2011 Presidential Race, Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck: The Burden of History

With the impending elections, Nigerians would be seeking through the present, a future. This
endeavour constitutes a change process that requires the use of our understanding of why our
yesterday was miserable, moment, obscure, as determinants in seeking the realization of a
cheery tomorrow. Given that this implies seeking history (future) through history (past and
presence), our ability to achieve the desired- a better tomorrow, is incumbent upon the
realization of the fact that the traumatizing moment we are agitatedly seeking its reversal,
was once a future whose present bleakness owes to our collective inability to use the past that
gave birth to it in shaping its course. It is therefore on the basis of this consideration that this
article uses on the one hand, the instrumentality of history, in addressing certain issues
constituting moral burden on Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck. On the other, Arnold
Toynbee’s concept of seeming repetitive patterns in history is used to unearth the fortress on
which Jonathan’s presidential ambition is based and what this portends for the change we
desire.
Although there is the hidden hand of God in man’s unfolding history, it is man’s activities in
and within time that gives birth to circumstances which either favour or impede the
realization of man’s goals in time. It is also these activities that culminate into a man’s today.
Since a man’s today would tomorrow become a past, then, what a man is today would, all
conditions being equal, be what be determined by his activities of yesterday. This is why
man’s today’s deeds-good or bad are parts of his becoming in time and therefore constitute
how a society evolves in a given direction. It therefore becomes incumbent that if man must
live a better tomorrow, man must truly remember the past that makes his today what it is,
learn from it and use the lessons as yard stick for seeking a better tomorrow. In refusing to do
this, man will be unmaking his tomorrow and that of the larger society in which he belongs.
A practical that illustrates the above stream of thought is a doctor-patient relationship. For a
patient to be effectively treated, a doctor would require the latter’s previous health/medical
experience and other related pieces of information. if a patient decides to present a distorted
information and withhold any of the required information that would enable the doctor
performs his service, then, not only would the doctor’s service be rendered useless, the
patient’s health might be endangered or become a burden which compounds the society’s
problem. It is within this prism that the alleged involvement of Jonathan and Dame Patience-
Goodluck in a well documented case of money laundering would be re-examined.
As rightly stated by many writers on this issue, on September 11, 2006, Mr. Osita Nwajah,
the EFCC spokesman made a public declaration that a whopping sum of $13.5 million
Dollars (US) was seized from Mrs. Patience Jonathan. This was during her husband’s reign as
the Governor of Bayelsa State and Nuhu Ribadu’s years as the EFCC Chairman. Before this,
there was also a sum of N104 seized by the EFCC from one Mrs Nancy Ebere Nwosu in
August 2006, which, as confessed the latter under oath, belonged to Mrs Jonathan. This
money laundering matters, a past that is for the moment presumed to be wrongly associated
with Jonathan and his loving wife, Madam Patience is now garbed as a ploy aimed at
desecrating the persons of Jonathan and patience. It has also being widely published as a
fabrication of the political opponents of Jonathan and the PDP.
To establish the innocence of Jonathan and his wife, statements credited to Ribadu were
quoted. Accordingly it was cited that Ribadu submitted that, “I never handled a case against
Patience Jonathan, never; it’s a lie. You know it is so sad because in our country this is how
we go about maligning people. But today thank God I am not in his government. So, I can
open up and talk. If I were to say it earlier people would have thought that I was looking for
job from President Goodluck Jonathan. I am not looking for anything. But the truth must be
told.” (The Nation, September 16, 2010).
To convince the electorates of the veracity another statement of exoneration reportedly issued
as well by Mallam, Nuhu Ribadu was also quoted. This statement reads, “the case had to do
with a lady and a man who lodged huge sums of money in the bank. The EFCC was alerted
by the bank and an investigation was carried out. It was found that they legitimately earned
the money through contracts executed in the state. All the reports in the media were lies. For
instance, it was initially reported that N70 million was lodged into the bank. Later, it was
reported that the money ran into millions of dollars. Such was the extent of the lies. We never
handled a case against Patience Jonathan.” (Thisday of September 17, 2010).
Since the alleged crime was committed under Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, a man who is believed
by manny as trustworthy and reliable, one may be tempted to say the case never existed at all
or consider the whole issue a mere ploy by Jonathan’s political adversaries. Since over
reliance on one source is a factor that affects the reliability of historical sources and veracity
of an historical claim, one is compelled to seek the use of the historical tool of test of
consistency and cross validation with other sources.
During my search for other primary evidence on this matter, I stumbled on a case with a suit
number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06, filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja. As
indicated in this file, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu-led EFCC named Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of
Goodluck Jonathan, as an accomplice in the N104million-money laundering case involving
Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu. This amount, is stated in this file to be laundered on the order of
Mrs Patience Goodluck into a First Bank of Nigeria account number 3292010060711 held in
the name of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited by one Hanner Offor. Still not satisfied
with this primary source on the issue at hand, further effort was exerted to dig into the
archive. Again, we stumbled on the EFFC’s affidavit used in supporting the suit’s originating
summons. In this document, Ofem Uket, the then EFCC prosecuting officer declared:Our
investigations revealed that Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of the Governor of Bayelsa State,
was the person who instructed one Hanner Offor to launder the said sum of N104, 000, 000
into the account of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited with First Bank of Nigeria Plc
(FBN), Niger House, Marina, Lagos.
To further establish the veracity of this case-file, I was forced to search for a court ruling on
this matter. Findings revealed that on August 22, 2006, Justice Anwuli Chikere who then was
Federal High Court, Abuja presided over the EFCC’s application on this case and ruled that,
2006, said, "Leave is hereby granted to the Executive Chairman of the EFCC to ... freeze the
bank accounts of the persons referred to as the account holders pending the conclusion of the
investigation of the activities of the said persons in connection with their involvement in the
acts of money laundering and other economic and financial crimes related offences."
Since a combined used of both primary and secondary sources are also needed to make a
reliable historical narration, effort was directed at newspaper reportage of this suit and
judgement. Among many others, in its 11 September, 2006 edition, a story under the
caption,”EFCC seizes N104m from Bayelsa governor’s Wife” featured in the Punch,
Nigeria’s most widely read newspaper. The news item was put together by Sam Akpe and
Tobi Soniyi, Abuja. When cross-examined with our newly found primary sources, we
observed consistency between contents of the latter and this news reportage. It may be
interesting to produce a part of these documents which highlights how EFCC arrived at the
conlusion upon which the money in question involved Jonathan and Madam Patience.

As shown in these documents, Mallam Ribadu’s-led EFCC stated Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu
through whom was laundered “had been evasive in her earlier statements.But when
confronted with further evidence, she said, ”I voluntary elect to state as follows: My earlier
statements were made while I was very disorganised by the overwhelming questions I had to
deal with.” “She then admitted that Mr. Godwill Oba told her that Mrs.Jonathan wanted to
give him (Oba) some work and that she (Mrs. Jonathan) would advance the mobilisation
money to him (Oba) through her (Nwosu) account. She said, “When Oba came for the money
to be withdrawn, I confirmed from Her Excellency, Mrs. Patience Jonathan that she wanted
the intended project money to be withdrawn.” “I know that Her Excellency is related to Oba.
I confirmed from Her Excellency that the money could be made in favour of Oba.”

As further shown in one of these documents, Ribadu-led EFCC stated that, “Investigations
into the laundering of the N70m into Finviclaud with Access Bank Plc cheque revealed that
the money was deposited into the account with a First Bank of Nigeria Plc cheque number
3292010060711 for N70m, a personal current account drawn on Nansolyvan Public Relations
Limited at the Niger House Marina branch.” “ Nwosu then transferred the N70m from the
account into another account operated by Fivviclaud at the Access Bank Plc, Apapa branch,
Lagos.” ”Our investigations at the two banks – First Bank and Access Bank – showed that
Nwosu of No 2A Araromi Street, Lagos Island, is the sole signatory to the two accounts.”

Given new insights which these documents have offered us, one is bound to raise the
following questions. Is possible that Jonathan and Patience Goodluck are not aware of this
case? If they do, what is that they merely rely on Ribadu’s statement of exoneration to
establish their innocence and not on any competent court’s judgment? Can it be said that the
refusal to back up their claim of exoneration with a competent court’s and make allusion to
any pending court case on this matter is an attempt to burry facts of history and hoodwink the
masses? While readers are tasked to find appropriate response to these questions, I am
tempted to suppose that Jonathan and Patience are playing using the blame-trade and power
to cover up a past which is inherently part of their persons and a leading reason why
Nigeria’s today is miserable.

Another round of question one that need to be raised would be Nuhu Ribadu’s role in the
whole issue. Since we have established that a case with suit number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06,
filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja exist on the issue at hand can we
accept Nuhu Ribadu’s conflicting statement which reads, “I never handled a case against
Patience Jonathan, never; it’s a lie” (The Nation, September 16, 2010) a statement of fact?
We may also need to ask, has Nuhu Ribadu be known to have a double-speaking? Evidence
suggest that in an interview the former EFCC boss granted The NEWS magazine in February
2007, Nuhu Ribadu stated that, “Olabode George was never an executive officer of NPA. He
was a part-time Chairman. It is the Executive Managing Director who runs the place; it was
the MD’s name that appeared in all the contract papers of NPA. Olabode George was a part-
time Chairman whose name was never on any contract paper”.

Upon the the pronouncement by Justice Olubumi Oyewole which sentenced Olabode George
to a deserved two years imprisonment without an option of fine, Nuhu stated that the ruling
“is a measure of the shamelessness of our elite and the institutions that fuel their values. That
Chief George could be awarded a national honour in our country and that he could later sue
some newspapers for libel on account of the damming indictment report I prepared
against him.” Are there no obvious contradictions in these two statements credited to Nuhu
Ribadu on a crime which involved Bode George abuse of public trust? It seems to me one is a
statement of exoneration and the other of indictment on Nuhu Ribadu and Bode George.
Since the foregoing suggest that Nuhu Ribadu’s statements may be self-contradictory, then, it
is only objective that his statement which exonerated Jonathan and Dame Patience of any
involvement in the money laundering case under consideration be discarded. Probably it was
this reality that made Jonathan Goodluck warn Nuhu Ribadu that he should desist from
parading himself as a man of integrity. Little wonder, Jonathan Goodluck through his
campaign organization stated that, “to also show Ribadu’s lack of faith in the anti-corruption
fight, he recently said and we quote:“I won’t bother myself with the integrity of politicians
that will fund my campaign. I will take corrupt politicians money for my campaign as far as
the money is not put in my pocket.”

It is also curious to note that Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck who were quick in
quoting Ribadu to establish their innocency are ironically observed to reject Nuhu Ribadu’s
recent exoneration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu of any financial abuse crime during the latter’s 8-
years reign as the Governor of Lagos State. As stated Jonathan through his presidential
Campaign Committee, “the Campaign Committee recalled that In 2007 while answering
questions from the Senate on the alleged acts of corruption by some governors, Ribadu
pointedly said that the corruption of the former governor of Lagos state, Senator Bola
Tinubu was “of international dimension …] Is it not curious that the same person with such
a tag is now the political godfather of Ribadu and sole financier of his political
campaigns?... “Ribadu by such posturing has given Tinubu a clean bill of health which is
not only hypocritical, but evidence that given the same opportunity, he would not have done
better than the governors whom he had indicted.”

Premised on the above position of Jonathan Goodluck on Nuhu Ribadu as an hypocritical

personality, a position upon Jonathan predicates his rejection of Tinubu’s exoneration by
Ribadu, then, it is only logical that all right thinking person should also dismiss Ribadu’s
exoneration of Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck of any complicity in the case of money
laundering under consideration as hypocritical and fallacious.

From the above analysis, there are some discernible apparent patterns in how the
personalities of Jonathan and Patience Goodluck have been unfolding in time. One is that in
the bid to achieve their bids of becoming, they have decided to cover a part of their past and
using all means possible to prevent those seeking to revisit it as agents of blackmail. It
seems it was this reality that made the discerning Moses E. Ochonu, Assistant Professor of
History conlud that, “President Jonathan Goodluck’s ambition is built and sustained partly
on blackmail.” Ochonu adds, “but blackmail is only one item in the Jonathan presidential
toolbox, Revisionist history is another.” Since one of the objectives of this article is to use
Arnold Toynbee’s concept of seeming repetitive patterns in history in uncovering the
fortress on which Jonathan’s presidential ambition is based and what this portends for the
change we desire attention will now how Jonathan has been handling issues of national
security.

It would be recollected that the twin bomb blasts that rocked the litigious 50th Independence
anniversary of Nigeria from colonial servitude caused ethno-political hiccups, and exchange
of tirades across divides and affiliations. In effect, accusing fingers were pointed at the
probable master minders of the blast to the extent that individuals with different pedigree and
affiliations were arrested, interrogated and arraigned by the Jonathan Government.
Ironically, the only group, MEND, which claimed responsibility for the attack was offered a
clean bill of health by President Jonathan Ebele Goodluck. This slipshod vituperation has
given birth to a series of salient questions on the leadership credential of Goodluck. This
article which offers a new dimension to the continuing contestation on this issue contends
with empirical evidence that the blast was the handiwork of Jonathan.

History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the
way we are.
Every true history must force us to remember that the past was once as real as the present and
as uncertain as the future.
-- George Macaulay Trevelyan

Since man’s activities in time is what constitutes history, it becomes determinate that man’s
search for the future must begin with

Everything must be recaptured and relocated in the general framework of history, so

that despite the difficulties, the fundamental paradoxes and contradictions, we may
respect the unity of history which is also the unity of life."
Fernand Braudel

-- David C. McCullough
Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference
of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered
most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.
-- Haile Selassie