WHEN King Charles of England was diagnosed with cancer, he quickly told his people. No one was left to speculate the nature of his health challenge. The action did not just earn him the respect and admiration of Britons but the entire world. He was applauded for his honesty, strength of character and for inspiring people. King Charles was seen as a brave leader and his people were with him while he took time off his official duties to attend to his health. For the nature of the diagnoses, people with similar challenges drew strength that if Charles could have such a challenge and go public with it, they should be at peace with it and give life their best shot.
Elsewhere, when Lloyd Austin, US Defence Secretary, went AWOL over a medical condition without formally notifying his boss, President Joe Biden, and alerting the American people, he was roundly condemned and had to appologise.
Indeed, leaders are expected to exude strength and inspire their people while in office. But the definition and perception of what makes a strong and good leader differs across cultures. In Africa, leaders understand a strong leader as one who shows physical strength. He is expected to be seen, heard and be everywhere. An African leader sees himself as the embodiment in the strength of his nation. He almost has the impression that unlike his people, he should not be ill or show failing health. There is equally the perception by the people that a leader with failing health may no longer be in charge and with a seeming power vacuum while a struggle for power and influence may ensue.
Unfortunately, leaders, being humans, face health challenges. When there is no honest interface with the people as is often the case among African leaders, what may have started as a rumour eventually dovetails into a debilitating factor that can set off a needless succession struggle among political actors within the corridors of power.
For Nigerians, tales of leaders carrying on while they tried to hide their illness was a strange phenomenon associated with other African countries with sit tight presidents. All that changed when Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua succeeded Chief Olusegun Obasanjo as president in 2007. Already in poor health while the campaigns for the presidential election was in full gear, it did not take long for the health issue to take the front burners in his nascent administration. It finally took the invocation of a hitherto unknown Doctrine of Necessity for governance to be retrieved from a cabal of proxy presidents that held the country hostage with fairy tales of president who they told Nigerians can govern from anywhere through them for Goodluck Jonathan to take over the reins of power.
Yar’Adua’s episode has become a recurring decimal in Nigeria’s leadership architecture through President Muhammadu Buhari’s eight-year presidency and Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s emergence has accentuated the sequence. Explaining the attitude of Nigerian leaders in considering their health status a state secret opens a number of unrelated factors. Tinubu emerged as the product of conscious effort to have somebody of southern extraction succeed Buhari. He has embarked on numerous foreign trips which presidency media minders give strange nomenclatures. ‘Working leave’ is what they dubbed his latest trip to the UK where he moved over to France that was not initially announced as part of his destinations. With the rumour over Tinubu’s health, the latest ‘leave’ has triggered a fresh wave of speculation on his health. The common tread in all the opinions, informed and uninformed, is that the President is unwell.
Given the political arrangement where Kashim Shettima, a northern, is vice president and next in line, Tinubu’s political machine cannot countenance a situation where power leaves their circle. For good measure, while embarking on his two-week working leave that ended up stretching to 18 days, the instrument for transfer of power to an acting president was not activated.
As if on cue, the mystery surrounding the whereabouts of the Chief of Army Staff, Taoreed Lagbaja, is yet to clear. It took a post on X that he had passed on for the Army high command to acknowledge that he is ill and receiving treatment.
In Cameroon, its government had to resort to a comical ban on media reports on the health status Paul Biya, its 91 year-old ailing president, to force a calm of the cemetery on rumours that his health has failed irretrievably. The embarrassing state secret surrounding the health of African presidents is one factor that will continue to impede the continent’s growth. Minders of a leader know their continued stay in office and the sustenance of their illicit activities are tied to the continued hold on power by their principal. They will contrive any game and strategy to maintain the façade of a powerful principal while the inevitable power struggle plays out to the detriment of development. Do we need a legislation to compel vital public office holders to make public their health status similar to the Doctrine of Necessity to curb the trend? The attitude is embarrassing and demeaning. There are enough exemplary conducts elsewhere to inspire African leaders. But the name of the game is to hang on to power.
Post Script:
Tax Men On The Prowl
AFTER strenuous opposition from service providers, stakeholders and consumers forced Tinubu’s government to jettison an earlier attempt to introduce tax on telephone services, the tax men are back again. The government is planning a new five percent tax for GSM calls, SMS and data usage. Cumulatively, that will lead to an increase of 12.5% as the federal government also plans to implement a five percent inclusive excise duty on telecommunication services. This is coming at a time telcos are mulling increasing their call rates in tandem with the cost of providing services to Nigerians and a fresh attempt after an earlier tax proposal was dropped in September 2022.
The worrying part of President Tinubu’s economic team is that only the tax men are taking all the initiative. Nigerians are on a cliffhanger under the prevailing hardship and are barely surviving. But for the tax hawks, their only recipe is for Nigerians to pay more tax. Where are the development economists in the team that should complement the tax drive by creating a clement environment for businesses to grow and thrive? And what about addressing the cost of governance so that the unbridled wastage and leakages in the machinery of government is curbed?
Since the onset of the administration, the tax men have been having a field day burdening Nigerians with all manner of taxes to oil the machinery of government. The proposed teleco tax is an overkill when nothing has been unveiled to spur growth.
