FIRST LADY MALADY

As the National Assembly begins
constitutional amendment process, the call for
more definite roles in the constitution for the
first ladies becomes a subject of public
discourse. The ceaseless debate over whether
or not the first ladies be assigned
constitutional roles does not begin now, it has
become recurrent national issue.
Despite the fact that the idea of First lady-ism
is a constitutional aberration, it has long been
adapted and introduced into the nation’s
political system by most successive
administrations. There is no doubt that the
personality and the style of Dame Patience
Jonathan, the wife of the current Nigerian
President have generated renewed interest in
the position of First Lady both in the
governance process and the polity generally.
From the past experiences, the first ladies
undeniably play highly influential supportive
roles that can not be simply wished away
even though the office is alien to the nation’s
constitution. We can thus agree that first
ladies one way or the other exert tremendous
influence by virtue of their husbands’ offices.
The present First Lady, Dame Patience
Jonathan in her contribution to the ongoing
debate on the proposed constitutional
amendment has advocated that the role of
First Lady be enshrined in the constitution so
that they can receive retirement benefits like
their husbands and enjoy their careers. It
seems Dame Patience Jonathan lacked clear
understanding of the semantic import of the
word career in the situational context.
Without missing words, neither the
presidency nor the First Lady roles are
careers. It is my considered opinion that
career is a long-term or life long job.
Of equal importance is the recommendation
of the presidential committee on the review of
the 1999 Constitution under the eminent
chairmanship of former Justice of Nigeria,
Justice Alfa Madibbo Belgore that the office of
the First Lady be abolished at all levels of
government. The Committee in its report
which it has since submitted to President
Goodluck Jonathan has also noted that the
office of First Lady does not operate under
any legal framework and the operation (both
in kind and cash) of such offices at all levels
be discouraged and abolished forthwith.
If the First Ladies think they could not
confine themselves to taking care of the home
front and completely distance themselves
from the affairs of state, their initiatives and
private projects should henceforth not be
funded with the tax payers money.
In more developed countries, first ladies are
allowed to play supportive roles without
necessarily constituting any form of financial
burden on the nation. In essence, First Ladies
can make impact and contribute to national
development without their roles necessarily
enshrined in the constitution.
Given the American experiences, the First
Ladies were never excluded from state
governance but their roles were advisory and
supportive. The sources of the project finance
by United States First Ladies are usually
devoid of public suspicion unlike ours where
private initiatives of the First Ladies are
funded from public treasury. Without doubts,
most initiatives in which Laura Bush and
Hillary Clinton were involved as United States
private First Ladies at different times in
American history were well thought out and
designed to add value to the society.
Contrarily, the Nigerian First Ladies are
known for extravagance and they often wield
greater power and influence than the serving
ministers. A good example in mind was the
summit of African First Ladies recently held
in Abuja where over 200 brand new vehicles
were hired for the event. Even with the
government explanation that the vehicles
would be returned to the company from
which they were leased, the action was largely
condemned by the vast majority of Nigerians
as a form of national waste.
Again, the ongoing face-off between the First
Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan and her
predecessor Hajia Turai Yar’Adua over a
choice land allocation in Abuja, the land
meant to be used for their enduring legacy
projects has culminated into litigation.
Whoever wins the media propagandas war or
court litigation between the First Ladies, both
of them in the eye of public are parasites
eating deep into the fabric of the nation.
Of course, it can be seen already that the
office of the First Lady even without
constitutional empowerment has power and
influence considering the circumstance under
which the disputed Abuja land between Turai
and Dame was revoked. In my own view, the
issue is not about who wins and who loses in
the court but it is more or less a shame on the
nation and show the nature of power play at
the presidency.
While acknowledging the successes Dame
Patience Jonathan had made as the current
leader of African First Ladies Peace Mission,
financial recklessness associated with her
leadership roles calls for serious national
concern.
From all indications, Nigerians are tired of
First Lady Initiatives which are being
financed for ego trips with little or no public
value. It is disheartening that most African
First Ladies are guilty of exploiting their
proximity to power to enrich their family,
friends and close associates. Indeed, the office
has constantly been an object of gross abuse.
It is also worthy of note, the underlying
malady of blazing sirens and moving with
rampaging convoys even when going for
shopping; this had indeed fuelled the
discontent against First Lady-ism. And the
odds usually faced by commuters or better still
the traffic chaos associated with unofficial
movement of First Ladies has really
contributed to the opposition against the call
for the constitutional roles for the office of
the First Ladies.
Above all, the office of the First Lady has its
social relevance but lacks the legal framework
to reposition and justify its existence within
the constitutional order.