Jonathan redivivus: Can these wounds heal?

During his recent visit to Switzerland, where he spoke at the Geneva Press Club on Security and Development in Africa, former president Goodluck Jonathan tried to pose magnificently as a statesman. Since he conceded defeat in the 2015 presidential election, he had done his best to strike that elegant pose. He had been conferred with a number of international awards, and he had also led a 33-nation Commonwealth group that monitored the Tanzanian poll, in addition to mediating the stalemated Zanzibar poll. Now, in Geneva, Switzerland, last week he struck a pose that was even more decidedly statesmanlike. For the foreseeable future, especially as the heat of President Muhammadu Buhari’s anti-corruption war burns more intensely and singes his feathers, Dr Jonathan will be under greater pressure to win more awards and recognition, and give speeches rhapsodising democracy, the rule of law and any other esoteric ideas connected with separation of powers, federalism and philosophical underpinnings of great societies.

In his Geneva speech, Dr Jonathan had responded to a question on the Buhari government’s $2.1bn arms probe in this aloof and magisterial manner: “I would not like to comment now because the matter is in court. I cannot comment. Definitely, I will speak. My comment now may affect witnesses and the judicial process. When I was president, I tried to build institutions like the Judiciary and separation of power and the electoral bodies. I should not be the one undermining the process.” He had previously poured scorn on the figures mentioned in the corruption probes, thus putting pressure on the anti-graft agencies to justify their figures and make them tally.

And for those who have written Dr Jonathan off as a bumbling politician and clueless leader, his Geneva speech should give them cause to be more wary and hesitant at coming to conclusions. In his response to the question on arms probe, Dr Jonathan spoke about respecting the judicial process and reminding his audience how he worked to build institutions, respected the doctrine of separation of powers, and gave the electoral body free hand. Whether he pointed at this record to contrast the harsh criticisms being leveled against the Buhari government on its appointments into the electoral body and the allegations it has refused to respect the rule of law, is hard to say. But the meaning is not lost.

The scale of corruption believed to have been perpetrated under the Jonathan government is truly gargantuan and heart-rending. It therefore remains to be seen whether any whitewash, celebrated award, or international assignment can mitigate the negative effects of the corruption stories on his image. But he has a legitimate right to seek a makeover, and if he keeps at it, he might yet touch a few hearts. After all, it is said of him that at bottom, he possesses both a pleasant personality and inspiring notions of democracy.

The Jonathan Geneva speech is an indication to the Buhari government of the urgency of formulating its governing concepts and ideas, because in the end, these are the elements that will define it. Dr Jonathan may have discovered this bald fact a little too late, but his desperate effort to rehabilitate himself in the esteem of the international public should signify to his successors in Abuja what they need to do and what they must possess to entrench their legacy. If Dr Jonathan should come to trial, he will go through the judicial system he bequeathed, whether he left it a sophisticated and independent entity, or a localised, subjugated and, in the biological sense, primordial entity. It is only then that he can be very confident he had built institutions and advanced the cause of democracy as he boasted.

Many years down the line, his successors will encounter their own epiphanies, and they will be forced to either exult in their creation or rue the lofty assignments they shirked while in office.