 As Nigeria turned 61, many citizens and analysts would agree, we still have teething problems. And security remains a big issue, and free-fare, credible elections still seems to be some sort of a mirage. Today, we will be digging deep into all of these issues, and also analysing Mr. President's speech. This is Plus Politics, and I am Mary Anna Cole. Another Independence Day, another day to assess the growth of Nigeria since it attained independence in 1960. As the custom is, the President, Mohammad Abu Hari, gave a speech earlier in the day. He spoke on issues bordering on security, COVID-19, and its vaccines, the economy, the recent arrest of Namedi Kanu and Sondia Deyamo and more. To discuss this speech with us and other matters is Matthew Cooker, he's the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sakato. It's good to have you join us, Bishop. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. All right. Well, I think first things first, everyone would wonder what you thought of Mr. President's Independence Day speech, 61 years down the line. I know that you're way older than me, and you've been around for some time, so you have seen Nigeria all the way down to 2021. But looking at Mr. President's speech, what did you make of it? Well, thank you very much, and a happy independence to you and a happy independence to all Nigerians, among other things. I mean, this is one of the longest speeches that the President has given, a pretty long speech. It's also quite exhaustive. It covers quite a lot of grounds. It covers a lot of issues. And of course, this is largely because that is how it's supposed to be. Presidents communicate with their citizens using different channels. And as you know, this has not been the most communicative of presidents. And also, we have really not had a clarity of communication platforms available to the president. As you know, a few years back, I think what this was, I don't know whether it was 2016 or so, when he appeared on television. He didn't go very well, and he hasn't come back to that channel. Therefore, a speech of this magnitude, it's very significant. And as I said, it was a great speech because it touched a lot of areas. My worry, though, with the speech was that, apart from its length, the president's speech writers missed an opportunity, you know, to make this speech. A speech that should have connected with the speech that he delivered on October 1st, 2020, in which, in paragraph 2, the president said, and I quote, and I think if you indulge me, I'll read it out to you. The president said in 2020, October 1st, today it's my unique privilege to recommit myself to the service of this great country, of great people. We profound diversities and opportunities. We are bound by destiny to be the greatest and largest black nation on earth. That's what the president said on October 1st, 2020. And for me, this was a profound statement. But one would have liked to see that the president's speech today should have built on some of the ideas and ideas encapsulated in what I've just read. And if you have followed my engagement with this government, my greatest area of concern and disappointment has been on this president's lack of willingness and willingness, ability to exploit the opportunities provided by our rich diversities, which he himself admitted. And that these diversities were an opportunity. And that this lack of ability and willingness to manage our diversities effectively and efficiently is what has led us to where we are now. Now, one would have also liked to see in the speech a clear effort that, one, the president has learned from perhaps the mistakes that have arisen from his inability to manage our diversity, the distribution of positions and power across the country. This has been a sore point. And it has led us to the kind of situation we are in now, which is the frustrations and some of the things that he tried to express in the speech. But the speech has a lot in terms of exhortation. It has, it says a lot about its likely announcements, proclamations and exhortations. But one would have liked to see an evidence-based speech. And what I mean by evidence-based is it's not enough to list all the kinds of things that have been listed in the president's speech. For example, the president talks about the civil service. He talks about the girl child education. He talks about lifting 100 million people out of poverty. One would have needed to see an aggregation of data that suggests that this is how we're going to do this. And this we are now literally two years away from his administration. And lifting 100 million people out of poverty, yes, we've had that. But how it's going to happen, by now we should be counting numbers and figures demonstrating that this is where we are going. So as I said, it's a great speech in terms of the scope, but in terms of depth, you know, and other things, it felt greatly short of giving us evidence of what the president's good intentions are. Some of the things that have been on the ground. So to that extent, he reduced the believability of the speech in terms of people cannot see Nigeria citizens, couldn't see in the speech evidence that this is where we are going. And this is how we should be mobilized to follow the government in terms of the goal-positor set for itself. The president spoke about very serious issues like insecurity. He talked about the unity of Nigeria, but I want to quote directly what he had to say about the insecurity in the country. He talked about the northeast region. He said in the northeast region alone, over 8,000 Boko Haram terrorists have surrendered. He also goes on to say, to support the surge approach to fighting banditry, the Nigerian armed forces have recruited 17,000 personnel across all ranks. And he says, furthermore, I have also approved for the Niger police force to recruit 10,000 police officers annually over the next six years. Now, he's also gone on to list the things that he thinks he's done to help in the fight against banditry. But looking at what the president has said and the body language of the president and the presidency, and of course the joint tax force and governors across the country, especially in that region of the country, in fighting banditry, is this a true reflection of what Mr. President said today? And from your prism, do you think that the president has dealt with the issue of insecurity, banditry and Boko Haram as he should? I think perhaps one of the shortcomings of this speech lies in, I don't know the scope, I don't know how the speech writers of the president operate, but clearly if the president was going to give a speech on the 1st of October, he should have started writing that speech, you know, maybe in June or July. The reason is that if you're going to make a speech that is so significant and so important for the Nigerians, against the backdrop of misery, death, frustration and the country literally falling apart, then you would have needed to garner a lot of information both from the presidential archives and this is by which I mean the various departments, the various ministries and so on. Then you would have also needed to let Nigerians understand that yes, you share their anxieties, yes, you share their woes, yes, the promises we made a few years ago have not been realized, but these are the possibilities. Now if you, to come back to the point of Boko Haram, for example, the not is has literally gone a little bit quiet. The greatest challenge now is the not is, is the not worse. A lot of people didn't get a mention in the speech. And secondly, even when you ban the number of Boko Haram members who are, who are, who are surrendering, there are controversial issues and questions around all of that, some of which include, for example, the fact that Nigerians are genuinely concerned about the processes of verification of intention, whether what mechanism do we have in place to ensure that these guys who are surrendering are really and truly saying no to further engagement in banding and, you know, in killings and murdering of Nigerians. We don't know, you know, a lot of that has not come out yet. So that is a very controversial point. And perhaps if the president banded that as an achievement, he would have also needed to let Nigerians know what other plans the government has to ensure that we close this gap of doubt. That is what are we doing to bring out other, either other people or to ensure Nigerians that we have got our back covered and there is no need for us to worry that these people are just made that, you know, they are likely to come back into the system again. And then of course, you know, it's not enough to tell us how many policemen are being recruited. The challenge is for us to know that is in the future. Right now, what is happening to the police force? What is happening to the relationship between the police force and the military and the entire security agencies? I mean, we are gradually being militarized and yet we are in a democracy. So we would have needed to see a short medium and long-term plan to begin to push back the presence of security forces, you know, on the streets and the length and breadth of Nigeria, whether as people, as checkpoint operators and the corruption that is already arising from that. We would have needed to see evidence that the professionalization of the military is being embarked upon in order for them to be able to do what needs to be done. The president mentioned, for example, that the aircraft perhaps have begun to arrive. If that is the case, well, what are we supposed to know? And what is that evidence of? You know, what are we supposed to learn from that? What are the benefits? What are the immediate benefits of that? And what exactly is the long-term strategic game plan for ending this terrible situation that we find ourselves in? A lot of that, as I said, is missing in the speech. And this is probably because the speechwriters would have needed to spend a bit of more time on the streets of Nigeria, surreptitiously, in the most diplomatic way. Just to find out what are people feeling? What are people expecting? What do people want to know about their country? How do people feel about the engagement with Boko Haram? How do people feel about banditry? So when you bring all these things together, a presidential speech of this lecture, a magnitude, should not only inspire Nigerians, but should also help Nigerians to see a reflection of themselves in what the president is saying. And you can only do that if you spread out the net, especially given how discontented and dissatisfied Nigerians are. You could have very easily invested some of the suggestions that Nigerians are making about their own security. But I'm so sorry to speak over you. You and some other people, you especially, has talked about the disconnect and you said that earlier on, you know, at the beginning, the disconnect that seems to be between the government and the price of the people. I remember some time, I think in June or so, you referred to the Nigerian leaders as not having blood in their hearts or empathy. And you said you were reacting to the killings and banditry again in the Northwest. So what do you think the challenge is? Because we hear people say that the government doesn't care. These bodies are piling up and they've become numbers. But what do you think the challenge is? Why do you think that disconnect is there between the presidency and what Nigerians are saying or their feeling? Because of course, the president is the president of the country, but he's one person, he has a lot of people who surround him. And I do not know if you and I would believe that the president does not know what's happening in the country. But if that be the case, what do you think the challenge is? I think that among other things, there seems to be an absence of a strategy for engaging Nigerian people. This president has his own style. And I think that his health has not helped matters. And I think we need to take cognizance of that. But you could easily have bridged that gap by empowering other institutions and organs of communication. And what I see unfortunately, and for me this is one of the greatest tragedies, what I see is almost constantly the president is almost like fighting with citizens. The speech is full of warnings and so on and so forth. And it is the same way that the president's media handlers also see the country as in it is divided between those who support the president, those who don't support the president. Look, I mean the support of a particular politician is the church of ordinary citizens. In the final analysis, it is secondary to the support that all of us need to intrinsically have for our country. And even a politician because he's been elected, nobody is perfect. But if the president is trying and doing his best, how do you inspire people to support president initiatives is by showing respect to ordinary citizens. They believe somehow that those who, this country is divided between those who want peace and those who don't want peace. Often I hear accusations banded around about people who are making divisive comments and so on. But the reality of the situation is that it is actually government policies that have divided Nigerians, not the commentators. Because I mean depending on what kind of moral authority you have, there is no cities in whose world can be bigger or higher than the words of the president. So for me, you cannot have a situation in which this number of people are dying. And all we are getting occasionally is somebody just waking up and writing out a line to say this is what the president is saying. We cannot have a situation in which the other day, I mean how many people were buried? 40 people were buried in one location in our country. Did we hear anything? No. So in a way, there is a sense, even under apartheid, when death occurs and it is a tragedy, it often offers a president an opportunity to assert a certain level of moral authority and also engage citizens. So primarily if you have a tragedy, a president should be able to use that tragedy to mobilize citizens as opposed to looking for culprit. So for me, one of the very sad things that I see happening so frequently is that the president is desperately looking for friends or those who are his handlers. They are desperately looking for friends and those who are their supporters or not their supporters. This is not a country cannot survive if you do not have citizens constantly engaging by way of criticism and making suggestions also. We don't just speak for the second speaking. Every time we try to offer alternative suggestions. But if you have a situation in which, you know, I mean not everybody in Nigeria is a member of the APC as a party. This country is bigger than all the parties put together. You have to have a country before you can talk about politics and politicians. And people don't think that because, because the assumption is that those who are holding offices are the patriots. The rest of us who want to critique government are those who don't like the country. And what we see increasingly is people protecting their opportunities and mistaking their opportunities to be evidence of patriotism. Patriotism is not something that just drops from the sky. It is contingent on how people perceive they are being treated. How ordinary citizens perceive they are being protected. These are the fundamental ingredients. But if people sit in their armored protected vehicles and homes and simply think that the rest of us who feel vulnerable, there's nothing we can say, then we are mistaking. Because the president also admitted in part of his speech about his obligations to protect the citizens of Nigeria. Unfortunately, he doesn't develop that thing, but he moves on very quickly to worry about citizens who are making provocative statements and so on and so forth. I was about to point that out because there were so many points that he made on it. He said that government is ready to prosecute all persons inciting violence through words or actions. He says our resolve for a peaceful United and One Nigeria remains resolute and unwavering. Now, he goes ahead to say that said our hope is to fight for peace. We can always settle our grievances peacefully without spilling any blood. And it goes on to say the seeds of violence are planted in people's heads through words, reckless utterances of a few. He said these have led to losses of many innocent lives and destruction of property. He says we must all come together to speak against these lies that are being peddled at this point. And he says I would sincerely want to appreciate a large number of our traditional religious and community leaders as well as other meaning while meaning Nigerians in other various fora who are openly spreading the word of peace. But when the president refers to lies, the lies that are being spread, we know that there is propaganda, whether there's peace or not. There's always a group of people who are spreading propaganda. But when the president was talking about people who are putting out hate speeches on lies that have caused violence, we all know that in this country we have from time been divided along religious, ethnic, and now political lines and that certain people, especially the elites, have taken advantage of those lines. So again, when the president says that people are spreading lies, I'm trying to understand who Mr. President is referring to. I don't know. I'm not the president. I'm not a speech writer. But look, let me say, freedom of speech is an inalienable right. But it also includes freedom to speak responsibly. Now there are rules and there are regulations. And simply because I have said something you don't like or somebody has said something I don't like, the validation of what you say is based on what people fear and their sense. It's not necessarily that you have said something that praises government. This country is full of all kinds of characters who have specialized in befriending the thrones of power, not even necessarily the occupants. So there are people who believe that the greatest show of patriotism is to extoll the virtues of a government that is in power. Some of us come from a slightly different background because the democracy that we have today, I can proudly say and I have the records bear me out of my own engagement in bringing this process to where it is today. Small as it may be. So I am a proud full soldier of the struggle for democracy. But clearly it will be irresponsible of me who has a bit of an understanding with an education that was paid for by others. For me to see things going wrong as a religious leader and simply say because the president is my friend or because the governor is my friend or because I am afraid of those in power, I will not say it is totally irresponsible and is not acceptable. But the most important thing is for us to say that if you are talking about prosecuting citizens, well, nobody can prosecute a government. So those of us who are powerless, the only prosecution, powers of prosecution we have to articulate things as we see them. And then hope that government can take some of these, the good, the bad and the very ugly, mix them together. That's the responsibility of the government. But the president spoke about the fact that he has, they have in custody Namedi Kanu, who is the iPod leader and of course, Sondia Dayo, Mo Sondik Boho, who he feels are some of the people who are inciting violence and spreading propaganda in the country. And he's also said that there's, they will continue to walk on dialogue-based solutions to address these issues. For someone who's continuously engaging government and you're a major critic of the government, a critic of the government, have you seen any sign of these dialogue-based solutions that you think that we can look to or hold on to that might change the cause of things going forward? Look, I don't know whether I qualify as a critic of government. I've been in the same cities and just going about my business and being my best. But if you talk about being a critic of government, I've been a critic of government for the better part of 40 years. So I was there before this government came. And I think that even the president himself, publicly, I mean, he has acknowledged my contribution. So I'm not talking simply because President Bohari is in power or any party is in power for that matter. I have enough track record to bear me out. So this is not the point. The president of any country is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The armed forces of any country are those who are a monopoly of the instruments of violence. So if you are talking about command, I mean, the president has the right to command citizens, I mean, to command the army, to visit violence on those who are against the country, just as we are dealing with issues of Boko Haram now. I think the most important thing about this whole talk about dialogue, we are assuming and we are grossly mistaken in the way we frame dialogue. Because we are assuming that somehow Nigerians don't know what to do. They just need somebody to accept them about the goodness of living together. Even armed robbers have an idea about bonding. And the bonding, that is why they can successfully execute their mission. Even armed robbers want peace. So it is that it is not peace. It's not something that is not a commodity that good people are going around trying to market, only that bad people are not receiving it. This is intellectually corrupt because it doesn't speak to the issues. Now, we assume that dialogue is what leaders do. So we, with our miters and our, I mean, we, with our miters, our skull curbs and our turbans, religious leaders gather together to show evidence that we want peace for our people. But I live with the people and I will be lying to myself if I were to go to Abuja or if I were to go to a government, if I were to address politicians and I tell them everything is going on well in Nigeria. Now, for goodness sake, for crying out loud, I see on the faces of ordinary Nigerians, day in and day out. And I also know the possibilities that exist in this country. So I will remain relentless and restless as far as these distortions exist. So if dialogue is not something that you just have for the sake of it. After all, people like myself are pretty well protected Nigerians. Let me put it that way. I'm a very privileged Nigerian. I've said it separately. There are people who are giving their lives directly or indirectly to keep me where I am. They are feeding me. They have a moral obligation and responsibility to turn the traffic of goodwill to their direction. And for me, if you think that somehow if you don't want to hear me, invent another, of course, you know, totalitarian regimes do this a lot, dictatorship do this a lot. They reinvent the invincible society. If they find that civil society is not saying what they want to hear. They invent, they find religious leaders that are friendly, that are also malleable and applyable to their wishes. They can find them in the churches. They can find them wherever. Because they also admit that they want a certain kind of level of moral endorsement. But if they can't get it, they will find those who have discounted moral authority. They say, OK, no, everything is going on well. And we've seen this and we continue to see it across the country. So engagement of the government is an obligation that all of us have. And I think that if we relink on that obligation, we'll be failing as citizens, we'll be failing as religious leaders. So we need to have the dialogue. A dialogue must have an end and it must have results. And those results must be the betterment of the lives of our citizens. Matthew Kukka is the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sakoto. Thank you very much for speaking with us. We appreciate it. Have independence today. Thank you very much. Thank you. OK, thank you very much. All right. Well, thank you all for staying with us. We'll take a short break. It's Teal Plus Politics Special. When we return, we'll be discussing the importance of elections and it's being a panacea for good government. Stay with us.