A parable of the president’s church by okey Ndibe

Most big Nigerian politicians
encounter no law – divine or
secular – they feel tempted
to observe. In fact, to be a
prominent politician is to be
above all laws, God’s and
man’s alike.
Last week, a Nigerian daily,
Thisday, wrote an editorial to
scold President Goodluck
Jonathan for reportedly
accepting the gift of a church
in his hometown from an
Italian construction firm by
the name of Gitto
Construzioni. The editorial
began: “At the recent
dedication of a 2,500-seat
church building in Otuoke,
his village in Bayelsa State,
President Goodluck Jonathan
said the edifice was donated
to him by the Abuja-based
Italian construction company,
Gitto Construzioni Generali
Nigeria Limited (GCG).
According to the president,
the managing director of
Gitto made him a promise to
build and donate the church
to Otuoke community after
he (the president) had
complained of the aging
structure of his church, which
apparently no longer befits
the status of the president’s
village.”
The paper categorized the
gift, rather aptly, as “very
disturbing” and wondered
how Mr. Jonathan “could
openly justify this sort of gift
from a private company,
whose various activities in the
country have been mired in
controversies.” Surmising
that the president had
peddled the influence of his
office to obtain the favor, the
paper noted that such an act
was “unacceptable for a
president anywhere in the
world and the code of
conduct for public officials in
Nigeria expressly forbids
such.”
Thisday continued: “Gitto is
one of the major contractors
to the federal government yet
the manner in which the
president spoke at the church
thanksgiving service conveyed
the impression that he
actually solicited for the
edifice since he openly voiced
his concern to the hearing of
the company’s managing
director who apparently got
the message. Of course there
is the argument that it is only
a church building but Gitto is
not known to be a missionary
outfit; it is a construction
firm that bids for and wins
contracts in Nigeria. Against
the backdrop that the record
of the company with regards
to performance has left much
to be desired, it becomes
more obvious that the
president goofed in accepting
the questionable gift and
worse still, that he would
seek to justify it.
“We note particularly that
corruption thrives in Nigeria
today because public officials
do not know how and where
to draw the line. It is
therefore no surprise that
some of these foreign
construction companies do
things they dare not try in
their home countries. Gitto is
surely no Santa Claus; it is a
profit-seeking company
accountable to its
shareholders. When the
company therefore spends
millions of dollars on a ‘gift’,
its management would
expect returns so it is easy to
understand why the costs of
contracts in Nigeria are the
highest in the world.”
It was a blistering rebuke,
and surprising because of the
quarters it came from.
Thisday is by no means a
rabble rousing opposition
medium. In fact, some would
suggest that the paper is as
close to the political
establishment as it is possible
to get. So when such a paper
chides the president on
account of a serious ethical
lapse, bystanders are bound
to take notice. It is a sign
that something really, really
stinky has transpired.
In delivering its rare but
altogether appropriate
censure, the paper’s instincts
were excellent. As the
editorial noted, the
contractor has been the
subject of several complaints.
Let’s once again quote
Thisday: “We particularly
recall that the N58.6 billion
contract for the construction
of the second Niger Bridge
was awarded to Gitto Group
in a manner which recently
prompted the South East
Legislative Caucus in the
National Assembly to petition
President Jonathan, asking
him to review it. There are
also protests against Gitto
from Akwa Ibom
stakeholders on the way it is
handling the Eket/Oron
section of the East-West Road
project while the Bodo-Bonny
Road in Bayelsa State
awarded the company in
2003 is today abandoned.”
Given the company’s image
troubles, the paper
concluded, “The Italian firm
cannot whitewash its
incompetence by building
churches. And it is patently
inappropriate for President
Jonathan to have accepted
the Greek Gift and proceeded
to make a light show of it.”
Well, the paper quickly
recanted. Hours after issuing
its pointed criticism, it wrote
a penitent correction.
Invoking “fresh facts,” the
paper was now certain that
the Otuoke community, not
Mr. Jonathan, had contacted
Gitto “to renovate the
worship center.” It added
that “it has now emerged
that during the burial of the
president’s father in 2008 –
by which time he was still
vice-president – the
officiating ministers had
asked the friends of Jonathan
and the community to come
to the aid of the church and
assist in renovating its aging
facilities.” The church elders
had done the solicitation,
wrote the now wizened
paper, without consulting
then Vice President Jonathan.
Finally, it was important that
readers know that the church
was merely renovated, not
new, and that its capacity
was 400 persons, not 2500.
Then the paper sought to
educate its readership by
drawing attention to
precedents: “It would be
recalled that during the
building of the National
Ecumenical Centre and the
National Mosques, several
commercial concerns donated
money, materials and
services at events some of
which had in attendance the
then President or Head of
State.”
It was as if, having ventured
to an unaccustomed terrain
by castigating Mr. Jonathan,
the paper felt compelled to
remind us all that facts can
be sliced in several different
ways – and also that, this
being Nigeria, there was
nothing amiss in how Otuoke,
the president’s hometown,
got a new (or refurbished)
church.
With the paper on retreat,
the field was cleared for
Reuben Abati, the president’s
spokesman, to launch a fiery
offensive of his own. In a
statement issued April 4 and
titled “Otuoke Church:
President Jonathan
Committed No Crime,” Mr.
Abati told us the Presidency
had “noted with surprise and
some amusement, the
patently laughable attempt
by political opponents of
President Goodluck Ebele
Jonathan and their
collaborators to brew up a
storm in a cup over the
alleged ‘gift’ of a church to
the President.”
It was, as many statements
from the Presidency tend to
be, a formulaic and effete
response. Pray, what did the
president and his handlers
find amusing in press reports
that portrayed the president
as trading the influence of
his office to secure a church
for his hometown? Did the
spokesman fail to realize that
“amused” is the last thing he
or the president should be,
and that to profess such a
reaction is tantamount to
expressing disdain for the
people and laws of Nigeria?
Next, Mr. Abati’s fire-
breathing response
continued: “It should be clear
to all knowledgeable and
discerning Nigerians that
these allegations are nothing
other than another
mischievous attempt to
denigrate President Jonathan,
cast unjustifiable aspersions
on his personal integrity and
distract him from the serious
business of governance.” The
foregoing contains no morsel
of argument or rebuttal,
being merely a desperate
manipulation of sentiments.
In it, Mr. Abati contrives to
divide Nigerians into two
implicit camps: the
“knowledgeable and
discerning” who must intuit
“mischief” in reports of the
president’s abuse of his office
and the ignorant and blinded
who dared to entertain the
belief that, perhaps, the
president acted improperly.
Then, throwing in a token
third group – the “unwary
who might be taken in by the
antics of an unscrupulous
opposition that has little or
no regard for the truth in the
pursuit of their self-serving
agenda” – the spokesman
stated “emphatically that
President Jonathan never
solicited or received a church
as ‘bribe’ from any
contractor.”
In the epistle according to
Mr. Abati, what happened
was that “a contractor who
has worked and continues to
work in Bayelsa state and
other parts of Nigeria
thought it fit, in fulfillment of
its corporate social
responsibility, to facilitate the
renovation of the small
church in the President’s
home town of Otuoke.”
Having offered this kernel, he
added: “It takes a lot of
desperation to translate this
act of social responsibility for
which there are innumerable
precedents in our country
into a crime for which the
usual suspects are now
calling for the ‘impeachment’
of President Jonathan.” Then
the Presidency spelt out what
lesson we must take – not
about its commitment to
ethical principles but about
corporate behavior in
Nigeria: “It is indeed ironic
that the groups and
individuals now castigating
the President because a
company freely chose to
fulfill its corporate social
responsibility by helping to
renovate a communal place
of worship, are also amongst
those who constantly berate
companies doing business in
the Niger Delta for not doing
enough to support the
development of their host
communities.”
The Presidency ought not to
be allowed to get away with
such wooly thinking and
tattered conception of ethics.
Does anybody seriously
believe that a major
construction firm would
invest in renovating a church
in the president’s hometown,
without the president
knowing? And even if it’s true
that Mr. Jonathan played no
role in soliciting the favor, he
should have been alert to the
appearance of wrongdoing?
Is it so hard for the
Presidency to grasp that it
looks (to say the least)
suspicious when the federal
government awards major
contracts to a firm that has
handed a church to the
president’s town?
Since when did the
refurbishment of churches
fall within the purview of
“corporate social
responsibility”? If the firm’s
motives were altruistic, why
did it choose to rehabilitate
the one church where
President Jonathan worships?
As an international
construction firm, can Gitto
Construzioni disclose any
other country where it has
built or renovated a church
for free? Has it ever donated
or renovated a church in its
home base of Italy?

Please follow me on
twitter @ okeyndibe

#CONSENSUS 2015