

Open Debate

What do you think?

33%
voted yes
67%
voted no

Representing the sides

Kennedy Emetulu
Yes

Kennedy Emetulu

Media and Public Affairs consultant, Founding member of the Nigerian Consultative Forum International (NCFI), Special Correspondent - The Guardian

READ MORE
Pius Adesanmi
No

Pius Adesanmi

Professor of English (cross appointments in French and African Studies) at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

READ MORE

About this debate

Nigeria: 2015 Election Debate

DOES THE PRESIDENT GOODLUCK JONATHAN/PDP LED FG PRESENT THE BETTER OPTION FOR THE NEXT 4 YRS?

Start Sat. Jan 10, 2015 @ 5:00 PM (Lagos), 4:00 PM (London), 10:00 AM (Houston), 9:00 AM (Calgary)

 

Kennedy Emetulu – Proposes that the continuity of the GEJ led FG for the next four years from May 2015 is the best path to attaining his vision, goals and dreams for Nigeria towards 2015 and beyond.

Pius Adesanmi – Disagrees, he believes that the opposition APC winning the 2015 General elections to lead the Federal Government is a better route towards achieving the Nigeria of his dreams.

Kelechi Deca – Moderator

The Speakers would discuss important national policy, evaluating each party and its candidate on; education, public policy, economy, corruption, infrastructure development, national security, rule of law, foreign, domestic and public policy, power, oil and gas (deregulation vs government controlled fuel consumption subsidy) and many more national issues.

The debate would focus beyond who sits in Aso Rock in May 2015 for the next four years, the speakers seek to engender strong issue based discussions in the best interest of securing the Soul and Future of Nigeria.

Program:

Segment 1.

  • Moderator’s Opening remarks
  • Proposing Speaker’s opening remarks
  • Opposing Speaker’s opening remarks
  • Speakers respond to one another’s opening remarks

Segment 2

Moderator opens discussion on each topic, to be addressed successively.

Education. Economy. Corruption. Infrastructure development. National security. Rule-of-law.

Foreign and domestic policy. Power. Oil and gas policy – (deregulation vs. government controlled fuel consumption subsidy)

And many more national issues.

Segment 3

Open discussion between speakers, responses, etc., with remarks from moderator.

Response to questions and comments of interest from the floor

Kelechi Deca
The moderator's opening remarks
Aug 19, 2014 Kelechi Deca

Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to inform you that in less than ten minutes, we will kick off with this all important debate on the 2015 Nigeria general elections.

Over the past one week, the ruling party and their opposition counterparts have made the most of the airwaves to drum it into our ears on why Nigerians should consider the options they offer.

Equally interesting is the fact that not many Nigerians are convinced that the politicians understand the issues at hand which is exemplified by their inability to adequately and effectively communicate their strategies and what they have on offer to the Nigerian electorates.

The opposition APC has made the issue of fighting corruption and stemming the security situation their watchword and their strongest point in this elections, however, they have not been able to convince Nigerian how they plan to go about it.On the issue of corruption, it has been one week one gaffe, as the leaders of the party keep making conflicting remarks on the way to go.

On security, they have been able to convince Nigerians (and the situation has helped in no small way) that theirs have all the answers to Boko Haram insurgency, claiming that they are not entrapped by the seeming lack of initiative that has bedeviled the Jonathan administration in the war on terror. However, they have been so mum on how to go about it that many Nigerians are wondering if they have an answer.

But the story has been the same with the ruling PDP.As a party that has been in power at the center since 1999, Nigerian are now taking a good look at the decade an half of broken promises, asking themselves if this is the Party that claim they will be in power for 60 years.

But most confusing is the development where President Jonathan seem to either knowingly or unknowingly tried to distance his government from those before him (and unfortunately, those from his own party). This and his inability to articulate on one sin most Nigerians hold him to account to (corruption) has marred some of his outings.

He has also inadvertently allowed the opposition to set the agenda, a development every media strategists will wince about because instead of trumpeting his achievements as spring board, he has been spending so much time responding to the allegations of the opposition such that he is yet to tell Nigerians why they should give him another chance.

The opportunity this debate provides is such an important one in that we will sieve from two great minds whom I have been very privileged to interact with on the Nigerian question at different fora. Two awesome gentlemen with highly fecund intellect whose gestures are worthy of emulation and of whom after this debate, you may be forced to ask, why are we waiting for Jonathan and Buhari when we have this two.

I wish you an awesome time.

Bets regards.

The debate is declared open, lets hear from Kennedy Emetulu who proposes that the continuity of the GEJ led FG for the next four years from May 2015 is the best path to attaining his vision, goals and dreams for Nigeria towards 2015 and beyond.


Debate Section

Kennedy Emetulu
The proposer's opening remarks
Aug 19, 2014 Kennedy Emetulu

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank the esteemed Moderator for his opening remarks. He’s ably set the tone for this engagement. I’m honoured and humbled to be part of this debate, more especially for being the one proposing that we as a nation are better off voting for President Goodluck Jonathan to continue as President beyond May 2015 as opposed to General Muhammadu Buhari of the APC.

At this point I need to make some clarifications. First, the promoters of this debate know that framing a topic and choosing a Moderator for this debate was not an easy task, especially as this is a political debate with all the partisan fears and fulminations quickly bobbing up to the surface immediately it was proposed. From my side, I have not expressed any preference. I have accepted whatever is proposed by the promoters without question, because it is my honest view that even though we are talking partisanship here, this election will uniquely define the future and determine the survival of our nation as one entity and that means whoever is joining this debate in any capacity must think nation first before anything else.

Yes, I know Professor Pius Pius Adesanmi has a huge following in social media and a lot of them would be voting for his view here without question, but to me that is their prerogative. I have not invited a single person to this debate nor have I advertised it in any forum. I believe that should be left to the promoters. What really matters to me as a debater and participant here is not the vote, but the accompanying comments by people who are genuinely following this debate and the views expressed. Such comments are what we need to learn from as discerning and responsible citizens.

The second and final preliminary point I’d like to make concerns the debate as presently framed. It says: “Does the GEJ/PDP led FG present the better option for the Next 4 years?” The presumption in that proposition and the opposition to the proposition is that we are dealing with only two options here and nothing more. What this means is that in supporting or in opposing a candidate, we should not make arguments in favour of policies or things the candidate himself or his party has not proposed. For instance, I might have a better idea about our education policy than what Buhari and Jonathan are proposing, but that should not be the purview of this debate. From my side, what this debate should be concerned with is what Jonathan has done and what he proposes to do with regard to education. That is what all those who support my view and I should be selling or defending, not what we think Jonathan ought to have done or what he ought to be doing. In the same vein, this is what we would expect from the opposition and its candidate or his party. This is my idea of a focused debate.

Now, we have been informed that this debate is going to discuss various sectors of public intervention and influence in our national life – education, the economy, infrastructural development, corruption, national security, the rule of law and so on. Of course, such a comprehensive treatment gives us a proper vista of where we are as a nation. My prayer is that we do not get bogged down by the minutiae at the expense of the vision and actual achievements, especially as we are all aware that one thing the opposition has done brilliantly is to create a caricature of a clueless President Goodluck Jonathan who has spent the last five years ensconced in his bottles of ogogoro in Aso Rock, achieving nothing.

My approach is to present the truth as I know it above the opposition propaganda. I’m happy we have been told here that we would be fact-checked. I suggest that the result of such exercise be released immediately or contemporaneously or at least before the next round of exchange between the proposer and opposer, so we don’t build on false foundations in the name of spreading knowledge or giving information.

President Goodluck Jonathan came to office as Acting President and Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces on May 6, 2010. He was a loyal deputy to late President Umaru Yar’Adua and was very instrumental in helping the then president achieve his biggest pubic policy triumph, which was the ending of the economically-crippling Niger-Delta militancy and the establishment of the amnesty programme.

In assessing political leadership, it is crucial that we locate the leader’s ideological leaning. This is nothing academic, but something practically useful in determining the nature and purposes of policy. More critically, it structurally distinguishes one leader from the other. In our case, Goodluck Jonathan’s ideological soundness is one of the advantages he has over General Muhammadu Buhari. Obviously, I’m aware of critics who would say Nigerian political parties and politicians are not ideologically defined, but that is not true. Every human being and government has an ideology. It might not be formally defined, but it can be discerned from their attitude and in how they do things or address issues.

As a politician, Jonathan is ideologically a free market democrat whose worldview is the continued expansion of the economic and political freedom of the people. He recognizes that to build a great country and a great economy, education is key. He recognizes the role of government in the economy as stimulator and creator of the right condition for the development of individual talent and economic growth. Jonathan also recognizes that government can be a facilitator of and investor in ideas that open up opportunities for people. This is the ideological basis of Jonathan’s massive investment in education and educational infrastructure, including the establishment of new universities and tertiary institutions all over the country. It is also the principle governing the privatization of the power sector and the improvement in our non-oil export profile. Jonathan’s policy in agriculture and infrastructural development ties in with his belief in making the primary economic base of the country stronger than he met it. Indeed, his strongpoint is the fact that he quietly goes about these developments without fanfare, but paradoxically the inability of his cabinet, aides and spokespersons to sell these developments nationally in the face of the falsehoods being peddled by the opposition has undermined him greatly.

Ideologically, General Muhammadu Buhari is an Islamist fascist and ethnic jingoist pretending to be a democrat. His whole politics is based on vengeance against those who short-circuited his reign as head of state in 1985. He keeps telling us that he became a convert to democracy after the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, but there is nothing by way of action or utterances to indicate he is indeed a democrat, except his consistent attempt to claim the presidency through whatever party he happens to have formed or he happens to be in during a presidential election in the past twelve years. He has never offered us a clear democratic vision of governance, but the same fascist, dictatorial declarations of fighting this or fighting that and locking up people he considers to be corrupt, which has virtually become his sole agenda.

Obviously, this is supposed to be some preliminary remarks. So, I expect we would get into the nitty-gritty of discussions in due course. It is my hope that when we get to Segment 2, we would be able to do justice to each topic extensively. For now, let me end by reproducing here something I said a few days ago in response to Mr Ebi Bozimo in a discussion on his Facebook wall about change, but which arose in the context of the Buhari certificates controversy. I am reproducing it because it gives us an insight into the different personalities that are today vying for our nation’s presidency and what they actually represent:

…….

“Change is not an event; it’s a process. What you see from this Buhari certificates episode is indeed, as you stated, change taking place for the better in our democratic process. But I am a little more cautious, because we have to manage expectations. For instance, it is that lack of caution or indeed, a lack of perspective that’s made the APC change mantra such a deafening cacophony that promises the elephant and delivers a piddling mouse, even before February 14. I mean, why would a party with change as its battle cry go resuscitate a glorified illiterate from the ancient regime as its symbol of that change? No, I’m not even talking Buhari’s age, but his record and worldview! Why would a party bleating change think the change they need is not in policies, but in the candidate’s wardrobe? Now, it’s reached the surreal level of APC activists simply saying they want change for the sake of it, not for whatever the change can offer.

“Well, there is good and bad change and good change is responsible and sustainable. People may not fully understand it yet, but the change Dr Goodluck Jonathan has brought to Nigerian politics is mainly in temperament. He has resisted the need to use the big stick, even when it is in his personal interest to do so. He has accepted the opposition casting him as clueless and without any serious achievements, even as he quietly changes the political topography and culture. They’ve shouted wolf over the election, accusing him of having rigging intentions, even as he continues to allow INEC to be strengthened institutionally to the extent that the ruling party losing elections is the norm as the judiciary became less burdened by electoral disputations. He quietly began the internal revolution within the PDP to take power from the predatory members of the industrial-military complex, leading to a lot of hoopla, but he was not ruffled. People left in droves to join the APC, but he never panicked.

“Today, even as the APC rabble shouts change, the Nigerian people know that those calling for change within the APC as its very leading lights are part of the architecture of the Nigerian problem. They are no less corrupt and no less inept than those they rail against. What Jonathan has done is to establish the condition for the growth of a viable opposition in order to strengthen our democracy and give Nigerians real alternatives. This is clearly something an Obasanjo or a Yar’Adua would never allow. But Jonathan knows it is imperative for national growth. Yet, that’s all he can do. He cannot people the opposition with the right characters. They also have to fall or stand on their records, antecedents and processes.

“Nigerians know that despite its pretensions to practicing internal party democracy, especially with the exaggerated showcase that was their presidential primaries, the APC is a Tinubu-Buhari racketeering enterprise and nothing more. People like Rotimi Amaechi and Bukola Saraki are just over-ambitious little potentates who think they are bigger than they really are and whose whole politics is based on vengeance against certain PDP elements. People like Atiku, Okorocha and Kwankwaso are just fishing.

“The election would come, Tinubu would make his deals and Buhari will retire to Kaduna where he would continue to shout about being rigged out until the end of his days. This time, if he attempts to incite a section of Nigeria against the others, he would fail. Buhari and his ilk cannot stop the forces of change already at play. What they are presenting as prospects of change is a return to the pre-1999 days of a Nigeria under majoritarian oligarchy. On February 14, Nigerians would ensure that does not happen”.

Once again, thank you, Ladies and gentlemen for this opportunity.

…..

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank the esteemed Moderator for his opening remarks. He’s ably set the tone for this engagement. I’m honoured and humbled to be part of this debate, more especially for being the one proposing that we as a nation are better off voting for President Goodluck Jonathan to continue as President beyond May 2015 as opposed to General Muhammadu Buhari of the APC.

At this point I need to make some clarifications. First, the promoters of this debate know that framing a topic and choosing a Moderator for this debate was not an easy task, especially as this is a political debate with all the partisan fears and fulminations quickly bobbing up to the surface immediately it was proposed. From my side, I have not expressed any preference. I have accepted whatever is proposed by the promoters without question, because it is my honest view that even though we are talking partisanship here, this election will uniquely define the future and determine the survival of our nation as one entity and that means whoever is joining this debate in any capacity must think nation first before anything else.

Yes, I know Professor Pius Pius Adesanmi has a huge following in social media and a lot of them would be voting for his view here without question, but to me that is their prerogative. I have not invited a single person to this debate nor have I advertised it in any forum. I believe that should be left to the promoters. What really matters to me as a debater and participant here is not the vote, but the accompanying comments by people who are genuinely following this debate and the views expressed. Such comments are what we need to learn from as discerning and responsible citizens.

The second and final preliminary point I’d like to make concerns the debate as presently framed. It says: “Does the GEJ/PDP led FG present the better option for the Next 4 years?” The presumption in that proposition and the opposition to the proposition is that we are dealing with only two options here and nothing more. What this means is that in supporting or in opposing a candidate, we should not make arguments in favour of policies or things the candidate himself or his party has not proposed. For instance, I might have a better idea about our education policy than what Buhari and Jonathan are proposing, but that should not be the purview of this debate. From my side, what this debate should be concerned with is what Jonathan has done and what he proposes to do with regard to education. That is what all those who support my view and I should be selling or defending, not what we think Jonathan ought to have done or what he ought to be doing. In the same vein, this is what we would expect from the opposition and its candidate or his party. This is my idea of a focused debate.

Now, we have been informed that this debate is going to discuss various sectors of public intervention and influence in our national life – education, the economy, infrastructural development, corruption, national security, the rule of law and so on. Of course, such a comprehensive treatment gives us a proper vista of where we are as a nation. My prayer is that we do not get bogged down by the minutiae at the expense of the vision and actual achievements, especially as we are all aware that one thing the opposition has done brilliantly is to create a caricature of a clueless President Goodluck Jonathan who has spent the last five years ensconced in his bottles of ogogoro in Aso Rock, achieving nothing.

My approach is to present the truth as I know it above the opposition propaganda. I’m happy we have been told here that we would be fact-checked. I suggest that the result of such exercise be released immediately or contemporaneously or at least before the next round of exchange between the proposer and opposer, so we don’t build on false foundations in the name of spreading knowledge or giving information.

President Goodluck Jonathan came to office as Acting President and Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces on May 6, 2010. He was a loyal deputy to late President Umaru Yar’Adua and was very instrumental in helping the then president achieve his biggest pubic policy triumph, which was the ending of the economically-crippling Niger-Delta militancy and the establishment of the amnesty programme.

In assessing political leadership, it is crucial that we locate the leader’s ideological leaning. This is nothing academic, but something practically useful in determining the nature and purposes of policy. More critically, it structurally distinguishes one leader from the other. In our case, Goodluck Jonathan’s ideological soundness is one of the advantages he has over General Muhammadu Buhari. Obviously, I’m aware of critics who would say Nigerian political parties and politicians are not ideologically defined, but that is not true. Every human being and government has an ideology. It might not be formally defined, but it can be discerned from their attitude and in how they do things or address issues.

As a politician, Jonathan is ideologically a free market democrat whose worldview is the continued expansion of the economic and political freedom of the people. He recognizes that to build a great country and a great economy, education is key. He recognizes the role of government in the economy as stimulator and creator of the right condition for the development of individual talent and economic growth. Jonathan also recognizes that government can be a facilitator of and investor in ideas that open up opportunities for people. This is the ideological basis of Jonathan’s massive investment in education and educational infrastructure, including the establishment of new universities and tertiary institutions all over the country. It is also the principle governing the privatization of the power sector and the improvement in our non-oil export profile. Jonathan’s policy in agriculture and infrastructural development ties in with his belief in making the primary economic base of the country stronger than he met it. Indeed, his strongpoint is the fact that he quietly goes about these developments without fanfare, but paradoxically the inability of his cabinet, aides and spokespersons to sell these developments nationally in the face of the falsehoods being peddled by the opposition has undermined him greatly.

Ideologically, General Muhammadu Buhari is an Islamist fascist and ethnic jingoist pretending to be a democrat. His whole politics is based on vengeance against those who short-circuited his reign as head of state in 1985. He keeps telling us that he became a convert to democracy after the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, but there is nothing by way of action or utterances to indicate he is indeed a democrat, except his consistent attempt to claim the presidency through whatever party he happens to have formed or he happens to be in during a presidential election in the past twelve years. He has never offered us a clear democratic vision of governance, but the same fascist, dictatorial declarations of fighting this or fighting that and locking up people he considers to be corrupt, which has virtually become his sole agenda.

Obviously, this is supposed to be some preliminary remarks. So, I expect we would get into the nitty-gritty of discussions in due course. It is my hope that when we get to Segment 2, we would be able to do justice to each topic extensively. For now, let me end by reproducing here something I said a few days ago in response to Mr Ebi Bozimo in a discussion on his Facebook wall about change, but which arose in the context of the Buhari certificates controversy. I am reproducing it because it gives us an insight into the different personalities that are today vying for our nation’s presidency and what they actually represent:

…….

“Change is not an event; it’s a process. What you see from this Buhari certificates episode is indeed, as you stated, change taking place for the better in our democratic process. But I am a little more cautious, because we have to manage expectations. For instance, it is that lack of caution or indeed, a lack of perspective that’s made the APC change mantra such a deafening cacophony that promises the elephant and delivers a piddling mouse, even before February 14. I mean, why would a party with change as its battle cry go resuscitate a glorified illiterate from the ancient regime as its symbol of that change? No, I’m not even talking Buhari’s age, but his record and worldview! Why would a party bleating change think the change they need is not in policies, but in the candidate’s wardrobe? Now, it’s reached the surreal level of APC activists simply saying they want change for the sake of it, not for whatever the change can offer.

“Well, there is good and bad change and good change is responsible and sustainable. People may not fully understand it yet, but the change Dr Goodluck Jonathan has brought to Nigerian politics is mainly in temperament. He has resisted the need to use the big stick, even when it is in his personal interest to do so. He has accepted the opposition casting him as clueless and without any serious achievements, even as he quietly changes the political topography and culture. They’ve shouted wolf over the election, accusing him of having rigging intentions, even as he continues to allow INEC to be strengthened institutionally to the extent that the ruling party losing elections is the norm as the judiciary became less burdened by electoral disputations. He quietly began the internal revolution within the PDP to take power from the predatory members of the industrial-military complex, leading to a lot of hoopla, but he was not ruffled. People left in droves to join the APC, but he never panicked.

“Today, even as the APC rabble shouts change, the Nigerian people know that those calling for change within the APC as its very leading lights are part of the architecture of the Nigerian problem. They are no less corrupt and no less inept than those they rail against. What Jonathan has done is to establish the condition for the growth of a viable opposition in order to strengthen our democracy and give Nigerians real alternatives. This is clearly something an Obasanjo or a Yar’Adua would never allow. But Jonathan knows it is imperative for national growth. Yet, that’s all he can do. He cannot people the opposition with the right characters. They also have to fall or stand on their records, antecedents and processes.

“Nigerians know that despite its pretensions to practicing internal party democracy, especially with the exaggerated showcase that was their presidential primaries, the APC is a Tinubu-Buhari racketeering enterprise and nothing more. People like Rotimi Amaechi and Bukola Saraki are just over-ambitious little potentates who think they are bigger than they really are and whose whole politics is based on vengeance against certain PDP elements. People like Atiku, Okorocha and Kwankwaso are just fishing.

“The election would come, Tinubu would make his deals and Buhari will retire to Kaduna where he would continue to shout about being rigged out until the end of his days. This time, if he attempts to incite a section of Nigeria against the others, he would fail. Buhari and his ilk cannot stop the forces of change already at play. What they are presenting as prospects of change is a return to the pre-1999 days of a Nigeria under majoritarian oligarchy. On February 14, Nigerians would ensure that does not happen”.

Once again, thank you, Ladies and gentlemen for this opportunity.

…..

Pius Adesanmi
The opposition's opening remarks
Aug 19, 2014 Pius Adesanmi

Mr. Moderator:

First thing first – wherever you are, please join me in observing a moment of silence for the compatriots we lost in Baga yesterday and those we lost in Maiduguri today. May the afterlife be kind to them and may we find our way to a swift resolution of the errors of the rendering for which we continue to pay such a huge toll in precious Nigerian lives.

=================================
I now wish to thank the crew of The PanAtlantic Journal, the Moderator, and all who have worked tirelessly behind the scenes to facilitate this debate. To the audience: you are welcome. I appreciate the time you have come to spend here with my opponent and I for the sake of Nigeria.

I am supposed to be responding to my brother, Barrister Emetulu’s (sounds and feels strange to be going so formal done beer parlour intellectual e-sparring with for so many years!) opening remarks but I understand that he has network issues in Nigeria. I am typing this entry without having seen his. Please bear with us if our entries appear to cross or short on logical sequencing.

Also, I apologise for the length of these opening remarks. I’ll keep subsequent entries to a paragraph. Apologies also for errors – typos and syntax. No time read over anything. Obviously.

In conventional wisdom, every election is discoursed as the most significant in the life of a nation. End-time apocalyptic predictions are made and we are assured that X would happen if Y happened and Z did not happen. Every election cycle in Nigeria has conformed with this standard practice and the forthcoming 2015 presidential elections are no exception. I am going to avoid that platitudinal declaration. I am going to move beyond it. there has been no shortage of statements to the effect that 2015 is the most significant election.

For me, it is a referendum on two actors, one human, the other an institutional political apparatus. Whatever answers Nigerian give via this referendum will define us for the rest of the world and also resolve for us – once and for all – the question of whether we a serious about being members of human civilization. It’s that serious.

Let’s take the institution first. I am talking about the PDP. It has been in charge at the Centre – arguable the most powerful federal centre on earth given our perverse approache to fedealism – since 1999. The PDP’s founding document is freely available online. It is one of the most visionary tomes on human progress and development that I have ever encountered. The PDP describes everything contained therein as a solemn pact, a sacred contract with the Nigerian people. If the party – any party at all – had implemented just 5 % of this pact, of this contract, consistently for two years, no, make that a year, Nigeria by now would be Dubai and the United States combined. Pardon the hyperbole. It is for effect. So, essentially, 2015 is a referendum on this party’s breach of its contract, its heinous violation of a sacral contract it established with the Nigerian people of its own volition.

Now to the human actor, President Goodluck Jonathan. This election is not a referendum on his performance as many in my camp are wont to think. It is a referendum on integrity. It is a referendum on who has demonstrated or not demonstrated the willingness and capacity to power integrity through the political, economic, social, and economic arteries of the nation-space called Nigeria. Everything comes down to this question of infusing integrity into the system because no amount of vision or programs would work without it. I hope to have more time to flesh this out. I’ll stop here for now Mr. Moderator.

Thank you Mr. Moderator. I will wait to see if Mr. Emetulu can get in another entry before I enter my closing remarks and sign out.

Kennedy Emetulu
Kennedy Emetulu answered about 4 years ago

 

 

Mr Moderator, Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

I submit as follows on the issues so far:

 

(1) Professor Adesanmi continues to make the mistake of using other climes to compare us educationally when he should have been telling us of Buhari’s educational policy as enunciated by him or any of his agents. What I have done so far is to expose the false premises upon which he stood. 

 

(2) Professor Adesanmi needs to understand that here is not a place to just criticize President Jonathan’s educational policy. That is not the purpose. He can do that in an article elsewhere. The purpose of this place is to explain Buhari’s educational policy or compare it with Jonathan’s and show how it is better.

 

(3) Asking me to explain what made Obasanjo win in 1999 is irrelevant here, especially where the purpose is to show that there is nothing atrocious about having a military background. That is not the point. The point is the kind of military rule that Buhari ran and his record while doing so. Besides, the fact that we made a mistake “electing” one failed military leader as a democratic president does not mean we should make the same mistake a second time by electing a worse one. Two bad choices do not equal a right one. Nigerians have learnt that ex-generals have nothing to offer us in a democracy and that is the statement they’ve been making by rejecting Buhari for the past 12 years. That is the statement they made when they voted in Goodluck Jonathan in 2011 and that is the same statement they would make on February 14.

 

(4) I wonder how else my opponent wants me to say it that Buhari has no integrity. He claims that he’s read from me a “grudging admission of the fact that integrity cannot exactly be said to be the strong suit of President Jonathan”. That is not a fact. He should read me again.

 

(5) My opponent asks on what evidence I supposedly based a claim that Boko Haram is the military wing of the opposition. Well, I didn’t make that claim. I was discussing other people’s perceptions as I quoted from an article of mine from which I excerpted that portion he refers to. He needs to read it again to properly understand.

 

(6) I think at this point, Mr Moderator, you need to set the direction of the debate going forward. Yes, I do still have connection challenges, but I’ll strive to remain part of this as much as possible. 

 

 

 

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

Consider the case of Police Commissioner Mbu of the “Mbunity” fame. It is possible that a great deal of the excesses he committed were not even ordered by President Jonathan. He was acting because he was reading the President’s body language. Let me do X because X would make Oga happy.

That is how integrity works in the system and the body politic.

The moment Oga’s body language begins to send a message of zero tolerance for stealing and corruption;

 

the moment Oga’s body language begins to send a message to the system that there is no moral or ethical location from which to split hairs between Jim Nwobodo’s small stealing and the big stealing of his friends and financiers in the oil subsisdy cabal (who recently gave him N21 billion in violation of the Constitution);

the moment the nation and the body politic gets the message that Oga would not tolerate this or Oga would not like this;

Big stealing and small stealing would start to abate.

The military would face Boko Haram properly and stop stealing budgets and allocation

 

The system would respond to that moral shock therapy.

Unfortunately, as recently as yesterday, President Jonathan was still making a spirited case for the difference between big stealing and small, negligible stealing on the campaign trail. He has shown time and again that he does not understand the significance of integrity.

No matter how much Jonathanians try to drag that word under the carpet, there will be only one thing on the ballot on February 14, 2015:

INTEGRITY.

 

I thank you all and I sign out now.

 

Kennedy Emetulu
Kennedy Emetulu answered about 4 years ago

 

 

Mr Moderator, Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

I submit as follows on the issues so far:

 

(1) Professor Adesanmi continues to make the mistake of using other climes to compare us educationally when he should have been telling us of Buhari’s educational policy as enunciated by him or any of his agents. What I have done so far is to expose the false premises upon which he stood. 

 

(2) Professor Adesanmi needs to understand that here is not a place to just criticize President Jonathan’s educational policy. That is not the purpose. He can do that in an article elsewhere. The purpose of this place is to explain Buhari’s educational policy or compare it with Jonathan’s and show how it is better.

 

(3) Asking me to explain what made Obasanjo win in 1999 is irrelevant here, especially where the purpose is to show that there is nothing atrocious about having a military background. That is not the point. The point is the kind of military rule that Buhari ran and his record while doing so. Besides, the fact that we made a mistake “electing” one failed military leader as a democratic president does not mean we should make the same mistake a second time by electing a worse one. Two bad choices do not equal a right one. Nigerians have learnt that ex-generals have nothing to offer us in a democracy and that is the statement they’ve been making by rejecting Buhari for the past 12 years. That is the statement they made when they voted in Goodluck Jonathan in 2011 and that is the same statement they would make on February 14.

 

(4) I wonder how else my opponent wants me to say it that Buhari has no integrity. He claims that he’s read from me a “grudging admission of the fact that integrity cannot exactly be said to be the strong suit of President Jonathan”. That is not a fact. He should read me again.

 

(5) My opponent asks on what evidence I supposedly based a claim that Boko Haram is the military wing of the opposition. Well, I didn’t make that claim. I was discussing other people’s perceptions as I quoted from an article of mine from which I excerpted that portion he refers to. He needs to read it again to properly understand.

 

(6) I think at this point, Mr Moderator, you need to set the direction of the debate going forward. Yes, I do still have connection challenges, but I’ll strive to remain part of this as much as possible. 

 

 

 

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

Mr Moderator:

In the absence of more entries from Barrister Emetulu, I wnat to thank you for the marvelous work you have done toay and the time you have expended on this exercise.

 

I also want to thank the organizing team and The PanAtlantic Journal for this opportunity.

I thank the audience for the time they have spent with us.

And I thank my opponent, Barrister Emetulu immensely.

For members of the audience who may not be aware of this, Barrister Emetulu and I are long-term intellectual colleagues and we share a similar vision in terms of the Nigeria we want to see. So, I do hope that none of you came here today expecting that we would draw blood.

 

We just happen to differ profundly on platforms, actors, and strategies for reaching that dreamland. For reasons – some of which he has articulated here and most of which he has expressed in previous e-sparring sessions with me (publuicly and privately), he believes that GEJ and PDP are the best actor and platform for this task at this particlar jucnture in our history.

 

I believe differently. I support APC and Buhari. I have given some of my reasons in this necesarily limiting format.  I believe that we may blow all the grammar in this world and propose every solution to every single one of our problems, nothing would work in the total absence of integrity. GEJ and the PDP sadly wouldn’t recognize it if it hit them in the face.

Nigeria has ground to a halt because corruption and lack of integrity seep through our arteries from Abakaliki to Zungeru. From Aso Rock to the lowliest farms in our villages. Even the PDP recognizes this problem of the complete collapse of values and ethics and integrity in her founding document.

Yet, all it takes is the body language of the man at the top. No matter how much we cut and slice it, you cannot be the change that you want to see in Nigeria if the man at the top creates psychologies and structures of feeling germane to the trivilization of stealing and corruption and a total lack of integrity at the national level.

If his body language dictates the opposite, the polity will adjust accordingly.

 

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

Ah – finally something shows up. Barrister Emetulu has no point in his last submission, I’m afraid. He is just throwing easy punches at me. I don’t have to be in Canada for the point I make about the appalling level of our edcuational facilities – and the attendant culture of devaluation of education – to be valid. Okay, forget Canada. I am sure he remembers that I only just returned from a year’s sabbatical sojourn in Ghana. Ghana is home to hundreds of thousands of Nigerian kids. We are not just invading Ghanaian public and priate Univeristies, we are also invading her scecondary schools and primary schools. Things are so bad that Mr Emetulu’s fellow travelers in Jonathanism are even opening Universities in Benin Republic.

And by the way, his mention of Canada reveals an unwiiting blindness to irony. Canada has nothing. The central goverment relies mainly on taxes and remittances from the provinces. Many of those provinces have only timber, fish, chicken, tomatoes and potato. Only Alberta has oil. Yet, her infrasturcture is generally superior to that of her Souther neighbour and she is a first world counry. And here is Mr Emetulu selling powder and puffery and Rome was not built in a day.

We have enough to revamp education rapidly and on accelerated basis in Nigeria, starting from the primary level. But it without integrity backed by requisite political will, you may have all the money in the world, it would come to nought. That is why we continue to rate very poorly in education.

Mr. Emetulu: one concession. Thank you for not brandishing the 9 new Universities as an achievement as is the wont of many Jonathanians with pedestrian thinking. It would be tragic if you did that.

 

Kelechi Deca
Kelechi Deca answered about 4 years ago

I now invite you to make you last deposition starting with Mr. Emetulu and follwed by Mr. Adesanmi.

Kelechi Deca
Kelechi Deca answered about 4 years ago

Thank you Mr. Kennedy Emetulu, thank you Prof.Pius Adesanmi for your time,and the intellectually stimulating discourse we have had here, as I wrote earlier, we will still get back to you on some of the issues raised for proper clarification because we have run out of time.

Best regards.

Kelechi Deca
Kelechi Deca answered about 4 years ago

Ladies and gentlemen, when it rains, it pours, we waited and waited for the jaw jaw to start and now we have them coing in. I am stil of the view that we didnt give much to to take on the manifestos as deposed by either party, that would have given us a better picture of whether we would allow President Jonathan remin till 2019 or kick him out in February. But by an large the two debaters were able to address issues raised by each other.

As it is a debate, it is not about winning or losing, rather about issues raised.

Because of the times we waisted, this is not conclusive. We will go through and raise even more questions which they are free to address at their convenient time, and also we will take questions from the audience which will also be here for them to provide answers, but by and large, this was an enlightening encounter. Thank you so much and to Pan Atlantic for putting this up.

Kennedy Emetulu
Kennedy Emetulu answered about 4 years ago

 

 

 

Mr Moderator, Ladies and Gentletmen,

 

I find my opponent’s submission on education terribly underwhelming. His condescending, fact and logic-free submission takes the biscuit! Fine, he’s an eminent Professor in a Canadian university, but does that mean we should be comparing ourselves with Canada? Do we have to wait to be in a position to build a university like Harvard or Oxford before we can give our children university education? He talks about us not being in some top-200 list, but how many universities in the Asian Tiger countries are on that list?

 

Look, we need to understand our needs and our capacity and act immediately, rather than waiting to do fancy things! When Governor Lateef Jakande began his massive school building programme, he was scoffed at, with people referring to those schools as “Ile Ediye” (chicken coop). But today, those schools have produced world class professors in various disciplines! When Ambrose Alli established Ekpoma, the university was a byword for inferior education, but today, it’s no different from most federal universities!

 

The point is we are producing young people that need tertiary education at a geometrical rate. We have limited resources to meet all national needs, including education. We cannot wait until we can build beautiful campuses like Harvard or Princeton to get cracking. What matters is that we have institutions capable of awarding degrees and producing functional graduates that can help run our economy to some extent in the meantime. We are not Canada! We are not the United States! We are Nigeria with our peculiar needs and problems! Nothing stops these graduates from continuing their education in the future anywhere they choose; but, at least, they have some knowledge base to work with! The sensible thing is what President Jonathan is doing, which is encouraging the establishment of private universities and doing the same thing on a large scale. Universities are institutions, they will grow and they will get better! Sitting and doing nothing is not an option!

 

But I know all this is lost on those who support a chap that cannot produce his first school leaving certificate, a chap who lied on oath to cover up the fact that he has no primary school qualifications, a glorified illiterate whose first act on coming to government was to turn the great university system we had in place on its head by introducing fees in universities and removing food from the mouth of undergraduates! Or who does not know that Buhari brought the rot that has enveloped the Nigerian university system ever since?

 

My opponent talks about Osun’s Opon Imo as though this is the Buhari policy. Of course, it’s not! In fact, Buhari has no clue what this is! I mean, quite apart from the fact that this is a state-specific policy that he himself admits has its warts and all, it is nowhere in the manifesto of the APC! Thus, as we can see, the problem with my opponent’s argument is something I referred to in my opening remark. He is debating what ought to be, rather than what is. He’s proposing his own views of what should be rather than introduce to us Buhari’s view and defend it. Of course, we know why. Buhari has no clue!

 

 

 

 

 

….

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

By the way, Mr. Emetulu, your network issues – that’s a bad advertisement for the Transformation Agenda. We shall start to fix that after May 29, 2015.

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

I think you constantly need to let our audience know that Barrister Emetulu is not currently in London and has network issues in Nigeria – only participating now with immense logictic problems.

 

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

Mr Moderator, are you still there? Entries from you and Barrister Emetulu are taking wey too long to appear here o.

Kennedy Emetulu
Kennedy Emetulu answered about 4 years ago

 

 

 

Mr Moderator, Ladies and Gentletmen,

 

I find my opponent’s submission on education terribly underwhelming. His condescending, fact and logic-free submission takes the biscuit! Fine, he’s an eminent Professor in a Canadian university, but does that mean we should be comparing ourselves with Canada? Do we have to wait to be in a position to build a university like Harvard or Oxford before we can give our children university education? He talks about us not being in some top-200 list, but how many universities in the Asian Tiger countries are on that list?

 

Look, we need to understand our needs and our capacity and act immediately, rather than waiting to do fancy things! When Governor Lateef Jakande began his massive school building programme, he was scoffed at, with people referring to those schools as “Ile Ediye” (chicken coop). But today, those schools have produced world class professors in various disciplines! When Ambrose Alli established Ekpoma, the university was a byword for inferior education, but today, it’s no different from most federal universities!

 

The point is we are producing young people that need tertiary education at a geometrical rate. We have limited resources to meet all national needs, including education. We cannot wait until we can build beautiful campuses like Harvard or Princeton to get cracking. What matters is that we have institutions capable of awarding degrees and producing functional graduates that can help run our economy to some extent in the meantime. We are not Canada! We are not the United States! We are Nigeria with our peculiar needs and problems! Nothing stops these graduates from continuing their education in the future anywhere they choose; but, at least, they have some knowledge base to work with! The sensible thing is what President Jonathan is doing, which is encouraging the establishment of private universities and doing the same thing on a large scale. Universities are institutions, they will grow and they will get better! Sitting and doing nothing is not an option!

 

But I know all this is lost on those who support a chap that cannot produce his first school leaving certificate, a chap who lied on oath to cover up the fact that he has no primary school qualifications, a glorified illiterate whose first act on coming to government was to turn the great university system we had in place on its head by introducing fees in universities and removing food from the mouth of undergraduates! Or who does not know that Buhari brought the rot that has enveloped the Nigerian university system ever since?

 

My opponent talks about Osun’s Opon Imo as though this is the Buhari policy. Of course, it’s not! In fact, Buhari has no clue what this is! I mean, quite apart from the fact that this is a state-specific policy that he himself admits has its warts and all, it is nowhere in the manifesto of the APC! Thus, as we can see, the problem with my opponent’s argument is something I referred to in my opening remark. He is debating what ought to be, rather than what is. He’s proposing his own views of what should be rather than introduce to us Buhari’s view and defend it. Of course, we know why. Buhari has no clue!

 

 

 

 

 

….

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

And while we are at it, my opponent may want to explain what made it possible for Olusegun Obasanjo to coast to power on a tidal wave of popular will in 1999. What forces, contexts, emotions, and national exigencies accounted for 1999 despite the man’s military antecedents which included Ita Oko? That may help us engage the tired meme of Buhari’s military past by Jonathanians if we get to that and I hope we do.

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

Ladies abd Gentlemen:

Another question for my opponent while we await clarification of the evidence for his claim that Boko Haram is the military wing of APC: when and where did I claim that my candidate has never held power at the centre?

Of course I am taking responsibility for this debate but my opponent is deploying the tried old Jonathanian strategy of carefully injecting false semantic nuances into submissions. We were talking about parties and institutions and I said the APC has never held power at the Centre.

I am not oblivious to history. If it serves the purpose of my opponent to discourse power held in the context of a military regime/dispensation at what, thankfully, he calls a specific juncture in our history, that is his prerogrative. What we are discussing here is power wielded in the context of democratic dispensation to even more nefarious consequences by his candidate.

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

Finally, Mr. Emetulu says that integrity is not the monopoly of one person.

 

Agreed.

 

But I read in his submissions:

1) A grduging admission of the fact that we are all here because integrity is lacking the system and EVERYTHING depends on it.

2) A grudging admission of the fact that integrity cannot exactly be said to be the strong suit of President Jonathan. Hence, the dilution of things with the retort – nobody has a monopoly of integrity.

By and large, I think that Jonathanians at first thought that they could dismiss this integrity issue or trivialize it. A Jonathanian brother of mine even retorted on Facebook that “Buhari is a fraud who has nothing to offer but his integrity”!!! Now, that they have relaised that Nigerians are tired of the lack of integirty in the polity and that it is the buzzword that will define this election, they are desperate. But their principal is not helping their cause. Saying “how much did Nwobodo steal sef” (even if you meant to create the impression that your opponent was an oppressor who dished out punishment that was not commensurate with the offence committed); even if this was your intention, “how much did Nwobodo steal sef” is tragic window into a tragic personal philosophy. If Nigerians endorse this philosophy on February 14, 2015, Goodluck to them.

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

If you ask me to explain the connection between integrity and security, you need not look further than how corruption has been affecting the huge military expenditure budgeting year in year out. Cameroonian gendarmes are better equipped than our army. The looting going on in the military can only happen in the context of an overall integrity-challenged system where the Commander-in-Chief has consistently turned stealing into a matter for casual reproach, a passing irritation for even being asked about it at all. That is the moral, ethical, instituional and contextual tone he has set for the country. It is not for nothing that Wole Soyinka describes Mr. Jonathan as the most corruption-friendly, corruption-tolerant president in our history in the essay, “The wages of Impunity.” Says Soyinka:

“Goodluck Jonathan has brought back into limelight more political reprobates — thus attested in criminal courts of law and/or police investigations — than any other Head of State since the nation’s independence.”

The audience has been inundated by the selective cut and paste practices of mr. Jonathan’s supporters so they are familiar with Soyinka’s old essays on Buhari. They are less familiar with his more recent sorties on President Jonathan. They need to also re-read and re-enage those essays.

 

Kennedy Emetulu
Kennedy Emetulu answered about 4 years ago

 

 

Mr Moderator, Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

It’s obvious that my opponent is not prepared to take responsibility in this debate neither is he prepared to allow his candidate take responsibility. How can anyone declare that the APC is not the party on trial in this election when it is one of two main parties presenting a candidate for all elective positions, including the position of president? How can he say such a thing considering that he is supposedly here to tell us why the candidate of the APC is a better bet for us as president than the candidate of the PDP?

 

Again, what does he mean by declaring a comparative performance analysis of both candidates “false logic” on the spurious basis that his candidate’s party has not held power at the centre? Well, his candidate has held power at the centre at some point in our history and he his proudly running on that record. He has never apologized for the terrorist policies of his regime; but, instead, he has defended every one of them. He has never apologized to Nigerians for anything he did then, but instead he is seeking our mandate on the basis that he did so well at the time that Nigerians now want more of that! 

 

Of course, when we evaluate performance of persons seeking one office, we do not have to wait until both serve in the same capacity. What we do is to evaluate their performance in whatever capacity they have served and extrapolate from that what they would likely do if voted into the office they seek. Buhari and Jonathan have both served the nation at the very top. Let their records and leadership temperament speak for them! Let their performance speak for them!

 

 

 

..

 

Pius Adesanmi
Pius Adesanmi answered about 4 years ago

If I may ask, Mr. Moderator, on what evidence precisely does Mr. Emetulu base his claim that Boko Haram is the military wing of the oposition? I want specific answers here because I want this debate to operate beyond the level of the usual stuff that is thrown casually around on social media.

If I say that the system lacks integrity, for instance, and that I hold President Jonathan responsible for it, I have the evidence of is own words on tape.

“Ordinary cases of stealing…” alias stealing is not corruption

“How much did Jim Nwobodo steal”

 

I could infer a certain attitude which speaks to the defoliation of integrity by Mr. President. Integrity flows and trickels down into the system from the philosophy, ethical stock, moral capital, personal capital of the incumbent. That is how it works. When mother cow chews grass, her children watch her mouth is the way Achebe proverbially puts it.

The only reason we have not been able to contain Boko Haram is this lack of integrity and not because of any apocryphal claims that Boko Haram is the military wing of APC.

 

Kennedy Emetulu
Kennedy Emetulu answered about 4 years ago

 

 

I find the claim that the election is a referendum on an institution and one person a little baffling. First, the PDP as a political party is not exactly one institutionally established entity in Nigeria. Indeed, one of my grouses with the system is that there are no consequences for cross-carpeting, which means politicians are most times not defined by the party, because these are just empty vehicles to power. Instead, politicians are defined by their person and the ideas they represent at the time of election or when they seek our vote. That is why a Buhari can come in the name of AP, ANPP, CPC or APC and still represent the same thing to the voting public. 

 

Talking about PDP running the affairs of the nation for 16 years in a manner suggestive of one group of people only running the affairs of state for that period does not do justice to the truth. For instance, it’s a fact today that about 18 gubernatorial candidates of the APC were just about a year ago PDP members and so are over 60 percent of those that have won tickets to contest for one elective position or the other in the next election within the party. What defines an Alhaji Abubakar as an ACP chieftain differently from when he was a PDP chieftain? How about Rotimi Amaechi, Rabiu Kwankwaso, Olusola Saraki, Aminu Tambuwal or Senator Ndume? Does the fact that these people desperately set up an alternative vehicle to power take away their responsibility under the PDP within this 16 years period? Are they now cleansed of all the institutional sins of the PDP, because they choose today to fight PDP with a party or coalition that is barely a year old? 

 

On the question of the person, why would Professor Adesanmi single out Jonathan when Jonathan is supposed to be contesting against others, including Muhammadu Buhari? He says this is a referendum on integrity, but why should that be the integrity of one man in a ballot containing several others? At least, for our sake, he ought to have included Buhari, but he didn’t!

 

No, this election is not a referendum on any of these. It is convenient for the opposition to pretend that they are “new” and that they represent “change”, but Nigerians know that there is no great difference between PDP and the APC. Nigerians know that on that day, they would be choosing between two main persons who represent two different visions for our nation. 

 

Here is how I put it in my article “Buharists and Their Stockholm Syndrome”:

 

“In any case, no matter how discussants have framed the debate in the past and how they hope to frame it between now and the general election, my point was and still is that people have different ideas about how to sell Jonathan or Buhari as a candidate. For instance, I keep telling people that the election would not be a referendum on performance, but a referendum on the soul of the nation and the future of the country. By this I mean voters would not be judging Jonathan mainly on one or more of his achievements in office, but more on whether he or the other candidate is the one more trusted to keep Nigeria one and relatively peaceful and prosperous. In this regard, while some people are not happy with some aspects of Jonathan and his government’s response to the Boko Haram menace, not many people are blaming him for it. In fact, most Nigerians actually blame the opposition for it. Indeed, despite the opposition’s attempt to talk and act with selective amnesia over Boko Haram by giving the impression it all started with Jonathan, Nigerians know that it came to a head under President Umaru Yar’Adua when he attempted to put them down by humiliating them with extrajudicial killings, including the extrajudicial killing of their leader, Mohammed Yusuf. For some of us more informed, we know that it was this episode which was transmitted live around the world that later gave Boko Haram its international ‘credibility’ with Global Jihad, the platform under which it operates today.

 

“But ordinary Nigerians, most of who would comprise the voting public, are not very good with seemingly complex analytics. There are those who look at the political situation now and think amongst the opposition are the sponsors of Boko Haram; there are those who think that Boko Haram is the military wing of the opposition and there are those who believe its present campaign is aimed at ensuring a Northern candidate emerges President in 2015 based on some medieval feudalist agenda that does not serve the interest of the ordinary Northerner or Nigerian, but an agenda that only serves the selfish interest of the same cast of characters that have been ruining the North and Nigeria with bad leadership since the beginning of time! Unfortunately, this is the nature of Nigerian politics where people routinely use their ethnic background and/or professed religion as some form of advantage and selling point in certain constituencies. Buhari has used his Hausa-Fulani ethnic card, his Northern origin and professed religion so effectively that he is today regarded as the biggest defender of Northern political interest as opposed to national interest. Being clearly the biggest beast in the opposition, his mentality is massively reflected in their response to national issues. For instance, in trying to cash in on the Boko Haram menace, the opposition has acted as though this national security issue is a Jonathan problem, rather than a national problem. Amongst them, Buhari has been most vocal in his anti-Jonathan and anti-government stance, which some people are interpreting, rightly or wrongly, as a pro-Boko Haram stance. His antecedents do not help. His loss during the last presidential election led to killings and disturbances up North that claimed over a thousand lives, including the lives of many young members of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) and people haven’t forgotten that this is something he’s yet to condemn till this day”.

 

………

 

 

So, that’s it. Due to the peculiar circumstances we’ve found ourselves today in terms of the Islamist insurgency and the underlining majoritarian politics of intimidation, this election would be a referendum on the future of the country. Integrity is not the preserve of one person. As much as Jonathan would be judged on integrity, so would Buhari.

 

 

 

 

…..

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2

Comments

comments

Comments from the floor

Katherine Pusch
Katherine Pusch answered about 4 years ago

Dear Moderator – One of the recurring question on general Buhari which we have recieved by email asks why the opposition Presidential candidate has refused to Present his Certificates or Qualification to the electoral commission as required by law.

Could you kindly put this to the CON

Also very popular, the question on President Jonathan is about corruption, a recurring question is about the results of the NNPC probe concerning the allegations of missing $billions

 

Regards

Katherine Pusch

PanAtlantic Journal

answered about 4 years ago

How does this work?

 

Katherine Pusch
Katherine Pusch answered about 4 years ago

Dear Kennedy Emetulu,

Concerning your request: fact checks would be done in real time. And posted instantly to guide the integrity of the debate and the claims and allegations against each side of the argument

answered about 4 years ago

Somebody talk to the audience…pls

Katherine Pusch
Katherine Pusch answered about 4 years ago

The debate has begun with the opening remarks from the moderator and pro.

We should pick momentum soon, as we proceed.

 

Regards

Katherine

PanAtlantic Journal

answered about 4 years ago

How is this supposed to work? Is it a live streaming debate or text only?

 

answered about 4 years ago

Somebody talk to the audience…pls

answered about 4 years ago

How is this supposed to work? Is it a live streaming debate or text only?

 

answered about 4 years ago

Come on organisers!! We’ve been waiting for this since the start of the year! How is this debate meant to work?

answered about 4 years ago

How is this supposed to work? Is it a live streaming debate or text only?

 

answered about 4 years ago

Are we live?

Katherine Pusch
Katherine Pusch answered about 4 years ago

Welcome to the Nigeria: 2015 Election Debate.

This debate should be starting in 1 hr.

 

 

katherine

PanAtlantic Journal

View All Debates