THE FAILED NANNY.

THE FAILED NANNY.

Isn't it interesting that Goodluck Jonathan has been in and around the Lagos axis this week launching or commissioning one item or the other ranging from refurbished vessels to revived electricity generation plants.

I'm wondering why he couldn't get to launch these projects before Valentine's day? Was it the distraction of the hectic campaign around the country or simply the late finish work for all the projects?

The amount of traveling and unveiling the man has done in the week following the former date for voting must surely be the main reason for the postponement and not the failure of the military hierarchy to guarantee security for the polls; I may be wrong. Jonathan appears to have greatly miscalculated concerning his re-election bid; everything he has done seems to derail his desperate attempt to return to the villa (that place appears to greatly amuse his wife). His strategy to demonize  the opposition candidate and deflect his incompetence and failure has served only to energize the campaign of General Buhari more than anything else. He has since been reported to have fired Reno Omokri and has been  captured visiting family members of deceased soldiers and re-commissioning stuff over the past few days.

Why has it taken him so long to pay visits and equip the military to do their duties? Many have come to his defence hailing the progress made so far as a mark of the great warrior that he is. When someone like me criticises the sloppy security structure in the nation which has let down fellow Nigerians for the 5-6 years or even more, they accuse us of sympathizing with boko haram and never seeing anything positive about the present administration or the military who are exposed to the stench of death on a regular basis. They insist that buhari is the main backer of the radical sect and therefore anyone who publicly identifies with the General must also be evil.

What would you call a father who watches idly as his son/ daughter gets burned by a fire which the father could have put out even before it came close to a strand of hair on the child's body? Of what benefit is a belated measure to extinguish a fire after it has already left destruction in it's wake?

I recall the video of the "devilish" nanny who dealt severe body blows to an infant, shoving the  crying child with food in her mouth off a couch to a hard ground and even trampling on the back of the prone frame as if to snap her into two. I watched the first few seconds of that video and couldn't bear to go on because of the sheer immorality of what that adult did to a minor. Majority if asked to preside as judge over that case would easily declare a guilty verdict based on that video evidence alone without considering any possibility of it being fabricated.

I am certain that that nanny subsequently picked up that child, cleaned her up and arranged everything in the house prior to the return of her parents. Can we for one second imagine if that nanny's case was confronted in court by an appeal for leniency based on the fact that she still in one way or another watched over that child and took care of her? Can we imagine if a defence lawyer pleaded that the nanny be forgiven and handed back her job because she hailed from the same region as the family suing or practiced the same religion?

I remember watching the film adaption of the John Grisham novel "A time to kill" sometime in 2001. Samuel L. Jackson portrayed a man whose very young daughter who wasn't even a teenager was gang raped by white boys affiliated to the ku-klux-klan somewhere in Mississippi. It was apparent that an all-white jury was never going to ensure a conviction for the young men so he had his own alternate plan to guarantee justice. He burst into the court room once the case was done and pumped several shells from his shotgun slaying the men. I am certain many would approve of the measure carried out by the aggrieved man in that movie just as they would have approved of any extreme measure carried out to punish the evil nanny; it is just being human.

The president who had watched on for several months as at least six states suffered  various degrees of violence and thousands cut down while exporting blame and claiming abandonment by world powers is that Nanny who has been battering that child she was paid to take care of. He takes the blame for the young men cut down in their prime because the nation they swore to defend with their lives let them down and left them exposed to perish some with their heads taken. He is responsible for the widows, widowers, the orphans and also the displaced. 

Those asking that we return Mr Jonathan are simply asking us to accept the nanny who has cleaned up the battered baby and acted as if nothing happened.  The onslaught against insurgents has now been reported to be intense with necessary gear and arsenal available for the push. Why exactly did those states have to wait for months till after the postponement to witness a  concrete federal government led plan to erase the terrorist?

If we are competent to judge the matter of a nanny and a battered baby, how much more the affairs of a country that has been like that baby battered and bruised repeatedly without any help in sight? The incumbent has been weighed in the balance and found wanting on many levels. He should not be rewarded for abundant failure and incompetence. He has clearly exhibited nonchalance and a huge sense of irresponsibility abdicating his primary duties of security and economy to other people he appointed and who are answerable to him as the commander in chief.

This election remains about the Nigerian people. It is not about electing a sectional president that suits a particular stereotype. We should be able to dwell above rudimentary sentiments and take active parts in the electoral process. We should not be creators and peddlers of falsehood; some have already sold their consciences and those wages will soon be exhausted.

Joa 210215