Reuben Abati contextualises the relationship
between Chief Edwin Clark and former
President Goodluck Jonathan
I have tried delaying the writing of this piece
in the honest expectation that someone
probably misquoted Chief E.K. Clark, when
he reportedly publicly disowned former
President Goodluck Jonathan. I had hoped
that our dear father, E.K. Clark, would issue
a counter statement and say the usual
things politicians say: “they quoted me out
of context!” “Jonathan is my son”. That has
not happened; rather, some other Ijaw
voices, including one Joseph Evah, have
come to the defence of the old man, to join
hands in rubbishing a man they once
defended to the hilt and used as a
bargaining chip for the Ijaw interest in the
larger Nigerian geo-politics.
If President Jonathan had returned to power
on May 29, 2015, these same persons would
have remained in the corridors of power,
displaying all forms of ethnic triumphalism.
It is the reason in case they do not realise it,
the existent power blocs that consider
themselves most fit to rule, continue to
believe that those whose ancestors never
ran empires can never be trusted with
power, hence they can only be admitted as
other people’s agents or as merchants of
their own interests which may even be
defined for them as is deemed convenient.
Mercantilism may bring profit, but in power
politics, it destroys integrity and
compromises otherwise sacred values.
President Jonathan being publicly
condemned by his own Ijaw brothers,
particularly those who were once staunch
supporters of his government further serves
the purpose of exposing the limits of the
politics of proximity. Politics in Africa is
driven by this particular factor; it is at the
root of all the other evils: prebendalism,
clientelism and what Matthew Kukah has
famously described as the “myownisation of
power”.
It is both positive and negative, but
obviously, more of the latter than the former.
It is considered positive only when it is
beneficial to all parties concerned, and when
the template changes, the ground also
shifts. As in that song, the solid rock of
proximity is soon replaced by shifting sands.
Old worship becomes new opportunism. And
the observant public is left confounded.
Chief E.K. Clark? Who would ever think,
Chief E.K. Clark would publicly disown
President Jonathan? He says Jonathan was
a weak President. At what point did he
come to that realisation? Yet, throughout the
five years (not six, please) of the Jonathan
Presidency, he spoke loudly against anyone
who opposed the President. He was so
combative he was once quoted as
suggesting that Nigeria could have problems
if Jonathan was not allowed to return to
office.
Today, he is the one helping President
Jonathan’s successor to quench the fires. He
always openly said President Jonathan is
“his son”. Today, he is not just turning
against his own son; he is telling the world
his son as President lacked the political will
to fight corruption. He has also accused his
son of being too much of a gentleman.
Really? Gentlemanliness would be
considered honourable in refined circles. Is
Pa E.K. Clark recommending something else
in order to prove that he is no longer a
politician but a statesman as he says?
As someone who was a member of the
Jonathan administration, and who interacted
often with the old man, I can only say that I
am shocked. This is the equivalent of the old
man deleting President Jonathan’s phone
number and ensuring that calls from his
phone no longer ring at the Jonathan end.
During the Jonathan years, Chief E. K. Clark
was arguably the most vocal Ijaw leader
defending the government. He called the
President “my son”, and both father and son
remained in constant touch.
There is something about having the
President’s ears in a Presidential system,
elevated to the level of a fetish in the
clientilist Nigerian political system. Persons
in the corridors of power, who have the
President’s ear – be they cook, valet, in-
laws, wife, cousin, former school mates,
priests, or whatever – enjoy special
privileges. They have access to the
President and they can whisper into his
ears.
That’s all they have as power: the power to
whisper and run a whispering campaign that
can translate into opportunities or losses for
those outside that informal power loop
around every Presidency that tends to be
really influential.
Every President must beware of those
persons who come around calling them
“Daddy”, “Uncle”, na my brother dey there”,
“my son”, “our in-law”: emotional
blackmailers relying on old connections.
They are courted, patronised and given more
attention and honour than they deserve by
those looking for access to the President or
government. Even when the power and
authority of the whispering exploiters of the
politics of proximity is contrived, they go out
of their way to exaggerate it. They acquire
so much from being seen to be in a position
to make things happen.
Chief E. K. Clark had the President’s ears.
He had unfettered access to his son. He was
invited to most state events. And he looked
out for the man he called “my son”, in whom
he was well pleased. Chief Clark’s energy
level in the service of the Jonathan
administration was impressive. Fearless and
outspoken, he deployed his enormous
talents in the service of the Jonathan
government. If a press statement was tame,
he drew attention to it and urged a more
robust defence of “your boss”. If any
invective from the APC was overlooked, he
urged prompt rebuttal. If the party was tardy
in defending “his son”, he weighed in.
If anyone had accused the President of
lacking “the political will to fight corruption”
at that time, he, E.K. Clark, would have
called a press conference to draw attention
to the Jonathan administration’s institutional
reforms and preventive measures, his
commitment to electoral integrity to check
political corruption, and the hundreds of
convictions secured by both the ICPC and
EFCC under his son’s watch. So prominent
and influential was he that ministers,
political jobbers etc etc trooped to his house
to pay homage.
In due course, those who opposed President
Jonathan did not spare Chief E. K. Clark
either. He was accused of making
inflammatory and unstatesman-like
statements. An old war-horse, nobody could
intimidate him. He was not President
Olusegun Obasanjo’s fan in particular. He
believed Obasanjo wanted to sabotage his
son, and he wanted Obasanjo put in his
place. Beneath all of that, was an
unmistaken rivalry between the two old men,
seeking to control the levers of Nigerian
politics.
Every President probably needs a strong,
passionate ally like Chief E. K. Clark. But
what happened? What went wrong? Don’t
get me wrong. I am not necessarily saying
that the Ijaw leader should have remained
loyal to and defend Goodluck Jonathan
because they are both Ijaws, patriotism
definitely could be stronger than ethnic
affinities. Nonetheless, that E. K. Clark tale
about leaving politics and becoming a
statesman is nothing but sheer crap.
If Jonathan had returned to office, he would
still be a card-carrying member of the PDP
and the “father of the President” and we
would still have been hearing that famous
phrase, “my son”. Chief E. K. Clark, five
months after, has practically told the world
that President Buhari is better than “his own
son”.
It is the worst form of humiliation that
President Jonathan has received since he
left office. It is also the finest compliment
that President Buhari has received since he
assumed office. The timing is also
auspicious: just when the public is beginning
to worry about the direction of the Buhari
government, E. K. Clark shows up to lend a
hand of support and endorsement.
Only one phrase was missing in his
statement, and it should have been added:
“my son, Buhari.” It probably won’t be too
long before we hear the old man saying “I
am a statesman, Buhari is my son.” I can
imagine President Obasanjo grinning with
delight. If he really wants to be kind, he
could invite E.K. Clark to his home in Ota or
Abeokuta to come and do the needful by
publicly tearing his PDP membership card
and join him in that exclusive club of
Nigerian statesmen! The only problem with
that club these days is that you can become
a member by just saying so or by retiring
from partisan politics. We are more or less
being told that there are no statesmen in
any of the political parties.
It is not funny. Julius Ceasar asked Brutus in
one of the famous lines in written literature:
“Et tu Brutus?” President Jonathan should
ask Chief E. K. Clark: “Et tu Papa?” To which
the father will probably tell the son: “Ces’t la
vie, mon cher garcon.” And really, that is
life. In the face of other considerations,
loyalties vanish; synergies collapse. The
wisdom of the tribe is overturned; the
politics of proximity dissolves; loyalties
remain in a perpetual process of
construction. Thus, individual interests and
transactions drive the political game in
Nigeria, with time and context as key
determinants.
These are teachable moments for President
Jonathan. Power attracts men and women
like bees to nectar, the state of
powerlessness ends as a journey to the
island of loneliness. However, the greatest
defender of our work in office is not our
ethnic “fathers and “brothers” but rather our
legacy. The real loss is that President
Jonathan’s heroism, his messianic sacrifice
in the face of defeat, is being swept under
the carpet and his own brothers who used
to say that the Ijaws are driven by a
principle of “one for all and all for another”,
have become agent-architects of his pain.
The Ijaw platform having seemingly been de-
centered, Chief E.K. Clark and others are
seeking assimilation in the new power
structure. It is a telling reconstruction of the
politics of proximity and mimicry.
Chief E.K. Clark once defended the rights of
ethnic minorities to aspire to the highest
offices in the land; his latest declaration
about his son reaffirms the existing
stereotype at the heart of Nigeria’s
hegemonic politics. The same hegemons
and their agents, whom Clark used to fight
furiously will no doubt find him eminently
quotable now that he has proclaimed that it
is wrong to be a “gentleman”, and that his
son lacks “the political will to fight
corruption”. There is more to this than we
may ever know. Chief Clark can insist from
now till 2019 that he has spoken as a
statesman and as a matter of principle. His
re-alignment is curious nonetheless.


Source: www.thisdaylive.com/articles/clark-the-father-jonathan-the-son/223184/#.ViSD5n0mrcI.facebook