You are welcome to another big show of oath-taking by elected office holders across the country. Let’s pray it will not eventually be a prototype oath-breaching epidemic as in the past. Call it post 2023 election festivity that is more coloured by a speech rhetoric than actually succumbing to the sanctity and morality of the ritual and the fundamental pillars backing it.
The majorly self-acclaimed and quasi- servants of the people are once again compelled by a constitutional edict to undergo the school of solemnization to protect our common interest. After all, the mandate given to them is always perceived as a cheap commodity that can be consumed at will by ‘mandate consumers’ but protected by ‘mandate preservers’.
From the president to governors, from elected members of the National Assembly to their state counterparts, and from ministers to state commissioners, it is all merry-making oath of allegiance. Family members, relatives, friends and political allies of the oath-carriers are expressing a mood of focundity to observe the formal ritualisation of their loved ones. And in the next few days, more spectacular oaths will be dated for ministers and commissioners of some states.
Philosophical factors for this code of behaviour are not far-fetched. Our leaders are going to lead us with love, piety and fairness even if they are morally bankrupt and unyeilding to our devastated aspirations. They are expected to elevate national interest above theirs. They are to function as our servants not masters. The fear of the wrath of God and the holy books they hold will prevail on them not to go astray in discharging their work. They will also always reflect on the implications of revolting against God and the holy books. This vow of allegiance is also meant to teach them that there will be a day of reckoning when they have to account for probable political brigandage against the nation. But in most cases, all these end in vain.
When oath-takers utter some ‘ jolly’ vocabularies, they make us feel the ‘puritanical beats’ of their hearts. Just like they claim to bear allegiance to the nation, so also we bear witnesses to their oath which is mostly inadequate for want of faithfulness. And the anti oath-taking squad attacks many oath-takers who cannot keep their oath ‘solemnly’ secure and finally, they defect and become oath-breakers with immunity and pomposity.
Two gates exist for actualising oath. One is the front and the other is the back. All oath-takers must enter the first gate and exit in the back one. But before reaching the second, the contents of the oath of many oath-carriers are now squandered. The textual vow hitherto pledged is now corrupted with a new version, a version that is a potential risk to our collective hopes and dreams. By the time they exit the back gate, eventually, their troth has completely lost its essential elements.
Some anthropologists argue that as an ‘act of speech’, oath of office has existed for more than 250 years. Because of unending failure of oath in Nigeria, however, a lawyer, Mr. Darlington Agbale, once suggested for traditional oath-taking. He opined that office holders should swear to gods like Ogun, Sango and Obatala as in Yoruba land because, according to him, these gods are vicious and fierce that any violations of their laws come with dire consequences.
For the coming years, meanwhile, oath-practice will continue to diminish in relevance, for many oath-carriers are not God-centred and religion-compliant. The country can hardly survive their oath of allegiance which lacks national fidelity. But the oath-receivers may continue to survive the allegiance of their self-indulgence. I have already shifted my belief from their oath of office to men of oath, men of reality, reliability and viability, those who can make it even without taking on oath. My strong conviction is in the nobility of the oath-takers and not necessarily the pledge they make.
I guarantee them esteemed regards without affirming to me that they will protect my nation and my interest. This is because it is not the oath that matters to me but the symbolic quality of their character. In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt of America had to take his oath without the Bible. This bears resemblance to what the Chief Judge of Niger state, Justice Aliyu Maiyaki, said three years ago. He described it as unconstitutional for elected and public office holders to swear by the Bible or Quran before assuming office. He disclosed this while swearing-in three new high court judges who took oath of office without holding the Quran or Bible. According to him, what is significant is the faith.
To serve as a monitoring bulwark for the safety of public office, Nigeria needs people of oath and not oath of office holding holy books. Interestingly, the people of oath possess all that is required to fulfill what an oath of office cannot achieve, save and finally actualise its intended outcome. These oath believers risk their personal ego for others. We need them, we want them because oath of office leaves in its wake disgusting ‘rot of office’ “I …..do solemnly swear that….. and, So help me God” is becoming archaic and prosaic. It only gives some oath-carriers an illicit license for multifaceted scandals. It offers them the uncouth training for contempt of religion. Holding a copy of the Quran or Bible to take on oath and later desecrating it is an abominable offence that must cease.
Astonishingly, the ICM religious poll conducted by the BBC in February, 2004, listed Nigeria as the most religious country in the world. This is because over 90 percent of Nigerians in their answer said they were ready to die for their faith. If Muslims and Christians oath-takers are among the percentage of those who can die for their religion, then we will be lucky to have those who can die for Nigeria by doing the needful. In other words, a vow invoking God and holding a holy book is like getting things done in the name of religion, for which the believers are ready to die for their unflinching belief.
After years of inglorious oaths in Nigeria, oath-breaking is becoming the direct product of oath-taking. Yet, we continue to accord oath-taking undeserving merit when the faith of most of us has collapsed. Is it then possible to scrap oath of office and emphasise ‘people of oath’, those who can weather the storm without taking oath?
Abdullahi writes from Ringim, Jigawa state via [email protected]
