 The Presidency has asserted that, like former President Goodlock Jonathan, Nigerians would yearn for President Mohammad Buhari after he leaves office. The senior special assistant on media and publicity, Gharba Sheikh, who decried, the high level of criticism hit on Buhari, noting that Nigerian leaders are not loved while in office. Meanwhile, Ade Wale Adebayo, the presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party, SDP, has said Bola met Tinibu won the presidential election because he had the most experienced politicians in the polity supporting him, even as he dismisses the petition challenging Tinibu's election at the tribunal. According to him, he has learned his lessons, but like Judas, who betrayed Jesus, there are lots of prittances in politics. Now, should Nigerians expect a decline or progress in the quality of governance, time will tell. Joining us tonight to discuss is Prince Ade Wale Adebayo, his presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party. Now, in today's interview, Adebayo is saying that Adebayo Bola met Tinibu won the presidential election because he had the most experienced politicians in the polity supporting him, even as he dismisses the petition challenging Tinibu's election at the tribunal. According to him, he has learned his lessons, but like Judas, who betrayed Jesus, there are a lot of prittances in politics. Should Nigerians expect a decline in the quality of governance, if Bohari claims are interpreted superficially, well, time will tell. Joining us tonight to discuss this and many more is Adebayo Prince Adebayo, his presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party. Thank you so much for joining us. Good evening. Good evening. A lot of things have been going on since after February 25. A lot of people are still feeling like their votes didn't count, especially those who felt like there was a lot of voter suppression. There are those who also think that they need to go to court to challenge this election. And then there are those who are celebrating that their man won, even though yesterday I did have a conversation with somebody from the PDP who said that he doubts that the swearing in will take place. And this is also some of the sentiments that other people share. But I want to take your thoughts from back to February 25, where we had the first election, the presidential elections, and then, of course, the governorship elections. What did you make of everything that happened, especially with the situation with INIC? Well, what I saw was that we always have opportunities as a people. And we tend to assume that that opportunity automatically will make itself realized. So the February 25 election, the first thing that struck me was the low turnout. Because prior to that, we had about 80, 70 million people with their PVCs. And if you take mortality into it, maybe you could spend more than 300,000 to be either sick or diseased or something. So when I saw the turnout, I was kind of found that that was problematic after the accreditation. I saw that because the I alone thought that I would bring out not less than half of the entirety of the people who came out. And so when it comes to the issue of accreditation, there's no dispute. Nobody is complaining yet that there was anybody who was to be accredited and who was supposed to be accredited and who was not accredited. No. Majority, 99.9999 percent of those who came out to be accredited were accredited. And it happens simultaneously. You got accredited and you voted. But then people were still saying with all of the level of awareness, like you said, you expected that half of the people that came out would come up for you. But then we still saw a low turnout on the election day. That's what I'm saying that I was expecting a turnout of about 50, some 55 million. I was expecting more. But because of that, Naira Swap and all that nonsense about Naira changing color of money and all of that, people were already reporting that it was difficult. If I was the last two weeks of my campaign, I was just barely coping. But I was expecting that, okay, with that, you have like 50, 70 million people. Then when I saw that we had less than half of that, we had about 20, 70 million people. I became a little apprehensive because when I went to places where I voted and I started doing exit polls, I noticed that it was the traditional voters that came out. Even with all that we did? Yes. And the traditional voters are not our voters because they are already used to the system of voting. Many of them belong to the particular parties. Many of them had the incentive that will bring them to vote regularly. You come out, you get something, you get out. So the new people, we didn't see much of that. And in fact, one third of those who came to vote were also voters that came institutionally. That they came through the church or through other social groups like that. So I noticed that the turnout was... What exactly do you think was responsible for that? Because many would call it voter suppression. Many others would say it's still apathy that's has been waiting in the wings. Because we saw an increase in voter registration, new entrants, which brought some level of excitement, if not for you, several other politicians, including the likes of Peter LB and several other people who are newbies at this particular presidential election. What do you think was at the core of that drastic reduction, even after we saw that level of registration and the new entrants? Okay, we need to be data driven. Because a lot of assumptions, you know, when you're a company, you say something, whether it's true or not, once people repeat it online and it becomes news. Well actually, the majority of the voters were not new voters. We only had 13 million out of the 85 being new people. So all the months of voter registration that we did only brought additional 12 million people. So these people were there already. So let's just do that. And from what I see, out of the 12 million additional voters, I don't think we got more than 3 million coming out. So the traditional people still came out. So I'm still asking, why do you think that with all this stress that people went through to register and get their PVCs, we saw people go back over and over again, some slept at local government headquarters to get their PVCs. Why would they not come out on election day? Well, I have a feeling that one, the number of people sleeping, all of that particular is not over 2 million. So that's it. It's just to crunch numbers. So you understand that. Secondly, is that there are many motives for collecting these PVCs. Some will collect because you go to a church and the pastor says, if you don't have a PVC, no, no sacrament, pressure. You also know that some are coming of age. That would be the first document they will have to show that they are adults, a photo scan. Some will collect it to go to use it for ATM and bank transactions. So many reasons. So they were potential voters. But until you show up to vote on that day, you are not a voter until you come out to a credit and vote. Second reason is that I will study the media that by not opening up and allowing diversity and variety of opinion in the campaign, by focusing on a few, there will be many people who will not find from the so-called four people you are projecting that they like. So that is why you have more voter turnout where you have more variety of people. Thirdly, when I went around the country, I found out that the media is not that penetrative. Social media even less. So you go to places like Newman, you go to places like many parts of Adamawa State, many parts of Tarabah State, entire land of Browno, and you mention people's name that they don't know. So in very few places, you go and say, yeah, yeah, I watch you on TV. They usually like, okay, yes. Oh, you see, so you are running for something, okay. Yeah, what's your name by the way? And things like that, even close to the election. And then when you mention other people, I remember when Moussa Konkwasu and I met in Tarabah, that was a week before the election. We met at the radio station and we started comparing notes. We discovered that people were calling in to say, why have you dudes been? Okay, what you're saying makes sense to us. So we realized that with all the fame and pageantry going on in the major cities and online and all, people in the hinterland were still waiting for their president. So I think that's one of the lessons I've learned that maybe you do more of grassroots work. Don't assume that people are following. It's not so. And if you look at TV shows, look at other things, you get 2 million people. Some of them are repeat viewers. So that is a major issue. And then, fourthly, the crisis of the money was an issue. Because I, for example, I remember a place like Quaran North, where we're massively popular. And when I saw the result from there, that was like, what happened? And actually they said, look, the majority of people who were to vote had not even eaten, no money to buy food. And at the few that they saw, who came up, were people they could lift, you know, to the polling unit, because someone who had three children at home, had no money in their pockets, nothing is working, they're all hungry. The little money has, it's not going to jump on a bike, to come and vote. They would just say, you know what, you guys are ruining it, so good luck to you guys. So do you think sincerely that the cash crunch, the money situation with the CBN governor achieved its purpose? Or was it an exercise in futility? Well, to say, it's an exercise in futility, but it's also an exercise in stupidity. Because what I say so is that it is the objective set, officially, cannot be achieved by the method. Because the objective set was that the money had expired, so they needed to recall the money. Two, they wanted to use, manage the money in such a way that it would not be used for criminality, like pay ransom. Three, the money in recirculation was much more than the money that was in the banking. None of this team will address it. It didn't make any sense. That's why I used the expression, but it's been reversed now, and I think they've learned a lesson. So when you want to achieve any of these, there is an afterthought, which was now made it completely meaningless. The afterthought was that if they withdrew everybody's money, then those who had intention to bribe or collect bribe would not have any money to use. I think that it turned out that it's not so, that you made people more desperate, you made people more desperate to now be an institution where they needed help, which made them more vulnerable. Secondly, bribery or... Could that have been the plan the whole time? No, I don't think so, because what I see is that everybody became partisan towards the end. Everybody was trying to put his hand in the game, somehow. So you find that people who are in the media were supposed to be objective. Some are joint camp. People in professions, in the government, who are supposed to just manage their business. What concerns the governor of the Central Bank with an election year? Except if he has macroeconomic or microeconomic implication, otherwise what's your business? You leave that to the politicians. So everybody put their hand in it. So that was where the problem is. Look at a religious institution. You just want a rational person to come out of a room. You're not supposed to take side. So everybody was traditional rulers, whatever. So people became friends with it, and everybody started putting their hand in it. That was the problem. So in that situation, and bribery under our law, bribery is not only money, it's anything of value. So you can bribe a minister with a bag of rice. So the fact that you say that you withdraw money, other things of value, and that's what happened. People now became desperate. A lot of incompetence went into even withdrawing the money. So people started collecting homo, water, whatever. So these are all the problems we need to learn so that next time we are trying to engineer a democratic process, which we should know that it's an opportunity to renew your choices of leadership and to improve on the quality of the people you bring. And to do that, you have to increase the quality of understanding that the voters have. So those are the things you do. And to do that, you have to open up everything. Don't be worried. Those who are teleguiding and thinking of working towards an answer, they realize it didn't work. So that was why there is nothing I'm saying now that I didn't say why the policy was wrong. So you won't say, oh, it's bought hot because he lost an election, so he's coming out to talk. No. I could predict that if the media remember us like this, if every institution that should be neutral wasn't neutral, if the government was making erratic policies like this, you would not necessarily get the results you want, but you also make sure that the people of Nigeria somehow don't feel happy about the outcome. Many pundits before this election, I mean, people had propounded all kinds of theories. Mostly people were saying that this election was going to be a watershed moment for the country. This was going to be a make or break election. I mean, we hear these things every time we get close to an election year, but many really hope that something would change. Do you think that anything changed in our electoral process? Well, something's changed. For example, I mean, you can't change more than you change your mind. If Nigerians don't change their minds, the country will not change. So you are voting based on religion, voting based on ethnicity, voting based on people who give you gifts. So how will change? If you don't change, there's nothing will change. But one thing is clear that, and I said in one of the statements that I made, President Buwari did something that was good. He's the least partisan of any president who has presided over elections. How so? He's the only one I've seen where you cannot particularly point out that he was directing INEC what to do, directing police to harass anybody, harassing DSS or anything like that. And so he wasn't doing, do or die. So, and he wasn't in doubt that he didn't want to leave. Prior to that, we had presidents that didn't want to leave, that were in doubt that they would leave at all. So in his own case, there was no doubt that he was going to leave. Secondly, anybody who did well or didn't do well cannot point out and say it was Buwari that didn't make me do well. You can't point to any other person. But then you can't also not leave this at the feet of Mr. President. The President did promise us that INEC was going to be free-faring credible in their elections. He was going to make sure that he left a legacy of credible elections. Can we really say these elections were credible? Looking at all of the things that emanated in different parts of the country, and of course, the situation with the uploading of results with, I mean, we even saw what happened in Adamawa stage recently with all of this. What legacy is Mr. President doing? His own legacy is his own problem. But what I can tell you is that- But he did make a promise. No, he did his own part. In the sense that one, he's not going to go and run INEC. So it's not the case of not releasing money to INEC. It's not the case of not appointing commissioners. It's not the case of interfering in INEC. You get the point I'm making. So you can't blame him for the misbehavior of professors who were hired by INEC, not recommended by him to INEC. You can't blame him for the behavior of voters who came to sell their votes. You can't blame him for the behavior of politicians who tried to cheat. You can't blame him for the incompetence of one or two people in INEC. Because they are not under supervision. They are supposed to be independent in their operation. So it's not responsible for that. I like the fact that you said suppose because the word suppose there means that they're to be independent, but they're not independent. And then again the box stops again at Mr. President's table. Because these people are people that- who appointed the man who sits at the helm of affairs at INEC? Who's he answerable to? Of course the people and Mr. President. The INEC chairman- How independent is INEC? No, as independent as the conscience of the person who is there. The process by which INEC chairman and other commissioners are appointed is the same process as the Chief Justice of Nigeria is appointed. So if you are going to an independent office where by law you are self-regulating, you need to make sure you select people who have that discipline. Secondly, you need to know that if INEC makes five mistakes, two can be out of incompetence. Three may be out of leaning if it's for one person or the other. Two out of those three that relate to leaning if it's for people, will be leaning if it's for politicians. So the president might not be the most influential person on INEC. You will find out that our attitude as a country, and I've seen it in many situations. I said it when we were doing the peace committee, which was independent of government. You will see that even in simply like seat assignment, to sit in alphabetical order, people will still read the sitting arrangement. People generally do this, it's a cultural problem. So I'm not a spokesperson for Buhari and I wish him luck as he's going back to his village. But what I can tell you is that the role which he can play and relative to and compared to the role other presidents have played before, has been that he has managed to live on INEC with his own conscience, whether they have bad conscience or otherwise we let them with their conscience. He has not impeded them in any way, and he has not dictated an outcome for them. However, people are not satisfied with the end of the resort for three reasons. I am not satisfied for reasons which I have given, which started far before the election and have been complaining over time. Others are not satisfied because they were in a cocoon and assumed that they are the only one who are on the field. So if you are in that echo chamber and you keep repeating yourself, you would have seen the crisis that would have followed if Sehti Nubu had lost, because people in his echo chamber thought that nobody would even come near and that Peter Abbey was a clown. And people like us lost our minds and I think we would be nowhere. So everybody has their own permutation. And when I met people and PDP told me just don't waste your time, we have it covered. So that's the second set of people. The third set of people are those who are objective analysts. They look at the ideal of what INEC promised and there was a case of a promise on behalf of INEC. And many of those things that INEC promised were things one that they are not real. Two that are not even within their control. Three that they had not incockated in the culture of their own staff. So when I run a factory and I tell you that we would deliver your good on time and everything, I should be saying so on the strength that a half competent people, professional people who are going to follow my regulation. And from what you saw in Adamawa, you will see that when I said much earlier, after the election that INEC has a lot of incompetent and dishonest people. They thought that I was just being abusive. But when you saw what that wreck did, you will see that INEC now admitted that they had a residential commissioner who was not loyal to them, who was not following the rules and who was working in the interest of somebody outside INEC. Imagine if he had not been brazen enough for him to come out and say the illegal thing that he said openly. Suppose he was doing it underneath. And those were the problems that INEC was having. Many of the, and in Adamawa's state, it doesn't seem to me that the result analysis is correct. It's just that INEC people divided themselves into two. One said he was working for APC. The other said he was working for PDP. And you know this how? I know this because I had candidates in the, in the, I had Dr. Uma Ado. I had a candidate that my party was sponsoring and I was supporting. And I had gone to Adamawa to work with. And he told you this online? I am following the situation. I know what was happening. I know when they were changing results and do everything. What I'm saying to you is that INEC needs to be honest with itself. Just like what INEC is angry about is that this wreck wrecked everything openly. But they had been managing crises in different states ahead. And they're managing particularly in that state. That was where they had to stop the election, go and redo it. So many things. And when they go to the tribunal, you will learn more. And I'm not saying this as a person who is angry because my candidate lost. I'm saying this because you are interrogating me in front of the public to tell the public what is wrong with our election. So I can tell you categorically that in Adamawa state, go there and do any research, ask anybody. Not less than half of those votes were bought with cash, bought with these. Cases of violence, all sorts of things. So these are not things which you can expect Buwari to micromanage. He can barely manage the villa successfully. So he will now go and start micromanaging INEC. What do you mean by he can barely manage the villa? Because he set certain goals for himself when he came. He didn't succeed in most of them. And whose fault is that? Those are his faults because those are directly under him. So that's why I will not blame him for things that are not there. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces, for example. So failures, people being killed, now people being killed. As we speak to you, now people are being killed. Those things is responsible for. I'm not going to hold him responsible for managing INEC, which is supposed to be independent. You just nominate them, fund them and leave them in peace. But the one he's directing every day that is responsible for, let us take tackle those. He hasn't done much with employment. He had eight years, eight budgets. He didn't reduce employment. He didn't handle that correctly. He has not been able to manage the currency to create some stability, not a firm parity. He didn't successfully do that. He did some work on roadworks, civil works, and all of that. So we can give him credit for a bit of that. But that's the highest point he can say he has, which is infrastructure. What about corruption? It was called like maybe 38% in that one. What about corruption? Something that he bandaged? He abandoned corruption long ago. He gave up. Why do you think he gave up? He gave up because one is the people inside his government are so corrupt that he didn't show the courage that he needed to just fire all of them. Most of them. I'm curious. The reason why I'm going to ask this question is because it took six months. I mean, we all were here when it took six months for the president to pick people who he was going to fit into his cabinet. And he said, I might not quote him exactly, but he was looking for men and women that had some level of, you know, right standing for the want of a better way to describe it. Men and women who had no dirt, no skeletons in their cupboard. And you're telling me sitting there that there are so many corrupt people in Mr. President's cabinet. I want to tell you, just read newspapers, read cases, listen to EFCC, listen to everybody, listen to the general report. Then even the original general himself is missing because he was, a counter-general has already taken a lot of money. So what I'm letting you know is I have a lot of likeness and liking President Buarri. I don't have any problem with him at all. What I can let you know is that he failed. And if you bring honest people into the room, you cannot recognize them. So all these people he said was good. Those are all species I believe they were written for him because he has opportunity. Even the least performing minister, he couldn't fire them, couldn't do anything. So I think as he's leaving now, the lesson to learn from it is that until a person has thought through what he wants to do, being foisted with power, where you have not envisioned what you want to do, would always lead to wasted years. I'm sorry, Mr. President, try to run for this office over and over again four times. What do you mean? I mean, he could have had, I mean, I'm sure he had time, enough time to think about what he was going to do. The signs were there. This is why, I'm guessing, that this is why he wanted to be President. I don't think he just wanted to be President for the fund or just having his name written as Commander-in-Chief. That's all he turned out to be. But in the course of running, you would listen. Nigerians, we have one issue. We tend to ignore what people say, what they do, how they respond to questions, when they are running. We help them to cover up. So we create heroes when people are running for office. And then people come out and start to explain what they will do. We say, ah, well, they're just talking, just talking. So the issue is that I listen to President Buhari, what he said by himself. I knew that he would not do too well because of the fact that desires and wishes are different from you understanding. And while he sat down on that throne, we were understanding the problems under him. We were interpreting the problems under him. So it is the end. What we owe him now is just a blissful retirement and hope that the next person who is coming will not fall into the same oblivion, where you are sitting down there and people are whispering to you what to say. You don't know what you are going to say. You just announced people's name. You cannot control them. You cannot follow them. You're not receiving data. You're not reacting to data. Those are the problems. I think President Buhari became President 30 years behind time. He's passed his prime at the time. And I think he alluded to it. He had a lot of frustration himself. I believe that when he sat down, he started talking. You will see that he too had a lot of frustration. But I saw capacity problem. I saw the problem. The gap, or when he was ill, that gap was there. I have a problem of the infighting with his team, everybody doing whatever they like. He didn't have a complete team that is put together. And also it was too slow. Majority of the people alive today were not born when he was president last time. So he's not used to the country. He's not used to the new issues. First-pace governance, I think he couldn't cope with it. But it turned out to be a man who loved the country. But I don't think he knew how to do the job. I'm sorry. I guess the question is, what is a good... I mean, if you have the best interest of people, but you don't have the willpower, then it doesn't mean anything. You need willpower, you need competencies. You also need ability to adapt. So that when you make mistakes, you don't... However good you are. When you start operationalizing your governance, you will make mistakes. Obviously. But your ability to admit that you have made mistakes, even if you admit it in public, but your subsequent conduct. Look at the way he performed in Adamawa. He reacted quickly in the previous government. Once the REC announced it, there's nothing you would do. You go to Corbett. In this case, Annex stepped in. When Annex reported to him, you also put the person on suspension. All government agencies immediately to or decided Annex. So if he was responding to every crisis that came his way, like that, he would adapt. But he didn't invest. Good luck to him. He's done his best. And when somebody says, I've done my best, you have to let them go. Because only they know their best. Because we know that the best is not good enough for us. Well, we'll take a break. And when we come back, we still have prints that do all the idea in the studio. We'll be looking at the swearing in. And what happens right after that? Stay with us. It's still cross politics.