Former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan will never cease to amaze and amuse some of us his ordinary fans and his real political admirers and friends. Everyone seems to be drawn to his natural, God-given charm which is not derived from power. Which is also not derived from money. He is not a man of wealth and riches who, with them, could easily charm the poor and the lack with his material endowments. But do not forget one fact: he is rich and endowed just enough to be able to get through Tinubu’s economic difficulties.
Goodluck Jnathan’s charm is not also derived from occultic abracadabra. It is just natural. He is simply Goodluck Ebele Jonathan. If also you have taken time to notice this in him, he does not struggle to speak or carry himself in a ‘presidential’ manner. He just speaks naturally without any effort at elocution or what some Nigerians call phone. He speaks the way God created him to speak. Jonathan carries himself in the way of any good- natured man who has found himself in the limelight should conduct or carry out his private and public affairs to the best of his natural abilities.
Ever since he came to national reckoning and warmed himself into the hearts of millions of Nigerians with interesting and intriguing tales about how a rural, ordinary riverine boy found his way out of the seas, which gained him access to the presidency, Jonathan has left many Nigerians enthralled by his persona. We have heard tales about him of an ordinary man who never had the privilege of wearing shoes to school or having launch packs of a variety of school meals neatly packed in a classy take-away bags by a caring supper mummy to take to school, but a boy who by the pure designs of Providence, grew up to become the number one citizen of the largest and most important nation in Africa.
I remember how some years ago I was in Belgium on a journalistic assignment and came into the company of a Zambian colleague who never gave me rest over the life story of Jonathan. He knew so many stories about Jonathan. He asked me, for instance how true it was about the then trending story which is what we Nigerians derogatorily call fabu that Jonathan is possessed of a dangerous grace that it is fatal; that if he is deputy to you in any position whether elected, selected or appointed, sooner or later, so the story went, you will be removed and he will take your place like play like play.
He said he heard that when Jonathan was in secondary school, he was deputy to a senior prefect. Trouble miraculously happened without warning one day and that senior prefect was removed and Jonathan was made to replace him. My Zambian friend did not of course talk about the well -known well told story of how Jonathan was deputy to Governor Alamiesigha and how Alams was removed and Jonathan became governor in his stead and subsequently became vice president and the rest, as they say, is story.
But of all Jonathan’s repertoire of heroic stories, the most enduring legacy he left in the minds of most Nigerians is the distinction he made in the course of his presidency between ‘’ordinary stealing’’ and ‘’corruption’’. His simple, ordinary thinking which fed his definition/differentiation between stealing and corruption suggests that in Jonathan’s mindset, ordinary stealing is, perhaps, forgivable or pardonable because it is mere stealing. It is the misdemeanor of a poor, hungry and lacking man who needs to be pitied or sympathized with. Corruption, on the other hand, the thinking goes, is very bad and ruinous and unforgivable because it is a misdeed by those who do not lack but are excessively greedy.
Jonathan left Nigeria’s seat of power some eight years ago. But his life out of power has not ceased to fascinate us. As a former president with a good record, he ‘naturally’ assumed a new role as an international goodwill ambassador to many troubled spots of the world and to places and happenings where a man of truth, honesty and integrity like him is needed to ensure that things go right.
It is in that role that some days ago, Jonathan found himself in Guinea Bissau where democracy has recently become a sort of child’s play. We hear of a military coup or some sort of musical chair change there. What is happening or what really happened in Guinea Bissau? Is the civilian president Umaro Sissoco Embalo overthrown or is the man still in power and has just gone to neighbouring Senegal on an official presidential visit? No one, except Jonathan, seems to know what has happened there is happening there.
Three days after the event of Guinea Bissau, Jonathan came out in a video on facebook in which he sought to give an ‘authentic’ explanation of that which he, as eyewitness, understood of what had happened. He said that the coup was a ‘’ceremonial coup’’. Ever since 1975 when as a form three student in secondary school I first heard of and understood what that French word means, I have heard of so many kinds of coups—palace coup, bloody coup, bloodless coup, foreign sponsored coup and coups by ambitious military men but never a ‘’ceremonial coup’’.
Let someone more knowledgeable tell me: what type of coup is this one. Is it different from a rowdy, violent disruptive and upsetting coup?
What, really, if a simple man like me wants to understand, is a ceremonial coup? Is it a fake coup? Is it a tragedy-comedy coup? Is a coup that seemed like it but s not really it because it did not follow all the known protocols we Africans, especially West Africans, have come to know about coups? Jonathan said in the video that he called the coup what he called it because this is a coup that was announced by the president of the country before any military person got to a microphone to announce that there was a coup. So, in a peculiar Jonathainian thinking, it was not a serious regime change move to oust anyone from power.
In the video aforesaid, journalists were unfortunately not on hand to ask Jonathan what journalists love to call ‘’pertinent questions such as: ‘’Sir ,are you saying the coup was not really a coup because there were was no martial music on the country’s national radio and TV? No military man went on radio or tv to pronounce that there will be a dust to dawn curfew imposed on the whole country or as in the case of the Dimka coup in Nigeria there will be a dawn to dusk curfew?
Sir, did you describe what happened in Guinea Bissau as a ceremonial and not a serious coup because the president was not announced removed from power and a military man sworn-in in his stead? But we hear that a certain military man by name General Horta Inta-a (or N’Tam) was installed as transitional president for one year.
Can a coup that does not change a regime but merely suspends it for a period be held as ceremonial as Jonathan says it is and regarded as harmless or tolerable or something not to seriously worry about? This reminds me of the medical students’ debate about the impossibility of a girl or woman being ‘’nearly pregnant’’. Can a lady be ‘almost pregnant’, ‘half pregnant’ or ‘not really pregnant but fertilized’’ just because her violator, tormentor or suitor did not follow all the sexual protocols such as, may be, penetration was slight and not too deep? Or the girl or woman did not fully submit to the act or she coyly submitted but submitted she did or the man imposed himself on her or the trouble was merely that he did not fully get her permission?
Truly, like Jonathan’s definition of stealing and corruption, his description of what took place in Guinea Bissau is really intriguing and like everything Jonahtan, it is charmingly confusing.
