Author: The Nation

  • A familiar ban

    A familiar ban

    • Again, police ordered to withdraw personnel from VIPs

    President Bola Tinubu’s directive to the police high command  to withdraw about 100,000 police personnel from VIP security duties, and in its stead develop a community policing strategy, is a welcome idea that must be followed through.  Minister of Police Affairs, Imaan Suleiman-Ibrahim, revealed this at a two-day management retreat at the Ministry of Police Affairs.

    The directive followed the deluge of  requests for policemen by some influential Nigerians. The force has begun the process of recruiting the next batch of policemen.

    Nigeria is one of the most under-policed countries in the world. Ironically, in the last 10 years, the country has also become one of the most insecure, as a result of the activities of Boko Haram, ISWAP, bandits, kidnappers, murderous herdsmen and all sorts of social miscreants that have made the country insecure. As a result of their nefarious activities, some foreign governments have issued warnings to their citizens to limit their movements in the country or avoid visiting certain states entirely.

    But the directive to withdraw police personnel from VIPs is not new. 

     After his inauguration in 2015, former President Muhammadu Buhari  instructed that policemen attached to VIPs be withdrawn. Sunday Arase was the then Inspector-General of Police (IGP). Later, Ibrahim Idris made the same call in 2018. In 2020, Mohammed Adamu, the then IGP also gave the same order shortly after the #EndSARS incident.  In 2021, IGP Baba Alkali Usman gave the same order.

    None of the past instructions worked. This then makes us assume that the latest directive might end up a mere routine. 

    But we do not have to go through this route because there is an urgent need for errors of the past to be corrected.  Maintenance of law and order is one good prerequisite for a functional democracy. The idea that VIPs that are supposed to serve the people are so scared of their own security to demand and pay for extra security at the expense of the general population should be unacceptable.  The people have been shortchanged by those who they elect as leaders but who turn around to monopolise the services of the police personnel, leaving them vulnerable to the social ills that the elected ought to work at fighting.

    Read Also: Nigeria loses $500 yearly to cybercrimes, says Senate

    The sad part of the whole process of police personnel being attached to VIPs is the image that brings to the force. At some point, there were videos of such personnel carrying handbags for some women or holding umbrellas for men, making them more of domestic servants than law enforcement officers.  Some incidents of such police personnel being physically assaulted by their employers have also been reported and this is definitely bad for the image of the police.

    The police must be the police of every citizen and not just policemen for those who can afford to pay extra for their services. It makes better strategic and tactical sense to police communities rather than  allow some citizens monopolise the services of policemen. It even gives a very bad optics that police personnel hang around VIPs in public, and man their houses to the exclusion of the general public. There is probably nowhere else where there is as much abuse of the services of policemen as is seen in Nigeria.

    There must be a structural reorganisation of the system such that people who access power at any level would be made to be responsible enough not to have a sense of exclusive entitlement  to policing.  There must be an urgent solution to make the country more functional to reduce crimes which overstretch police duties. The people are as important as the VIPs that demand exclusive protection from a police force that is not even up to the UN benchmark for policing ratio.

    We commend the fact that the force is planning to recruit more personnel but training them takes time and as such, the already trained ones must be maximally deployed to work for every citizen. Monopolising the police by VIPs  fuels impunity and devalues the police force. The essence of government is the protection of lives and property, and the police force is crucial in achieving these objectives.

  • Kokori’s lamentations

    Kokori’s lamentations

    In what can appropriately pass for lamentations of a former powerful General Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), especially during the June 12, 1993 political crisis in Nigeria, Chief Frank Kokori, a major face of that struggle, is today in pains. He cannot understand how a man like him, whose word was law in that dark era of the nation’s history could have been left or abandoned to his own device at a time he so badly needs the nation.

    Kokori, who has been sick for a while was hospitalised in Warri, Delta State, over kidney-related ailment.

    The elder statesman had told journalists that he was dying, having been abandoned on his hospital bed in a ‘third class’ health facility.

    The septuagenarian chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) told the journalists that they should announce to the world that he had died and risen. 

    “I have something to tell this country, please. Please, do your best. Tell the world that Kokori is dead and risen. The only man in Warri that can handle kidney problems is Horeb Hospital, Warri,” Kokori said. He added: “But I am facing other challenges. The air conditioner is not working…What a country! Mobilise yourselves. I have something to tell this country, please. Please, do your best.”

    Chief Kokori is particularly irked with NUPENG. “I’ve called on NUPENG that this is what they’ve done to their leaders. That NUPENG could not even take care of me. It’s sad. God bless everybody,” he concluded the ‘press briefing’.

    Without doubt, Chief Kokori’s contribution to the exit of soldiers from our political life cannot be denied; not even by those who may not like his face or his guts. When NUPENG sneezed in the course of the June 12 struggle, even the then military rulers caught cold. The late head of state, General Sani Abacha, in particular would not forget Kokori in a hurry if only the dead could see. Several times Kokori called out the powerful NUPENG out on strike and several times did he succeed. Without petroleum products that were NUPENG’s source of strength, it was a matter of time for socio-economic activities to be paralysed nationwide whenever Kokori barked. 

    As a matter of fact, the military rulers at some point began to see him as an irritant and pollutant that should be kept out of circulation in their interest. 

    Read Also: How Tinubu is fighting insecurity, by Gbajabiamila

    For a man who did so much to enthrone democratic rule that we are enjoying today, is Kokori asking for too much?

    The answer is neither here nor there. While some may see his statement as an unwarranted sense of entitlement, others are likely to see it as normal, especially in our kind of clime that does not often reward diligence and hard work. The fact is; many people are working in Nigeria today, but how many earn salaries that can actually take them home? It is only people who earn living wage that can talk of saving for the future. 

    Save for some of our athletes who are generally rewarded either by the government, corporate organisations or philanthropic individuals, many others have nothing to fall back on even after working for years. Hence, their resort to appeals to whoever might have been led in the spirit to help them in their hour of need.

    But such ‘indecent’ begging would have been unnecessary if only there are safety valves. These are generally lacking in the country, whether for the old or young; the able or the physically challenged. 

    We commend Delta State Governor Sheriff Oborevwori who transcended partisan walls to visit and pay his bills. Not even his APC chieftains in the state or on the federal level has woken up to his emergency.

    Septuagenarians like Kokori can no longer fend for themselves. They should be taken care of by the government. This is where a thing like health insurance comes in. While those in paid employment contribute a certain percentage of their salaries to this scheme, and can therefore access medical care at affordable charges, the aged should be fully taken care of by the government.

    We are aware that some help has reached Chief Kokori, probably after he cried out over his plight. Commendable as this is; it is not enough. We need institutional frameworks to take care of a case like this.

  • Prioritizing nomadic schools for development

    Prioritizing nomadic schools for development

    • By Maryam Yusuf

    Sir: The prevalent issues of kidnapping, conflicts between farmers and herdsmen, and communal disputes are often rooted in illiteracy, greed, envy, and a deficient education structure, especially in nomadic education. A significant portion of crimes in Nigeria is committed by uneducated individuals.

    Education activist Malala Yousafzai’s assertion that ‘education is the best weapon to fight terrorism’ underscores the vital role education plays in achieving peace. Despite government spending on the defence ministry, Nigeria struggles to attain peace due to existing education challenges.

    Recognizing the importance of education, the United Nations has reaffirmed it as the fundamental building block of every society. It is considered the single best investment countries can make for a prosperous, healthy, and equitable society. Access to quality education is recognized as a fundamental human right and is enshrined in the Sustainable Development Goal number 4.

    However, the alarming number of out-of-school children in Nigeria, currently around 20 million according to UNESCO as of October 2022, remains a significant impediment to achieving a peaceful environment. This number has doubled since the 10.5 million recorded by UNICEF in 2020.

    The collapse of primary education, particularly nomadic education, is a major contributor to the prevailing conflicts, kidnappings, and communal disputes in Nigeria. Giving more attention to nomadic schools could be the key to resolving these issues.

    Read Also: Nigeria loses $500 yearly to cybercrimes, says Senate

    Many herders involved in physical confrontations with farmers lack education and orientation on the value of human lives and peaceful coexistence. Neglect by the government and a lack of abundant grazing land contribute to conflicts between herders and farmers.

    Although the nomadic education system was fully established during the Ibrahim Babangida regime with the aim of providing relevant and functional basic education, it is currently non-existent in Nigeria. The neglect of nomads has led to their engagement in criminal activities, further exacerbating the conflict between herders and farmers.

    To address the ongoing insecurity in the nation, the government must prioritize and improve nomadic education. Educating and orienting nomads on the value of human lives, while equipping them with skills to enhance their standard of living, is crucial to mitigating conflicts and fostering national development.

    These individuals possess hidden potential that can contribute positively to society. By neglecting them, the government risks perpetuating destructive behaviours in our communities.

    •Maryam Yusuf,

    University of Maiduguri.

  • Lingering challenge of banditry in Katsina

    Lingering challenge of banditry in Katsina

    • By Abdulsalam Mulima

    Sir: Katsina State, nestled in Nigeria’s northwest, has been marred by the haunting presence of bandits, unleashing a wave of terror and instability. The once-peaceful state, known for its rich cultural heritage and vibrant communities, is now grappling with the menacing activities of criminal elements, leaving residents in a state of fear and uncertainty. The government’s response to this escalating crisis has been met with both commendation and criticism, raising questions about the efficacy of its strategies and the plight of affected communities.

    Banditry in Katsina is a multifaceted issue, deeply rooted in a complex web of socio-economic challenges. The region’s porous borders, vast ungoverned spaces, and limited economic opportunities have contributed to the rise of these criminal elements. Initially, banditry was synonymous with cattle rustling, a traditional practice that took a violent turn, evolving into kidnappings for ransom, armed robbery, and attacks on communities.

    The bandits, often operating in forests and rural areas, have exploited the vulnerabilities within the society, sowing seeds of terror and disrupting the normalcy of daily life. Communities have been subjected to gruesome attacks, abduction of schoolchildren, and destruction of property, instilling a sense of insecurity and despair among residents.

    The government’s response has been a mixed bag of efforts. The deployment of security forces to affected areas, including the establishment of military operations and joint task forces, was aimed at curbing the activities of these criminal groups. Furthermore, dialogues and amnesty programs were initiated to encourage bandits to lay down their arms and embrace peace.

    However, challenges persist. The vastness of the affected regions makes it difficult for security forces to cover every inch, providing bandits with opportunities to regroup and strike. Moreover, the lack of adequate resources, including modern equipment and trained personnel, has hampered the effectiveness of these security measures.

    Read Also: Oyetola gives marching orders to NPA, NIMASA, SON, NIWA

    The government’s approach of combining military actions with dialogue and amnesty programs has garnered mixed reactions. While some see it as a necessary step towards peace and reconciliation, others criticize it as a sign of weakness, arguing that it could embolden bandits and undermine law and order.

    Beyond the headlines, the banditry crisis has plunged communities into a humanitarian catastrophe. The constant threat of attacks has led to the displacement of thousands of people, forcing them to abandon their homes and seek refuge in overcrowded camps or distant towns. This mass displacement has resulted in a strain on already limited resources, leading to food shortages, inadequate healthcare, and a dire lack of educational opportunities, especially for children.

    The psychological toll on the affected population cannot be overstated. The trauma of living under constant fear, coupled with the loss of loved ones and livelihoods, has left deep scars on the fabric of these communities. The resilience of the people amidst such adversity is both inspiring and heart-breaking.

    Addressing the banditry crisis in Katsina demands a holistic approach that goes beyond military actions. Economic revitalization, infrastructural development, and community engagement are crucial components of any sustainable solution. Investing in education and job creation programs can provide alternatives to vulnerable youth who might otherwise be lured into the folds of the bandits.

    Moreover, strengthening security measures must be complemented by addressing the root causes of banditry, such as poverty, marginalization, and lack of governance. The government’s efforts should also prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of former bandits into society, offering them a chance to lead dignified lives away from crime.

    The banditry crisis in Katsina presents a formidable challenge to the government, testing its ability to protect its citizens and restore peace in the region. While military operations remain crucial in combating the immediate threat, long-term solutions necessitate a comprehensive approach that addresses socio-economic grievances and fosters community resilience. The road ahead may be arduous, but concerted efforts and sustained commitment are imperative to bring hope back to the people of Katsina.

    •Abdulsalam Mulima,

     Borno State University, Maiduguri.

  • Why Nigeria should exercise caution on EU-ACP treaty

    Why Nigeria should exercise caution on EU-ACP treaty

    • By Samuel Jekeli

    Sir: Nigeria, as a key player in the international arena, often finds itself at the crossroads of various global agreements and treaties. One such agreement that has sparked significant debate and deliberation is the proposed treaty between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States (ACP). While international partnerships offer numerous benefits, it is crucial for Nigeria to carefully assess the implications before committing to such agreements

    One of the primary reasons for caution lies in the potential for increased economic dependency. Proponents argue that the treaty could open up markets and promote economic growth. However, there is a risk that Nigeria could become overly dependent on the EU, potentially leading to economic vulnerabilities. Unequal power dynamics in trade relations could compromise Nigeria’s economic sovereignty, limiting its ability to pursue independent economic policies.

    The EU-ACP treaty could exacerbate existing trade imbalances. The EU, as a highly developed economic bloc, may have the upper hand in negotiations, potentially leading to terms that favour European interests. Nigeria must carefully evaluate the proposed trade arrangements to ensure they are mutually beneficial and promote equitable economic development.

    Signing the EU-ACP treaty may expose local industries to stiff competition from more advanced European counterparts. This could jeopardize the growth and sustainability of Nigerian industries, leading to job losses and hindered economic diversification. Protective measures must be in place to shield vulnerable sectors and ensure a gradual and sustainable transition.

    The agricultural sector, a crucial component of Nigeria’s economy, could face challenges under the EU-ACP treaty. The influx of subsidized European agricultural products might undermine the competitiveness of local farmers. This could have detrimental effects on food security and the livelihoods of those dependent on agriculture. Safeguards must be established to protect local farmers and ensure a fair playing field.

    Committing to the EU-ACP treaty may necessitate aligning domestic policies with EU standards and regulations. While harmonization can foster cooperation, it may also limit Nigeria’s policy autonomy. Striking a balance between international cooperation and safeguarding national interests is imperative to ensure that Nigeria’s policies remain tailored to its unique socio-economic context.

    The EU-ACP treaty involves more than just economic considerations. It has political implications that could impact Nigeria’s sovereignty. The alignment of foreign policies and the influence of external actors on domestic affairs should be scrutinized to ensure that Nigeria’s political autonomy is preserved.

    Read Also: Nigeria loses $500 yearly to cybercrimes, says Senate

    Nigeria must assess whether the terms of the treaty align with its commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Any agreement should contribute positively to social development, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability. Ensuring that the treaty supports Nigeria’s long-term development goals is crucial for its overall success.

    The EU-ACP treaty may have environmental repercussions that need careful consideration. Trade agreements often involve the exchange of goods and services that impact the environment. Nigeria should assess the environmental sustainability of the proposed treaty and ensure that it aligns with its environmental conservation goals.

    While international treaties and agreements can offer opportunities for economic growth and collaboration, it is paramount for Nigeria to approach the EU-ACP treaty with a discerning eye. The potential economic, political, and social implications require careful consideration to safeguard Nigeria’s national interests. Balancing the desire for international cooperation with the imperative to protect domestic industries and autonomy is essential for ensuring a mutually beneficial agreement. As Nigeria contemplates its position on the EU-ACP treaty, a thorough and transparent assessment of the potential risks and benefits is indispensable for making informed and strategic decisions in the best interest of the nation.

    •Samuel Jekeli,

    Centre for Social Justice, Abuja.

  • Can Nigeria be great again? My personal observation

    I have been engaged with my children and my former students on the question of whether our country was once great. And if it was, whether it can be great again? That’s the question. My answers to these loaded questions are in the affirmative. The genesis of my answer has been to agree at the point of when Nigeria was once great and to identify the point of decline and what it can and it must do to get us back to the correct trajectory of positive development in the journey to greatness.

    Not everybody will agree with even the primary part of the question. There are people who still believe that the concept of Nigeria ab initio is false and that the country was and is still a geographical expression! My answer is that most countries in the world are geographical expressions and that no country was divinely created and leaders had had to fight for them. Great nations like the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, China,  Canada, India, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others had had to be forced into being or made to evolve from larger empires and political configurations. 

    The fact of where each nation began is a matter of history. There is no end to the argument of whether a state is artificial or natural. I think 1960, the year of independence of Nigeria constitutes the beginning of our journey to nationhood. The beginning is however not the ending. The Chinese say that the journey of a thousand miles necessarily begins with the first steps. It is obvious to us still alive, that the constitution that took us to independence should have been confederal instead of being federal which gave the federal authority power of intervention in the governance and police affairs of the regions. But faulty as it might have been, if the politicians had been men of vision, we would not have had the crisis in the Western Region in which the government at the centre made up two rival political parties to the one in the Western Region, used police powers to impose its will on the Western Region whose resistance to federal intervention led to violence and break down of law and order which precipitated a military coup d’état by the small army of less than 10,000 soldiers. The fact that the constitution of the federal army was lopsidedly made up of persons favourable to the political desire of those at the federal level constituted the point of decline of Nigeria. In other words, Nigeria had not had time to fully attain its greatness when the whole thing was truncated in 1966 January coup d’état .The period of this potential greatness was not more than two years after independence climaxing at the Action Group crisis of 1962 and the declaration of emergency rule in western Nigeria by the federal government in 1963, marking the departure from constitutional rule climaxing in the army’s successful putsch in January 15 1966. This derailment what was essentially a collapse of a house of cards. This was however bemoaned by friends of Nigeria at home and abroad, captured and captivated by the appearance of a large and thriving democracy on an insurgent African continent during the historic global contest between democracy and free enterprise versus dictatorship of proletarian communism.

    Nigeria fought a bitter civil war between 1967 and 1970 in which the internal contradictions of the country were then exploited by the global political rivals but which eventually resolved in favour of the western alliance of free enterprise and anti-communist Islam. This also coincided with the huge accrual from sale of hydrocarbons which made reconstruction, rehabilitation and reunification of the country possible from 1970 to about 1980 when the country had a second chance at democratic renewal. The point I am making is that the road the country missed in 1966 was again made open to it when the military, not by conviction but mounting power struggle at home and pressure from abroad, forced the Obasanjo’s government to transmit power to Shehu Shagari in 1979.

    The period of decline temporarily ended in 1979 and the latency of greatness which had remained during the dark days of Nigeria was given a fillip by the restoration of democracy in 1979.

    Read Also: How Tinubu is fighting insecurity, by Gbajabiamila

    The constitution under which this government was meant to function was the revamped unitary grundnorm otherwise known as Decree 34 imposed by General Johnson Aguiyi Ironsi  which dissolved the federating four regions of Nigeria into unitary government of several provinces . Of course, not many people knew this at the time, but the difference was between six and half a dozen. General Ironsi seemed in retrospect to have been sacrificed for a form of constitutional structure favourable to those who captured power at the centre because all the governments from Yakubu Gowon to Ibrahim Babangida, and other military rulers governed the country under this constitution and nothing has changed till this day. The changing of guard and revolving door of one military ruler from Buhari to Babangida, Abacha, and Abdul Salami for almost two decades was all part of keeping power in “safe” hands. When the military first came into government, it was triggered by youthful exuberance; this idealistic leadership was soon neutralised by their seniors who were manipulated by those who felt they knew what was desirable for the country and by traditional/ religious leadership of the country who if not directly but secretly, co-opted into power, could have made the country hot for the younger military rulers. At least they can beat their chest that they gave their one country back undivided to the politicians to have a second go at governance. The country they gave back to the civilians was a hollowed out structure. The rule of the gun had made corruption easy because no one could challenge a man holding a gun to the head of an accountant asking for cheques transferring to officers of government, money to be quickly signed. This led to a senior army officer saying the situation in the army in the 1990s was a situation of an army in which anything goes!  The appearance of democracy from 1999 to the end of Buhari’s so-called democratic regime was a military mirage not a democratic reality. Presidents like Obasanjo and Buhari remained essentially military men in democratic toga of agbada and Babanriga, wielding almost total control of power and responsibility and with whom they shared the power with. This situation presumably ended in May 2023.

    The new Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration, we have been told, is a regime of renewal and we should trust the president not to forget his promises to the nation. He has publicly stated just last week at the NESG that he has made mistakes in the past and who hasn’t? And he is not above mistakes now but he is running a collective government and he wants to be corrected if he makes any mistakes in his current role as driver of a movement of renewal. If he sticks to this promise and makes access to those in government possible to those outside it, then I believe that Nigeria can be great again. 

    The future of the country belongs to all of us and not to any particular regime or ethnicity. The world will pass the black people bye unless we wake up in time. Look at where the Japanese, Chinese and Indians are today and the Arabs are not far behind. We blacks are the only laggards manning the rear. If we do not want to be remembered as freaks of nature or mistake of creation, we just have to buck up and tie our shoe laces for the present race of competition in the world. If we agree that Nigeria is at a critical state in the black world, then we must join with President Tinubu and forget the differences among the various ethnicities and fight together for the soul of our potentially great country whose greatness continually lies in its latency. We know when we deviated from the path of greatness. We must go back to the beginning and have a confederal constitution instead of four regions but of perhaps six regions and tinker with other areas of governance borne out of experience since 1960. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should lead by example and God can use anybody to achieve His divine mission. He should call to order any erring governor, minister and chairman of council that he has a covenant to change Nigeria and to start the building of a new Nigeria. Things will not be easy but let’s begin. If he succeeds history will be very kind to him and to all who rally round him to accomplish this mission but if he fails then we all fail with him and there would be no room for excuses! This is why we must all watch with eagle eyes!

  • Election, unsigned ballots and law

    Election, unsigned ballots and law

    Elections worldwide are guided by laws. They are not conducted on a whim. The laws cover the contestants, the voters and the umpire. The laws are not for decoration; they are to ensure the credibility of the exercise.

    Elections are serious business. They are fought with all that the contestants have – money, men and materials. While the contestants strategise on how to win, the umpire worries about the freeness and fairness of the exercise.

    The umpire is key to the success and transparency of the election. The umpire could be an individual or an institution and integrity must be the umpire’s watchword. In Nigeria, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which has become known by various names under different stages of our political evolution, handles elections.

    The umpire has never come under fire as it is now experiencing. What are its sins? While not defending INEC, it must be stated that in most cases, many of its accusers are just criticising the agency because they lost. Where they won, their verdict usually is, it did well. Sadly, they have transferred their aggression to the court, which is now being dragged all over the place for following the law stricto sensu.

    The laws guiding elections are unique. This is why election cases are described as sui generis (in a class of their own). To win an election case, the petitioner must prove that it was not conducted in substantial compliance with the law. But in most cases, this has become a dilemma. In the circumstance, the court has no choice than to throw out the case.

    That the court cannot take the place of the electorate is not debatable. It is not the court’s duty to elect people, but it is its job to determine the winner of an election in any dispute before it. It is not an interference when the court does that, but part of the process as enshrined in law. It is like that too in other parts of the world. But unlike us, most times, their elections end up at the polls and not in the court. Losers accept defeat and move on.

    Who do we blame that the reverse is the case here? Nobody, as it is the right of the loser to go to court. However, what is not right is not to accept the court’s verdict and then resort to malign the judges, with lawyers in full support. The judges did not enact the law; their job is to interpret it and in doing so, if they observe any flaw, they can point it out. One interesting aspect of the Electoral Act which has come under intense scrutiny of late is Section 63.

    It is on the strength of this provision that the tribunal sitting in Kano invalidated the election of Governor Abba Yusuf of the New Nigerian Peoples Party (NNPP). The tribunal found that 165,000 ballot papers did not bear the INEC seal nor were they signed by the presiding officer at the polling units where they were used. As a way of maintaining the integrity of the election, the law empowers the court to invalidate such votes and deduct them from the total scores.

    The tribunal did precisely that and Yusuf’s total votes dropped sharply. His loss became the gain of Nasiru Gawuna of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who the tribunal subsequently declared winner of the election.

    Read Also: Nigeria loses $500 yearly to cybercrimes, says Senate

    To some senior lawyers, such as Femi Falana, that amounted to sanctioning 165,000 voters for some electoral officers’ error. How? He did not say. Does he have evidence that the electoral officers issued those ballot papers? Did they match the ones in INEC’s booklet? Where did they come from, if they were not issued by the electoral officers and did not match those in the booklet? Did Falana consider all these before lashing the tribunal for invalidating Yusuf’s election because of the unsigned ballot papers, which may eventually turn out to be fake?

    I can see where Falana is coming from, though. His thinking is that the voters could not have come into possession of those ballot papers without the electoral officers’ knowledge. This will be true to the extent that the ballot papers were obtained at the polling unit and from the right source. But where the process is compromised and party faithful allowed to take over at polling centres, can the court be blamed for invoking the law accordingly?

    Clearly, something went wrong in those polling units, which may be beyond the power of the presiding officers, except if they were part of it. Where then is the fault of the tribunal in all these? I hope Falana is not  saying that it should have looked the other way and aided and abetted electoral offence in clear violation of the law?

    According to Section 63 (1) of the Electoral Act: Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear the official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted. In Section 65 (1), the law allows the returning officer to take final decision on the issue subject to a review within seven days by INEC. After seven days, INEC becomes functus officio and can no longer so act, leaving only the court with the power to do so as contained in Section 65 (2):

    A decision of the returning officer under subsection (1) may be reviewed by an election tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction in an election petition proceedings under this Act.

    The Kano tribunal acted under the ambit of this provision. To say that the court should shut its eyes to the use of unsigned ballot papers is to encourage electoral malpractice. The user and the provider of such ballot papers should answer for their action and the beneficiary deprived the fruit of an unjust victory. 

  • Israel’s war on Hamas and hypocrisy of Europe and allies

    Despite admonition by their philosophers including Jean-Jacques Rousseau that “all men are born equal and free”, and Immanuel Kant who insisted human beings must be regarded as “rational beings equally worthy of dignity and respect” and their creation of a new god called democracy which presupposes  that “all people are equal and are entitled to equal respect”, man is neither free nor equal in Europe. And because they are in bondage, for them, it is the survival of the fittest where the strong survives and the weak dies (the law of the jungle).

    From their historical trajectory, not many will disagree that the west and its allies that often behave like bandits are duplicitous. We only need to cast our minds back to how, driven by hunger, they came to Africa in search of food, gold and honour. But having discovered our superior social organization, they chose to exploit our humanity by embarking on Trans-Atlantic slave trade that saw 3.5m able-bodied Nigerians shipped to their plantations in North and South America and the Caribbean. In the guise of ending the evil slave trade they started, they embarked on a war of survival of the fittest starting in Lagos through Benin to Sokoto. Their objective was continuation of exploitation through colonization.

    But if anyone is still in doubt that Europe and its cousins in America are governed by the law of the jungle, he should take another look at the ongoing Israeli’s one-sided war on Hamas and the daily massacre of women and children caged in an enclave called Gaza while the sing song of Europe and its allies is “Israel has the right to defend itself” even as the rest of the world who watched in horror called for an end to hostility.

    Even with the death of about 15,000 Palestinians half of them women and children killed through Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, refugees camps and UN and mission run schools where the victims sought refuge, neither stone-faced Netanyahu nor his western promoters remember Moses’ law of ‘an eye for an eye’ proportionality in the mission to avenge the killing of 1,400 Israelis by Hamas.

    To expose the hypocrisy of Britain and its cousins, let us now take a journey through memory.

    Israeli Arab crisis started when ‘Europeanised’ Jews, strangers to Palestine who were trying to escape pogroms and persecution in Eastern Europe started to migrate back to what was then the Ottoman Empire with the help of Zionist groups in the 19th century. The Balfour Declaration by the British government in 1917 in support of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine was followed by United Nations vote in 1947 to partition land in the British mandate of Palestine into two states – one Jewish, one Arab. Arab resisted the arrangement but in the ensuing violence, Israel with the help of America and Zionist movement prevailed and went on to expel about700, 000 Palestinians from their land captured by Israelis while Arabs that remained in Israel as citizens were subjected to official discrimination with their constituencies deliberately kept poor and underfunded.

     Israel has since its 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip anchored on the need for self-defence against a stateless caged people without an army, air force or navy violated about 28 UN resolutions. For 56 years, Israel with the support of US and Europe denied Palestinians the right to self-determination, the control over basic aspect of daily life which left youths with only a sense of hopelessness and frustration.

     Israel violated  (Article 1 of Universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) that says “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights; Article 2, that says “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration” . Article 4, which says  “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude”, Article 5 that says  “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and  Article 9 which says  “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”. 

    Read Also: How Tinubu is fighting insecurity, by Gbajabiamila

    Israel  breached  Article 14& 51(1945)  for  her illegal annexation and occupation of Palestinians land by force in 1948 and 1967 wars and Article 49(6)(1949) which makes it illegal for Israel to displace indigenous people by building settlement to displace indigenous people on their land.

    The United Nations has accused the US of encouraging Israel to “pursue aggressive and expansionist policies and practices in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for vetoing about 40 UN resolutions against Israel”. Different UN bodies have similarly pointed out violation of human rights of Palestinians on a massive scale including ‘torture, imprisonment without charges or trial and confiscation, harassment at checkpoints, unwarranted civilian shootings, not punishing Israeli  settlers’ crime against Palestinians, unwarranted disruption of medical care, commerce, employment, free movement, destruction of public and private properties family separation etc.”,  while the US and Europe blindly supported Israel.

    But both were to express an outrage when Hamas, widely believed to be a creation of Israel that first recognised Mujama al-Islamiya as a way of undermining support for the PLO, played into the hands of Netanyahu who as opposition leader killed the Oslo Accord after the assassination of Rabin. Hamas launched an unprecedented assault on Israel on October 7, killing women, children, elderly and the disabled”. The murderous assault was widely condemned by the whole world except China and Russia that blamed the US and Europe for the tragedy.

    However, instead of taking responsibility for their failed policies in the Middle East, the US, the European Union and other Western countries not only condemned the Hamas attack on Israel, but also promised support in terms of logistics, intelligence, additional equipment, air defence missiles, guided bombs and ammunition, all against a rag tag Hamas fighters facing massive bombing and assault by hundreds of tanks.

    With no power, water, food, communication or safe haven in Gaza as dead bodies of unknown children are buried under rubbles of bombed hospitals, refugee camps or UN schools where they sought refuge, UK and US and their allies would not call for a cease-fire as they watch full effect of visiting law of the jungle on innocent Palestinians.

    Hypocritical  UK, US and France and other allies that are today providing arms, finance and logistics for a nuclear power at war with a people caged in an enclave with no escape route and  tolerated Palestinian 56 years siege, had no problem arming Ukraine against Russian invasion, manipulating a UN resolution on disarmament to murder Saddam Hussein even when as it turned out Iraq had no weapon of mass destruction and in sponsoring Resolution 1973 of 17 March 2011, the legal basis for military intervention in Libya ostensibly for protecting civilians but in fact designed to  kill Gadhafi.

    While to Britain and its allies, “all men are not born equal and free”, neither Libyan, Palestinian nor even Ukrainian civilians really matter. They are just tools in the pursuit of their national selfish interest.

  • NLC and TUC’s unionism by hypocrisy

    NLC and TUC’s unionism by hypocrisy

    • By Jude Ndukwe

    The Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC and the Trade Union Congress, TUC, embarked on a nationwide strike on Tuesday November 14, and after the intervention of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, and the Minister of Labour and Employment, Simon Lalong, called it off two days later. 
    The reasons for the strike according to labour leaders was the needless brutalisation of the NLC President, Joe Ajaero and other labour leaders in Imo State on November 1, by people suspected to be agents of government who were averse to the mission of the labour leaders in the state; outstanding salary arrears owed Imo workers, unjust declaration of 11,000 workers in the state as ghost employees, unsettled gratuities, non-compliance with N30,000 Minimum Wage Act, and declaration of 10,000 pensioners as ghost retirees.
    While one might be tempted to view the labour leaders’ mission in Imo State as pristine, the underlying factors are what give them out as hypocrites who have politicised unionism to achieve parochial political interests.
    It is believed in some quarters, and perhaps rightly so, that the timing of the actions of the labour leaders in Imo State was tailored to coincide with the November 11 governorship election in the state so as to discredit the incumbent, APC’s Hope Uzodinma and shore up the ratings of Labour Party’s Athan Achonu before the voting public. That seems to be the crux of the whole shenanigan by the labour leaders. The other issues surrounding workers’ welfare in the state were just a smokescreen which Ajaero and his cohorts deployed to suit their narratives and justify their actions.
    This is so because the current leadership of NLC and TUC have paraded themselves unapologetically like a people in bed with the Labour Party since the run up to the last general elections till now. To them, any political party that is not Labour Party must be discredited in any state where they have any glimmer of hope of winning election especially in the southeast.
    Their last mission to Imo State was certainly not in public interest but in party interest. It was the basest politicisation and weaponisation of unionism in the history of our nation. 
    This is not to justify the unleashing of thugs to dehumanise anybody not to talk of leaders of unions as ubiquitous as the NLC and TUC. Such attacks only aggravate rather than alleviate issues. It should never have happened. It further widens the schism between government and workers and can be used as an excuse by workers to foreclose any form of dialogue with government. Such brutalisation belong in the stone age and should not be witnessed in our society governed by laws. Every citizen irrespective of their affiliations and views deserve government protection and where one is suspected to be going over the line, there are laid down procedures to rein in such a person rather than resort to self-help. Two wrongs do not make a right!
    Having said that, it is pertinent to state that one wonders where Joe Ajaero and his team were when the governor of Abia State, Alex Otti sacked about 10,000 workers in one fell swoop for no good reason other than that they were employed by the previous administration? The careers of many senior civil servants including directors have been cut short with suspensions and forced retirements under cloudy circumstances. And even at that, Abia workers who escaped being sacked have had their salaries slashed significantly leading to several protests by pockets of workers in the state including a time they had to block the office of the state’s accountant-general to drive home their points.
    At some point, pensioners also had to cry out against the ill-treatment meted out to them by the Alex Otti’s administration. 
    In all of these, Ajaero pretended like he was no longer the president of NLC and abdicated his responsibilities to Abia workers by turning blind eyes and deaf ears to the workers’ plight simply because Otti runs a government of the Labour Party. To Ajaero and his team, Otti’s inhuman treatments of workers cannot be challenged as long as the government is not run by the PDP or APC. To them, everything LP is perfect even if their members, the workers are being grossly short-changed.
    This practise of unionism by hypocrisy took a turn for the worse when Ajaero led his team to Imo State to protest against the governor, Uzodimma for alleged industrial breaches far less in magnitude and effect than those committed by Otti in Abia State. The timing of the planned industrial action in Imo State on the eve of a crucial governorship election was a well-planned but failed political move by leadership of the labour unions and the Labour Party which they have sympathy for to diminish Uzodimma’s ratings before the workers who form a critical mass of electorate in the state. 
    To further give credence to this shenanigan, Alex Otti had in the run up to the November 11 governorship election in Imo State brazenly ordered Uzodimma to prepare his handover note to the candidate of Labour Party, Achonu. His plans as the only governor of Labour Party in the entire country was clear: deploy the same strategy used in Abia for the Imo State election. 

    Read Also: Nigeria loses $500 yearly to cybercrimes, says Senate

    In the run up to the March 18 governorship election in Abia, labour unions in the state were allegedly compromised and used by the Labour Party to instigate workers against the then state government led by the PDP, to discredit that administration so as to pave the way for the election of Labour Party’s Alex Otti. 
    The same strategy was planned for Imo State with Joe Ajaero appointed to lead the charge. Unfortunately for him, Imolites do not accept such extraneous interferences in their election processes. It did not end well for him and his team. 
    The subsequent nationwide strike action by NLC and TUC was just a face-saving measure by the unions. The other issues given as reasons for the action were mere appendages used to pull the wool over the people’s eyes.
    Such politicisation of unionism in our clime should come to an end forthwith if the unions were to regain the kind of respect Nigerians had for them in the not-too-distant past having contributed in no small measure to the end of military dictatorship in Nigeria. Their value before Nigerians, it will seem to discerning Nigerians, has been on a consistent downward slide since the emergence of the Fourth Republic. Ajaero and other leaders of workers’ unions in the country have a lot of work to do to regain the confidence of the people as unions that truly represent and pursue the interests of Nigerian workers everywhere irrespective of party affiliation or such other parochial considerations. They must be consistent with their struggle and stop being selective in their fight to improve the overall welfare of workers. They must not be seen to be fighting for the welfare of workers in Imo State simply because a certain Hope Uzodinma of the APC is the governor while they ignore an even worse plight of workers in Abia State simply because a certain Alex Otti of the Labour Party is the governor.
    NLC and TUC should respect the age-long saying that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. Anything other than that is unionism by hypocrisy, and that will lead to a gradual driving of the nail into the coffins of the unions. 
    •Ndukwe sent this piece from Abuja.

  • Nwabueze: The quintessential public intellectual

    Nwabueze: The quintessential public intellectual

    • By Solomon Ukhuegbe

    On July 18, 2013, at 82, he publicly asked God to spare his life for five or possibly more years to complete the tasks he set for himself on this earth. He had already achieved so much but felt that his country still needed his intellectual guidance, especially to reorder our political order. His achievements were almost too numerous for even his acolytes to keep track of. But his energy was boundless even as age and ailment gradually took their toll. “The fact that I’m incapacitated by illness, which makes me not strong to stand on my feet to address this gathering,” he said on the occasion, “doesn’t mean that I’m ready to go. I hope to live up to 90 years.” That was an underestimate. He lived to 92. Merciful God gave him twice as much time as he requested. Perhaps God knew that Nigeria needed the man for a little while longer. On October 29, 2023, it was over. Who was this man?

    I cannot recall what day it was in 1987. The third Idigbe Memorial Lecture to be delivered by Professor Nwabueze was scheduled for the day. He was expected to speak on the topic “Transition from Military Rule to Constitutional Democracy.’ The lecture did not take place. He arrived at the venue inside the University of Benin promptly. But the audience, better accustomed to “African time,” did not. He could not accept that situation, and he returned to his private lodging at the other end of town. This remains the only Idigbe Memorial Lecture that was not orally delivered. I in the company of Professor Itse Sagay chased after our guest. Unable to persuade him to return to campus to give the lecture (though he was gracious to enough to accept our apologies for the disappointment), the occasion turned into a courtesy visit of sorts. At this time, Professor Nwabueze’s fame, especially for constitutional law, had reached the ends of the earth. He had, by my recollection, already published nearly ten major titles on the subject since the first was published in 1964.

    The academic who aspires to play the role of public intellectual, according to Richard Posner, will need communication skills and authority. “Specialization makes it difficult to write for a general audience. His orientation is towards writing for his fellow specialists on narrow topics in an esoteric jargon. For jargon is the natural language when people communicate primarily with members of an in-group.” Nwabueze’s works were very readable and always appear to be written for a general audience than as specialist works, and he probably always intended them to be so. For that reason, he captivated an audience far wider than his specialization of law and government. He vigorously pushed his views publicly at almost every opportunity from the mid-1960s until only a few years ago through frequent public lectures and speeches, books and essays, newspaper articles and interviews, and above all, active participation in constitutional reform and constitution-writing.

    Before he was a public intellectual, he was a scholar. He distinguished himself as a student, both at the London School of Economics and Political Science, where he completed his LL.B. and LL.M. degrees, and the bar examination, respectively. He was commended by one of his teachers, the eminent English constitutionalist Professor Stanley Alexander de Smith FBA (1922-1974) for being the student who “scored the highest mark ever awarded by the University of London in the LL.M. Examinations in the constitutional law of the Commonwealth,” a course that Professor de Smith newly introduced at the university. Nwabueze’s career as an academic began at the University of Lagos in 1962. Before then, his only teaching experience was one year teaching LL.B. students at the Holborn College of Law. In addition, he previously had another one-year experience as a secondary school mathematics teacher in Eastern Nigeria during 1955-1956. After completing his LL.M., he registered for a PhD at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London in 1961with the expectation to work on a dissertation on “The Position of Chiefs under the Laws of Eastern Nigeria” with Professor Tony Allot as his supervisor.

    He never completed the PhD. Because the following year, he was recruited by former teacher and dean of law at the London School of Economics, Professor Gower to teach at the University of Lagos, where the professor had been appointed to establish a faculty of law. Thus, Nwabueze was among the foundation lecturers of the University of Lagos.

    Nwabueze’s career at the University of Lagos ended abruptly with the closure of the University in 1965 in the wake of the Eni Njoku-Biobaku crisis, which resulted in the departure of all lecturers and students of Eastern Region origin from the University for the University of Nigeria. At the end of the Civil War,     he left for the University of Zambia only to return to the University of Nigeria in 1975 but quickly retired. He was only 44 years old. While some of his greatest works were already published, he would live for nearly a half century longer, during which he produced three times as many books as he did as a university teacher.

    Read Also: How Tinubu is fighting insecurity, by Gbajabiamila

    Nwabueze published a total of about two dozen titles including a few multi-volume books. Yet, his greatest work may be among the half dozen titles he published by 1975. He felt Nigerian Land Law was “considered by many as the most scholarly of my works.” But he personally judged his more recent two-volume Colonialism in Africa: Ancient and Modern (2005) “the best of my books.” The reason why the former is so highly rated is obvious. Land law is a terror to many a law student, especially the abstruse labyrinths of the English tenure system and estates.

    Regrets.

    Nigeria’s present Constitution has been much criticized for its adequacies, and Nwabueze was one of the principal authors of the Constitution of 1979, which the present Constitution closely replicates. What is peculiar about the critique is that Nwabueze was among the leading critics. This was not simply self-criticism but a total disavowal of his previous position, root and branch.

    He also regretted serving on President Babangida’s Transition Council, although he was proud of what he accomplished as Education Secretary during the eight-month life of the Council. It is difficult to justify the country’s leading constitutionalist participating in an organ of a military dictatorship designed to prolong transition to democratic rule. If that was not bad enough, his tenure was tumultuous, and will be remembered mostly for his confrontation with ASUU.

    Nwabueze scrupulously avoided partisan politics throughout his life. “I have always kept an unwavering aloofness from politics, because it (politics) seems to me not quite in tune with the life of study and reflection I have chosen for myself ….” Yet, that November 14, 2018 iconic image of the octogenarian Nwabueze weeping on the shoulder of Atiku Abubakar, PDP’s presidential candidate for the 2019 election, will be hard to forget. This more so when, seven months later, though he ceased appearing before any court as a lawyer in 2008, wheelchair-bound, he showed up at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on July 4, 2019 as the lead counsel for the petitioner, Abubakar. But he was there for only briefly, during which he requested and got leave of the court to address it while remaining seated. He spoke for only a few minutes, and he left the court riding into the sunset.

    Nwabueze has rightly indisputably taken his place as among Africa’s greatest constitutionalists. He was a comparativist, and his strength was comparative constitutional law. He was not a theorist, and he did not make any contribution to constitutional theory or political theory. His forte was constitutional statics. He identified and explained rules of the constitutional order. He said little about constitutional dynamics or how a constitutional order actually operated.

    Nor was Nwabueze, despite his prodigious output, necessarily an original thinker. I even doubt if he intended to be one. He was richly eclectic for sure. His strength lay in his ability to master a subject and render it in a manner that was capable of being quickly understood by a student or a non-specialist. And although he exuded great learning, he was always quick to admit or acknowledge the impact of his teachers or the debt he owed other authors he read.

    Such was the man Benjamin Obiefuna Nwabueze, the greatest of his generation. A man of humble birth whose illiterate parents had no record of the year of his birth but who by a lifetime quest to excel put his God-given capacity to master things arcane and render them for easy understanding, to the betterment of his country and of humanity has fallen asleep. But his reputation as a scholar and public intellectual will long survive him. The market for public intellectuals is much poorer with his demise.

    •Ukhuegbe writes from Toronto, Canada.