Further Issues In The LSHA Crisis

By Segun Ayobolu

For members of the De-Renaissance Patriots, a socio-cultural group of eminent Lagos indigenes with accomplishments in diverse spheres of life, the Lagos State House of Assembly crisis, which has been finally apparently laid to rest following a meeting in Abuja between President Bola Tinubu and the 40 members of the state legislature, has to do essentially with the politics of indigeneship in cosmopolitan Lagos, which is its prime concern. Obviously not too concerned about the grave but yet unsubstantiated allegations that resulted in the earlier, now reversed, impeachment of Hon. Mudashiru Obasa as Speaker of the House, the De-Renaissance Patriots are of the view that having elected Hon. (Mrs) Mojisola Meranda as Obasa ‘s replacement, the new status quo should have been allowed to stand, especially as what it describes as her ‘forced’ resignation as Speaker is a slight on Lagos indigenes who supported her emergence.

In a rejoinder to a well-publicized piece by respected Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr Muiz Banire, on the LSHA crisis, the association of Lagos indigenes had averred that “The decision to reinstate Speaker Mudashiru Obasa at the expense of Hon. Meranda, an indigene, effectively disregarded the will of Lagosians from Epe, Badagry, Ikeja, Lagos and Ikorodu divisions, who had overwhelmingly supported Meranda. The intervention of these external figures, therefore, dashed the hopes of Lagos indigenes and will be remembered in history as a betrayal of democratic principles”. The ‘external figures’ referred to here by the De-Renaissance Patriots are Chief Bisi Akande and Aremo Olusegun Osoba, former governors and revered progressive Yoruba statesmen, who had led mediatory initiatives to resolve the impasse in the Assembly and restore normalcy.

But the position of the De-Renaissance Patriots as stated above appears fallacious and misleading. Obasa was not initially removed by his colleagues as Speaker because he was an indigene and neither was Mrs Meranda named to replace him because of the indigene factor. And no poll was conducted to empirically determine the views of Lagosians from Epe, Badagry, Ikeja, Lagos and Ikorodu on the matter as insinuated by the Lagos Patriots. The politics of indigeneship is complex and intricate in a sprawling metropolis like Lagos where indigenes are a numerical minority in a political system predicated on liberal democracy where voting strength determines electoral supremacy.

There is hardly anyone better placed than Dr Muiz Banire to intervene in the matter as he has done in his characteristic forthright and incisive manner. I had not known that he had played a major participatory role in the efforts by Chief Akande and Aremo Osoba to mediate in the crisis and thus is in a position to speak authoritatively on the issue. Banire is himself a Lagos indigene of an illustrious lineage. He served with distinction as Commissioner in Lagos State in the key Ministries of Environment and Transportation for at least 12 years and was active in the politics of the state for nearly two decades before he chose to quit partisan politics to concentrate on the practice of law. Even before his exit from the political scene, he was bold in speaking out and strove to be objective in his positions on crises within the party.

Banire thus speaks with considerable credibility when he avers that Baba Akande and Osoba were not procured by the presidency to play the role they did. Rather, they were invited by key stakeholders in the party in Lagos to intervene in resolving an avoidable crisis with potential cataclysmic consequences detrimental to the continued enviable progress of Lagos State. And there is no reason to doubt Banire when he testifies that the duo played their roles with dedication, diligence, determination, balance and an open mind to resolve the crisis in the best interest of Lagos State and the ruling party in the state.

That the final resolution of the crisis did not strictly follow the pattern of the recommendations of the mediatory committee, at least as reported in the media, confirms Banire ‘s submission that Chiefs Akande and Osoba were not necessarily being teleguided by anybody. There is no indication that Dr Banire himself is supportive of the terms of the final settlement.

But the important thing is that the unduly festering crisis has been contained and this is due largely to the towering stature of the President in the politics of the state. There was the danger that the crisis could have dragged on interminably with legal battles being waged from one level of our cumbersome legal process to the other right up to the Supreme Court with deleterious consequences for the development of the state. As things stand, all parties to the crisis have been given an opportunity to reset and learn appropriate lessons to inform future actions. The legislators have learnt that they cannot act unilaterally and independent of their party and its leadership in taking key decisions on its operations as a legislative body. Hon. Obasa has been given an opportunity to learn from his missteps, mend fences with his colleagues and improve on his human and public relations.

Hon. Mrs Meranda has emerged as a self-sacrificial hero in the entire affair by subordinating her personal ambition for the collective party interest and I believe the party owes her a debt of compensation when it is time in future to collect her political ‘IOU’. She could well have opted for the ‘Akintola taku’ option and sought to bring down the roof on everybody. From the perspective of the De-Renaissance Patriots, “…it is deeply concerning that Speaker Obasa, despite losing the confidence of the House, is being artificially sustained by external forces, thereby subverting democratic principles”.

Again, this is fallacious. The political party which provides the platform for the legislators to be elected cannot rightly be described as an ‘external force’ in the affairs of the legislature. The same legislators who exercised the right to remove Obasa have exercised the right to reinstate him and there cannot be anything undemocratic about that.

In his authoritative and inimitable manner, Chief Obafemi Awolowo stated in his address to the Oyo State Conference of the Unity Party of Nigeria on 8th November 1980, that “Indeed, the registered Political Party is the sole source from which candidates for election, and elected members of the Legislature and Executive, derive their life-blood for acceptability, public status, and legitimacy. Any elected member or group of elected members of a Political Party who refuse to toe the party line – that is, choose to break their link with the party source – must, of a necessity, either quickly affiliate with another Political Party for a link with another party source, or be doomed to political dehydration or anemia. In other words, by express provisions as well as necessary implications in the Constitution, the Registered Political Party is supreme and absolutely decisive in the conduct of our public affairs”.

Commenting on the role of the Governor’s Advisory Council (GAC) in the LSHA crisis, The Punch newspaper in its editorial of 11th February 2025, wrote that “The GAC’s involvement in this matter amounts to a democratic hijack. As an unelected advisory body with no constitutional authority, it has no place dictating the pace of legislative affairs”. Contrary to the newspaper’s view, associational and interest groups which are not necessarily creations of the Constitution have their legitimate roles in liberal democracies. The GAC was an innovation of President Tinubu when he assumed office as governor of Lagos State in 1999.

Contrary to those who always strive to portray him as a power-monopolising, totalitarian godfather, Tinubu created the GAC then known as the G12, to enable him as governor to have access to the advice and input of men of distinction, wisdom and experience in public service to serve as a restraint on his exercise of power. In his book, ‘Reflections of a Public Man’, Alhaji Olatunji Hazmat, who was Commissioner for Transportation in the Alhaji Lateef Jakande administration in Lagos State in the Second Republic and a leading Lagos, Southwest and national progressive leader, wrote of a crisis that arose over the decision of two of his sons to contest the local government elections in the state based on their own campaigns and efforts and devoid of his influence. He gives us an insight into the workings of the advisory group even at that time.

In his words, “The first open dissent I encountered about the boys’ ambition was at a meeting of the Group of 12 (G12), an advisory group of party leaders that met often at Isaac John Street, reflecting on important issues to guide and formulate policies. Though the group served at the behest of the governor, he was not mandated to attend its meetings. Now and then he would appear, depending on the hurried pace of events and the exigency of the moment. He had appeared at this very meeting because of the party primary and related electoral concerns…Here, at this meeting, the governor had expressed misgivings about my sons’ ambitions, saying one of them should drop out. I thanked him for his observations and there and then l plucked out a written statement and read it out loud and clear”.

In that statement read to the G12 at the Isaac John Street meeting on 3rd January 2003, Alhaji Hazmat had contended that “In this wise, it would be wrong, wicked and even malicious to deny a son a legitimate ambition simply because the father is a revered political presence. If we want to sustain the integrity and the equitable continuity of this democratic enterprise, we should emulate the enlightened tradition of the great democracies of the world where distinguished political lineages and ancestral beginnings are seen much more as a benefit than a liability. On this nobody should compromise. It is a matter of honour.”