FORMER MINISTER STATES WHY FORMER PRESIDENT GOODLUCK JONATHAN HANDED OVER TO BUHARI

JONATHAN TO BUHARI HANDOVER

Dr. Abubakar Sulaiman, former Minister of National Planning delivering a paper on the 2015 power transition in Nigeria at the annual Zik dinner lecture /award in Abuja on Sunday, said ex-President Goodluck Jonathan handed over to President Muhammadu Buhari to save the lives of many Nigerians in the chaos that would have resulted if he had acted otherwise.

Sulaiman said contrary to general belief, INEC was seen to have been compromised adding that Jonathan had enough evidence to have the former Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Attahiru Jega removed but he exercised restraint so as not to truncate the electoral process with dire consequences.

He stated that by allowing INEC as it was then constituted to conduct the 2015 elections the Jonathan administration gave more impetus to the peaceful outcome and credence of the electoral process. He noted that the former President had the constitutional power to fire the chairman and have any of the other National Commissioners conduct the elections.

Suliaman said it was within context of Jonathan’s remarkable gesture and unparalleled leadership style that he found it disturbing when the APC led government sometimes grudgingly acknowledged this fact or believed that it was the external pressure that accounted for such political accomplishment stating that if Jonathan had wanted to scuttle Buhari’s election, he would have used the incumbency factor, noting the power of a president is such that if he had wanted to truncate the process or manipulate it, he could have.

He said his paper had successfully argued that more than any government in the past, the Jonathan administration had demonstrated a penchant for rule of law, freedom and untainted electoral process adding that the extent to which a political transition is peaceful and credible depends largely on variance of factors. We have however demonstrated the import of leadership factor has been consequential to the outcome of any electoral process. Was it the leadership that was out to tame the process or the one that respected the sanctity of the electoral body and other agencies he concluded?