The Nation Newspaper

Author: The Nation

  • Bayelsa polls

    The people of Bayelsa State will go the polls on Saturday, to elect a new governor and his deputy, after what the opposition parties consider eight years of misrule by incumbent Governor Seriake Dickson. While Dickson and his handlers will dismiss the claim as untrue, it is instructive that the outgoing governor is relying on the number of political appointments he has made, as the raison d’être, why the candidate he foisted on his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), should win the vote on Saturday.

    This newspaper last Sunday, quoted the governor to have said: “Those who are writing about the defections from our party; let me make it clear that in our government, we have over 3000 appointees. The resignation or defection of 10 appointees out of the appointees is too small a number to cause a negative effect on our party and its chances in the election.” He went on: “come to think of it, each of you, the G32, you have between 10-14 appointments under you, and if you multiply 32 by 14, you have the sheer number of grassroots appointments.”

    Dickson’s permutation that the so-called grassroots appointment is good reason why his preferred candidate should win the governorship election in a richly endowed but developmentally backwater Bayelsa State is most unfortunate. That assertion perhaps explains why his opponents regard his regime as eight years of wasted opportunities, for the oil bearing state. After eight years in power, the governor ought to be campaigning on his achievements, which he wants the successor to continue.

    Using social development indices, Dickson should be telling voters what he has done in education; reeling out statistics on the quantum leap in the number of Bayelsans who have passed out in flying colours in the WAEC and NECO exams, in the years he is governor. He should be showing off the number of child and maternal health care centres, and how such efforts have impacted on infant mortality and pre and post natal health care.

    While Bayelsa has water everywhere, getting drinkable water is a huge task. So, what has Governor Dickson done to ameliorate that huge challenge and if has, he should be campaigning on getting a successor to continue the trajectory. Again, what has Dickson done to reclaim the wetlands, which makes building roads and houses in the state excruciatingly difficult? If he has been governing well, and ensuring security of lives and property, such reclaimed lands would be prime properties for building condominium for the many oil companies operating onshore and offshore Bayelsa.

    ‘So, how come Governor Dickson is relying on his political appointees to fight the election, instead of his achievements in power? Does it mean that he spent the nearly eight years doing nothing’

    So, how come Governor Dickson is relying on his political appointees to fight the election, instead of his achievements in power? Does it mean that he spent the nearly eight years doing nothing? Of note, Dickson who rode on the back of the then incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan to power appears to have outgrown his godfather. While it is not bad to grow up, one must recognise and respect the fingers that fed one, while growing up.

    According to the report, Dickson not only chose the gubernatorial candidate for his party, in the person of Senator Duoye Diri, he also selfishly chose the deputy, Senator Lawrence Erwujakpor, whom he wants to replace in the senate, if the candidates succeed at the polls. The self-serving moves have reportedly pitched him against former President Goodluck Jonathan and other PDP chieftains in the party. Interestingly, to get to the top position eight years ago, Dickson had to crawl on the back of Jonathan who had become president after the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.

    This column recalls that after gaining power against more entrenched PDP chieftains like Timi Alaibe because of Jonathan’s support, Dickson made a law against rumour mongering, claiming that they were fuelling unrest in the state. This column had poked fun at the governor then, reminding him that his sudden rise to power, back then, started as a rumour, while he was at the National Assembly. Indeed, as the rumour was gaining ground, Jonathan’s men were denying it, until it became too late for the then incumbent governor.

    Presently, the soft spoken and poetic Chief Timipre Sylva, now a chieftain of the All Progressive Congress (APC), is the leader of the party in the state, and he is working assiduously to deliver Chief David Lyon to the Bricks house in Yenagoa. Interestingly, Chief Lyon has received blessings from the matriarch of the Jonathan family, Mama Beatrice Jonathan, and several of Jonathan’s men who have defected to the APC. Former President Jonathan also recently paid a courtesy visit to President Muhammadu Buhari and it was speculated that he went there to show solidarity with the APC candidate, perhaps to scorn his erstwhile godson.

    While President Jonathan has denied any such plans to dump his party, his body language say otherwise. The former first lady, Patience Jonathan, who has openly disagreed with Governor Dickson, is believed to be routing for the APC candidate. The strong man of River State politics, Barrister Nyeson Wike, is also uninterested in the PDP candidate, even though strangely his predecessor is allegedly said to be surreptitiously supporting the PDP candidate. With the odds staked against Senator Duoye Diri of the PDP, Chief David Lyon of the APC appears set to clinch the prize.

     

    Congratulations CIArb Nigeria

    From the 7th to 8th of November the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK), Nigeria Branch, conducted its 2019 Annual Conference in Lagos. There were seven sessions oscillating around the theme: “Positioning Africa: The changing Landscape in Alternative Dispute Resolution.” With distinguished speakers from Nigeria, United Kingdom, Kenya, Ghana, and Rwanda, it was an intellectual feast on Arbitration as the wining Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism. 

    At the event, Mr Olatunde Busari, SAN, C.Arb, ceremoniously took over from the immediate past branch chair, Mrs Adedoyin Rhodes-Vivour, SAN, C.Arb. The Chief Judge Federal High, Hon. Justice J.T. Tsoho, Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae, Hon. Justice J.E. Oyefeso, and Hon. Justice Roli Harriman were among the top guests. Mrs Adeyinka Aroyewun MCIArb, of the Lagos Multi-Door Court House chaired one of the sessions. The conference co-chairs were Dr. Adewale Olawoyin, SAN FCIArb, and Mrs Obosa Akpata, C.Arb.

    At the occasion, yours sincerely was admitted as a member of the prestigious Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Nigeria Branch. It was also an evening for wining, dinning and networking. I say hearty congratulations to the institute and all the inductees.  

     

  • The tiff over Diaspora remittances

    Most Nigerians, I suspect, probably paid nary attention to what is – again probably, the most embarrassing spat between the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the so-called Brookings Institutions on Diaspora remittances. It started with a September 9 poser by The Punch columnist Henry Boyo – $26bn Diaspora remittances: Where are the dollars?

     It was, as the title suggests, an attempt to open the lid on the management, by the CBN, of the so-called diaspora remittances, which the World Bank claimed had grossed $26 billion in 2019 alone! While his main thesis was that ‘Diaspora remittances have inexplicably failed to bolster the economies of recipient nations’, he was even more critical of the role of our apex bank, as according to him, the “over $25bn annual Diaspora remittances, have failed to produce a stronger naira exchange rate or meaningfully impact Nigeria’s economy’.

    Concerned about what he considered the unanswered questions on the matter, Etubom Michael Ani Minister of Finance 1993-1998, would raise the profile of the debate further with an article on the subject in the same newspaper on October 9. His summary: the CBN owes Nigerians lots of explanations. Alleging collaboration between the CBN, Nigerian banks and Western Union/MoneyGram; he insists that government must investigate and where infraction is established, “punish the money launders, and recover all past remittances retained abroad!

    In the interim, he says, outbound money transfer services must be stopped and all remittances retained for naira stability and the nation’s development.

    The CBN in its response says the $26 billion figure only exists in the creative imagination of those peddling the figures.   Says CBN Director, Corporate Communications Department, Isaac Okoroafor, the figure – purported to be from the World Bank – had also been queried by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the CBN, as it did not reflect the actual amount of inflows from Nigerians living abroad.

    “We are looking for the so-called $26 billion diaspora cash because such cash will impact positively on our reserve.”

    To him, $2.6 billion might be more like it!

    In a clime where institutions have long acquired notoriety for muddling up just about anything, citizens might even wonder why anyone should lose sleep over where that tiny dot perches on the conjoined integers 26! Or better still, in a country where dizzying billions – whether denominated naira, dollars or euro – have little relevance to citizens’ daily struggle to eke out an existence, why anyone should pay attention let alone follow the controversy, never mind that such could actually precipitate a massive shakedown in serious financial circles.

    Short of calling the World Bank data spurious, and hence the claims of those peddling the stats baseless, the CBN spokesman says an understanding of how their “data was sourced could provide an insight into why their figures might be off the target!

    Even if we accept the disclaimer on its face value, the CBN position in this instance, is certainly disingenuous. First, the figures which the CBN wants consigned to the dustbin didn’t just chance upon us overnight. That document, notably, claims as source, the IMF Balance of Payments Statistics database, data releases from central banks, national statistical agencies and World Bank country desks. In other words, the World Bank merely processed and expectedly drew inferences from them as any typically data-driven institution would! Secondly, the data and the projections from them have been in the public square for as long as anyone could remember! Indeed, I have before me as I write, the spreadsheet of Migration and Remittances Data produced by the World Bank Group with the latest update being October 2019 with national figures going as far back as 1980! That the CBN has only now begun to raise methodological issues cannot but call in its true motivation into question.

     

    ‘The figures which the CBN wants consigned to the dustbin didn’t just chance upon us overnight. That document, notably, claims as source, the IMF Balance of Payments Statistics database, data releases from central banks, national statistical agencies and World Bank country desks’

     

    So much for the latest enterprise in fault-finding by our apex bank, the issue is certainly more nuanced than the CBN would seek to paint. Certainly, the days are long past when the apex bank could deem its actions not only inviolate but also beyond scrutiny. Indeed, its claims to monopoly of records of cross-border financial flows are – to put it mildly – questionable particularly as remittance flows originate outside our shores – which puts the World Bank and the IMF in vantage position to track what is going on! Third – and this is particularly relevant to us, is that the rules put in place by the apex bank for remittance are not only light years behind; being purpose-made for the cartel of currency speculators at national and international levels makes for an unlikely scenario of the recipient country benefitting!

    Imagine a scenario where a family member wires home – say $500 – and where under some curious arrangement fostered by the CBN, the sender is told that the beneficiary could only receive the funds in the local currency and on terms that are neither transparent nor equitable. Aside the recipient whose needs are momentarily met, the settlement, usually from the excess naira account in the absence of direct cash flows means that the economy gains nothing!

    I guess it comes simply to who to believe between the CBN, the World Bank and allied institutions. Now, I haven’t quite said that the World Bank figures are any sacrosanct or that the alternative bandied by the apex bank is less credible! For now, yours truly is only guided by the underlying wisdom in the African proverb about the witch crying all through the night only for death to mark the arrival of dawn!

    Remember the famous quote? “Today, most of the statistics quoted about Nigeria are developed abroad by the World Bank, IMF and other foreign bodies…Some of the statistics we get relating to Nigeria are wild estimates and bear no relation to the facts on the ground. This is disturbing as it implies we are not fully aware of what is happening in our country”.

    Although worth remembering – don’t ask me who said those words.

    And now – as if contrarian statistics being routinely dredged up by critics of the administration are not enough irritants, imagine being called up to ingest yet another toxic brew from supposedly the World Bank and the IMF!

    By the way, isn’t the difference between $2.6 billion and $26 billion the place of that tiny, inscrutable dot?

  • BOS and fickle Lagos

    L’ojo Monday, Eko o ni gba-gba-kugba [On Monday morning, Lagos takes no nonsense] —  Fela

     

    Babajide Olusola Sanwo-Olu (BOS), who now wants to be called “Mr. Governor”, dropping the conventional prefix of “His Excellency”, seems condemned to the fickleness of Lagos.

    That fickleness is rooted in the city’s proud impatience, as noted in Fela’s famous lyrics; itself drawn from a popular street lingo, with which the denizens of the fast-paced commercial hub serenade selves.

    Lagos, a hustler’s paradise, simply brooks no sme-sme — the Lagos lingo for slackness!

    Still, the ever busy traditional Eko isn’t quite the crazy sprawl of present Lagos: a tiny space hurtling with boisterous hustlers; pushing their democratic right to rudeness and petulance, in their zero tolerance for pain and allied discomfort.

    When economic migrants from all over Nigeria rumble with the traditional Eko impatience, that impish fickleness is never far away!

    Besides, it’s the season of the social media, at its anti-social worst!  In that all-comer’s party, millions of voices rumble with irreverent thunder: from the honest, the earnest and the reasoned; to the bilious, the bigot and the diabolically partisan.

    Poor BOS is caught in this fearsome flak — basically on the generally sorry state of Lagos roads — and it all appears to get to him!

    This irreverent army has dismissed the governor as “point and kill” — the very caricature of his gubernatorial exertions and gesticulations, to fix the very problems they rage about.

    But BOS need not be fazed.  The fickle are driven by extremes.  The one that rails loudest today will praise loudest tomorrow, when the problem is history; and is seen to be so.

    Besides those who condemn first and think later, always belong to the garbage of history.

    From 1999 to 2001 or thereabouts, when Governor Bola Tinubu and his cabinet were fixing the Lagos ruin, left behind by the departed military, they were not short of  traducers.

    Even further back, while working those epochal social and physical wonders, that made the pre-independent Western Region a clear Nigerian pacesetter, the great Chief Obafemi Awolowo was never short of caustic naysayers.

    That is why the governor should take this solace: the offspring of those that rushed to mock Awo in the old Western Region, and even Tinubu back in 1999, are among those who sing the fulsome praise of both today.

    BOS should, therefore, fix his eyes on the ball.  Those who nail him today would, with equal zest, hail him tomorrow.  But that is if he gets the job done.

    Still, though not apparent to many, BOS appears to have imbued a vital lesson — how a governor relates with his predecessor.  Akinwunmi Ambode was not that endowed.  But see his comeuppance today, on that score?

    Ambode’s predecessor, Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, now Works and Housing Minister, left a far better Lagos for Ambode, than Ambode bequeathed BOS.

    Fashola earned high — and fair — praise for his high intellect and high-mindedness.

    His parting records too were sparkling: the roads, which have all but gone to seeds, four years after his departure, were much better.  The Okokomaiko-Mile 2-Orile-CMS light rail corridor seemed coming to life.

    Under him too, Lagos thought it had won its notorious refuse war, a combat which Tinubu had fiercely launched; and which Fashola zestfully pushed, in the best tradition of continuity.

    Even the Okada menace, Fashola seemed to have had under control, and would probably have won; had his tenure not been terminated, after his two constitutionally allowed four-year terms.

    His only Achilles heels, however, was the legitimate charge that he was more elitist than populist, a charge that resonated with the bulk of the Lagos hoi polloi, in their Alagbado, Alakuko and Tabon-Tabon redoubts, even if they still revered the governor — and, of course, some intra-chamber rumblings, within the Lagos ruling bloc, as stalwarts push and pull to corral influence.

    But despite all of Fashola’s parting goodwill, Ambode decided to throw him under the bus, on some state government-commissioned website, on alleged high costs.

    Though the issue would appear more phantom than real, the ever distracted media, particularly the social media segment, ever sniffing for salacious tales, lapped on to the alleged rot.  All, however, would peter out, after the initial, impassioned nosing for sleaze.

    Read Also: Lagos seeks CBN partnership to boost SMEs growth

    Still, see the tricks Karma is playing on Ambode today?  No thanks to his kerfuffle with the Lagos legislature, the one that wanted to throw his predecessor under the bus, is being thrown under a moving train, but for a legal freeze!

    Ay, many have claimed whatever is happening in Lagos is less Karma, and more of in-fighting within the ruling order, simply because Ambode has been, by far, the most disruptive in that chamber, since 1999.  Maybe.

    But the moral is clear: Ambode that assayed roasting another, is himself being badly roasted by others!  This is rather unfortunate.  Even with all his fair short-comings, Ambode appears condemned, at least for now, to being painted blacker than he really is.

    That is neither fair to Ambode nor good for the Lagos ruling order.  Despite some rotten personal choices, Ambode still chalked spectacular legacies in rural infrastructure upgrades: witness Epe and rural Alimoso. He therefore ought to get his due plaudits, even as he reels from fair knocks.

    The good thing here though, is that BOS has refrained from undermining his predecessor, even if not a few feel much of his present challenges are due to Ambode’s tragic distraction.

    Ambode’s shock of not nailing a second term, which should have been routine, led to a clear de-motivation, which has now put his successor in the hole.

    That all but explains the governor’s present bind, and the roasting from his fickle traducers — hardly surprising!  As ace musician Tu-Baba would croon, no paddy for (Lagos) jungle!

    But that granite challenge also presents granite opportunities, for BOS to come good and earn his own pips.

    The roads, of course, are the immediate focus — enforced low hanging fruits denizens of Lagos can’t wait to pluck and savour, now that the rains are abating!  Ridding the streets of refuse is another.

    Then, the light rail.  That would take some tough cobbling together of scarce cash! But rail might well be the organic answer to the Okada and Marwa tricycle shuttle challenge, which should never have been part of the transport mix, in a bustling 21st century Lagos.

    Of course, BOS must learn from the Ambode pitfall: always maintain a cool head; and, from fleeting power, learn to be least disruptive.

    If he gets it right — and he has little choice — Lagos wailers will turn hailers; and in their hearts, don BOS in the garb of “His Excellency”, which he just shunned, in the searing heat, of the executive kitchen.

     

    ‘It’s the season of the social media, at its anti-social worst!  In that all-comer’s party, millions of voices rumble with irreverent thunder’

  • Ending violence against women and girls

    Duru Blessing, Owerri.

     

    Sir: Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is widespread and affects women and girls of any age, class, race, religion, sexuality, or ability. The scope of the violence range from sexual violence by state and non-state actors to harmful cultural and traditional practices on young girls, sexual violence in religious instructions, incest, including father’s rape of their daughters, work place discrimination and sexual harassment, gang rape, sex-tortion in educational institutions and election violence.

    Violence against women has a significant impact on the health and socio-economic status of women and girls; it affects the health and wellbeing of children and young people who witness violence against their mothers and other children. Ending VAWG requires effective and promising policies and law in place. There is need for evidence-based legal and policy framework that effectively address violence against women and girls; also, there is need for strategic engagement with policy-makers, parliamentarians, civil society and other partners whose capacity we need to build in order to raise awareness of its causes and consequences, as well as prevent and respond to violence. As Nigerians, we must address the overall economic impact of VAWG significantly.

    In Nigeria, the Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act (VAPP) was signed into law in 2015 as a deliberate national action plan towards ending violence against women and girls. One would have expected to see more coordinated collaborated effort across all states towards addressing VAWG with VAPP as a legal document. However, four years after the enactment of the VAPP law, most states are yet to domesticate the law. This development has frustrated the effort of committed civil social society organizations and partners who advocate for ending VAWG. While a state like Lagos has progressive domestic violence laws, and Ekiti has domesticated VAPP, while making a number of services available to women and girls. We still have a large percentage of states that have not demonstrated the political will to domesticate VAPP and unwilling to tackle VAWG through VAPP.

    Read Also: ‘Violence, vote buying likely problems in election’

    Effort towards addressing VAWG should not only be in the ambit of responsibilities of the government or the civil society organizations alone and it would not be out of proportion to state here and going by the records that alliances for Africa AFA, an international African led Non-Governmental, human right, peace organization has voluntarily led in addressing all forms of VAWG for over a decade. The strong belief that there is a need to implement programmes which support the collection and collation of data in relation to all forms of violence against women and girls is globally accepted.

    This is crucial in order to assess the effectiveness of any work done by critical stakeholders to improve the situation of a particular group in the population. Some of the issues that seem specific to violence against women and girls are in fact cross cutting. Data collection would ensure gender disaggregation, which, would help to provide the baseline statistics as work in progress is evaluated. Data will further expose and challenge violence against women whilst providing a vivid picture of its impact and significant of intervention. Sharing the best practice in data collection across sectors responsible for VAWG might have significant benefits, given the links between violence against women and girls.

    It is therefore pertinent to recommend a broadening of the strategic framework on violence against women. This should include consideration of the types of services available for responding to victims/survivors of VAWG. Efforts must be made to ensure that such services translate to women’s needs at a time they have experienced a form of violence. Attention should be given to the development and information support for the general public. Providing information and support through workplace campaigns, awareness raising programmes in schools and general public education campaigns would greatly enhance the level and quality of information support available to women.

    Finally but most importantly, the views of women themselves should be sought. There is an absence of consultative mechanisms which enable women to input directly to the development of services which might meet their needs for example a woman who is a victim of rape should be asked how she wants the issue resolved based on legal provision in a bid to bring the perpetrator to justice. This is a gap which should be addressed as a matter of fact before very much more work is developed.

     

  • Enforce your rights, Judge, Falana urge workers

    By Adebisi Onanuga

     

    President, National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) Justice Benedict Kanyip and Femi Falana (SAN) have urged workers to enforce their rights  as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and other international laws, conventions and treaties, which Nigeria has domesticated.

    They spoke at the yearly  public lecture and national dialogue organised by the Michael Imoudu National Institute of Labour Studies (MINILS), Ilorin.

    Justice Kanyip, who  was chairman of the lecture, said rights inured to workers, especially under the fundamental objectives and principles of state policy under Chapter II of the Constitution, are now litigable.

    Represented by the Presiding Judge, Port Harcourt Division of NICN, Justice Iyabode Kola-Olalere, Justice Kanyip said the National Industrial Court had jurisdiction over ratified conventions, treaties and protocols.

    He, however, said such litigation must be made through the normal court processes such as complaints.

    Falana, in his paper, urged workers to take advantage of the revolutionary constitutional amendment to enforce their rights as guaranteed by the constitution, African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as International Covention on social, economic and cultural rights.

    The senior lawyer, who was the guest speaker at the event, stated that the third alteration to the constitution, carried out by the National Assembly in 2011, vested the NICN with the jurisdiction and power to deal with any matter connected with or pertaining to the application of any international convention, treaty or protocol ratified by Nigeria with respect to labour, employment, workplace, industrial relations or matters, as well as international labour standards.

    According to Falana, Section 254 (C) of the constitution radically amended and created a new labour law regime in Nigeria, adding that Section 12  which provides that treaties have no force of law in Nigeria unless they are domesticated and enacted into law by the National Assembly has ceased to apply to ILO conventions and other labour related  treaties.

    The Acting Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Dr. Folasade Yemi-Esan, in her address, said the provision of decent jobs to meet human rights needs, in terms of employment, could enhance the economic fortune of a nation.

    Read Also: Memory-challenged politics (For Femi Falana and Kunle Ajibade)

    Yemi-Esan, who described the theme of the lecture as timely, reassured participants that the government was working to put in place appropriate policies and strategies to meet human rights needs.

    Commending the institute for its commitment to engendering industrial peace and harmony in the public service, she reiterated the readiness of her office to partner with relevant agencies and professional organisations on human rights needs of workers. She noted that the step would ensure that issues on human rights in employment relations were accorded top priority and treated passionately.

    “I want to reassure that government is on track in addressing the issues in relation to employment in Nigeria. To achieve this, my office has initiated various programmes to transform and reposition the Federal Civil Service into a modern public service organisation that provides world class service for sustainable national development,” she said.

    In his welcome address, the Director-General/Chief Executive of MINILS, Alhaji Ishaq Saliu Alabi, said human rights were key elements in transforming employment relationships and achieving workplace best practices.

    “There is increasing consensus that the workplace is a critical platform upon which development processes could be fostered, at both strategic and operational levels. Therefore, it is our hope that this activity will assist the process of evolving progressive social models in which workplace issues and industrial relations actors are given prominence”, he said.

    Alabi said the institute’s research was being reinvigorated, as the it was being repositioned to enable it carry out its mandate. He further said the institute had successfully articulated research domains and forged strong partnerships with international research and learning centres.

    He re-emphasised MINILS dedication to improving the quality of its profile in human resource and physical infrastructure while aiming to improve capacity building initiatives for staff members.

  • Border closure, defeatist

    Temple Ezebuike Esq, Lagos.

     

    Sir: The federal government’s complaints about smuggling are self-defeating. There would not be any smuggling if the custom officials maintained local trade and immigration laws. In 2017, The Nationwide Survey on Corruption in Nigeria by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) reported that Custom officials solicited the most bribes, ahead of Immigration officials and elected state and local representatives.  Recently, an undercover investigation brought light to a massive corruption ring in the Nigeria Customs Service. The reports brought to fore the ineptitude and corruption in the Nigeria Customs Service. The border closure merely papers over the smuggling problem; it does not address a root cause: corrupt Custom officials. Although they have reported that about N3 trillion smuggled goods have been seized since closure, without a thorough re-organization and re-orientation of Nigeria’s Customs and Immigration officials, we will be back with the same corrupt officials who facilitated goods smuggling whenever the border reopens.

    Given the CBN’s Foreign Exchange restriction on rice, the border closure combines to substantially limit rice importation, resultantly creating a scarcity-sized hole. Since local supply cannot meet local consumption, the rice prices have soared– consumer-inflation rose to 11.51% in September, up by 0.08% from 11.17% recorded in August. Ninety million Nigerians live below the poverty line, and where about 60% of income is spent on food. Rising inflation will leave Nigerians with less disposable income, placing more and more of the people below the poverty line.

    Any policy, notwithstanding sincerity of intent, which tends to leave the masses with deflating disposable income, is not well-thought. It is an economic hara-kiri that should be advocated against.

    Besides the fact that local consumption outstrips local supply, the business environment is not supportive to local producers. The FG cannot will the economy to food sufficiency in a dilapidated system.

    Read Also: National Erasure and Border Closure

    Access to farm mechanization remains low due to bad roads. Some rice farmers trek as far as 30 kilometers to the nearest rice mill. After milling, channels to transport their produce to local markets are also abysmally poor. Corruption also trails mechanized farming: to ease access to rice mills and boost local production. In 2017, the government reported the procurement of 100 rice milling machines in different states, but the exact locations of the machines have remained a mystery.

    Rice farmers are also disincentivised due to lack of access to credit facilities. The Central Bank’s initiative to finance agriculture at 9% interest rate is commendable, although, it should be noted that it is lower than the 5% rate farmers had called for due to self-provision of power and transportation.

    Border closure will not address the problem of corruption in Nigeria Customs Service; neither will it improve accessibility to credit facility, nor increase local production to attain a semblance of sufficiency. The federal government should leave the border and attend to more pressing industrial challenges.

    Protectionist policies are not on the whole, bad. However, there has to be a robust industry to be protected. Where the preliminaries are prominently positioned, there will be an inflow of investments to agriculture, towards increased local production to balance consumption. Where borders are closed as in this instance, it will be to protect the local industry from high-tech foreign competition, albeit momentarily, until they become competitive. The federal government should not prance over preliminaries– laying the cart before the horse– driving up inflation that will hurt legitimate cross-border businesses, local producers and the populace.

     

     

  • Dousing asset management regulation fears

    There are fears that the new Asset Tracing, Recovery and Management Regulation 2019 has curbed anti-graft agencies’ powers of asset recovery. But Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami (SAN), last Thursday, dispelled such fears. What effect will the regulation have on law enforcement agencies?  ROBERT EGBE asks.

     

    When the Federal Government gazetted the Asset Tracing, Recovery and Management Regulation 2019 on October 29, it raised concerns that the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), had whittled down anti-graft agencies’ powers of asset seizure.

    This is because Part 3, Section 5(1)  of the gazette directs that all non-conviction-based forfeiture shall be conducted by the AGF’s office. The gazette further requires that all seized assets shall be registered by Ministries, Departments and Agencies. It also stipulates that all final forfeited assets recovered by agencies shall be handed over to the AGF within 60 days from the commencement of the regulations of management.

    “… Non–compliance with the regulations of these provisions and the guidelines and directions made pursuant to these regulations shall be considered insubordination and attract liability under the Public Service Rules,” the regulation adds.

     

    Who do the regulations apply to?

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is the foremost anti-graft agency under Malami’s purview. The AGF also constitutionally supervises the activities of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Department of State Services (DSS), National Drugs Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons (NAPTIP), and the Nigeria Police Force (NPF).

    The AGF is empowered under the constitution to request any case file that is pending with any of the agencies.

    But two of the agencies most impacted by the regulation are the EFCC and ICPC. Both agencies account for the most funds and assets forfeitures in recent history.

     

    What is asset forfeiture?

    Asset forfeiture is a legal mechanism that allows authorities to seize and, provided certain conditions are met, permanently keep cash and property from people suspected of crimes. Forfeiture can happen under the criminal justice system, which requires a conviction in order for property to be permanently forfeited. But it can also proceed under civil law, which does not require a conviction or even a criminal charge to be filed.

     

    Anti-graft agencies’ powers of forfeiture

    Law enforcement agencies have always had the power to initiate conviction and non-conviction-based forfeiture. For instance, in obtaining forfeiture orders, the EFCC relied on Section 17 (1) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act.

    It states: Where any property has come into the possession of any officer of the Commission as unclaimed property, or any unclaimed property is found by any officer of the Commission to be in the possession of any other person, body corporate or financial institution, or any property in the possession of any person, body corporate or financial institution is reasonably suspected to be proceeds of some unlawful activity under this Act, the Money Laundering Act of 2004, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act of 2004 or any other law enforceable under the EFCC Act of 2004, the High Court shall upon application made by the Commission, its officers, or any other person authorised by it, and upon being reasonably satisfied that such property is an unclaimed property or proceeds of unlawful activity under the Acts stated in this subsection, make an order that the property or the proceeds from the sale of such property be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    Sections 29 and 30 of the EFCC Act 2004 also give the commission powers on forfeiture:

    Where the assets or properties of any person arrested for an offence under this Act has been seized or any assets or property has been seized by the commission under this Act, the commission shall cause an ex-parte application to be made to the court for an interim order forfeiting the property concerned to the Federal Government and the court shall, if satisfied that there is prima facie evidence that the property concerned is liable to forfeiture, make an interim order forfeiting the property to the Federal Government.

    Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the commission or any authorised officer shall apply to the court for the order of confiscation and forfeiture of the convicted person’s assets and properties acquired or obtained as a result of the crime…

    The EFCC seems to have racked up a huge chest of funds and other assets for the government using the Act. Some of the non-conviction forfeitures are the final forfeiture of $153 million allegedly belonging to former Minister of Petroleum Resources Mrs. Diezani Allison-Madueke; the unclaimed N23.4 billion, $5 million as well as $40 million (the naira equivalent is N9.08 billion) said to be laundered for her.

    Others include the $43,449,947 (about N13 billion), N23,218,000 million and £27,800 (about N10.6 million) Ikoyi cash haul.

     

    Plot to reduce EFCC’s powers?

    Not surprisingly, there is suspicion that the Asset Tracing, Recovery and Management Regulation 2019 is to curb anti-graft agencies’ powers. Acting EFCC chairman Ibrahim Magu said last Thursday that there was a plot to amend the agency’s enabling Act to reduce its powers.

    He listed eight challenges facing the agency, including sponsorship of the plot to amend the EFCC Act. He said the EFCC secured 1,684 convictions in the last four years with many assets recovered from corrupt elements.

    Magu, who spoke at an Anti-corruption Townhall meeting in Abuja, said: “Fighting corruption comes with its peculiar challenges. The corrupt are not going to fold their hands while you retrieve what they had stolen. They would fight back. This has come in the form of:

    • sponsored media attacks and even violent attacks against operatives of the Commission. My farmhouse in Nasarawa state was attacked;
    • sponsorship of unwarranted amendment of EFCC laws, to reduce its powers and undermine the effectiveness of the agency; and undermining and distracting the leadership of the commission.

    On the controversy surrounding the seizure of properties, Magu said: “Asset recovery is key in denying the corrupt the enjoyment of the proceeds of his/her crime.

    “It also allows the country to channel recovered funds into national development. Within this period, the Commission has recovered several hundreds of billions of Naira which are in various categories of forfeitures.

    “Some of these funds were recovered for third party individuals, companies, as well as government agencies such as NNPC, FIRs, AMCON and also state governments. Several thousand of movable and immovable properties have been recovered within the period. These are also subject of either interim or final forfeiture orders.”

     

    History of bad romance

    Why are law enforcement agencies concerned about the new rules? The reason is simple.

    There is a documented history of mutual mistrust and in-fighting among them and the AGF, with the former resisting the latter’s bid to exercise oversight and other functions in cases involving politically-exposed persons.

    In July 2017, Special Assistant to the President on Prosecutions Chief Okoi Obono-Obla publicised the simmering power tussle.

    Obono-Obla, who worked from the AGF’s office, said the EFCC and ICPC were not cooperating with the Attorney-General’s Office as regards prosecuting corruption cases.

    He said: “Although the Attorney-General of the Federation has the power under both the constitution and the 2015 to make a request of any case file that is pending either with the police, the ICPC, the EFCC or any of the prosecuting agencies, we met a brick wall when we requested the files of the high-profile cases of former Governors from the EFCC and the ICPC.

    “They don’t cooperate with us. We cannot use a whip to start beating them, but I expect that the rules of public service require that if letters are written by the office of the AGF, those letters should be honoured.

    “They (EFCC, ICPC) don’t want to work with the office of the AGF.”

    On August 29, 2017, Malami stepped up the feud by accusing the law enforcement agencies of poor investigation and prosecution. He established a new unit in the Ministry of Justice which he said would “henceforth coordinate and form part of every investigation in Nigeria”.

    Malami said there was an apparent lack of “legal expertise in the conduct and process of investigations by the various security agencies in Nigeria.

    “Consequent upon want of expertise in the conduct and process of investigations by various security agencies in Nigeria and the need to address such anomalies leading to consistent rejection of vital/ relevant evidence in the course of prosecution and or the writing down of the probative value of such evidence owing to inappropriate investigation;

    “My office as a result, and in line with the constitutional powers conferred on me as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and by virtue of section 105(1) and (3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, hereby deems it fit to establish an Investigation Unit within the ministry.

    “This unit shall coordinate and form part of every investigation in Nigeria for robust investigation and successful prosecution of such cases.”

    Read Also: Why Maina should not be granted bail — EFCC

     

    What the regulation is for, by AGF

    Responding to concerns about the regulations, Malami said it would address the absence of coordination and proper management of seized, forfeited or confiscated assets as well as ensure transparency in the process of disposal of forfeited assets.

    He stated this in a statement issued by his Special Assistant on Media and Public Relations, Dr. Umar Gwandu.

    Malami said the regulation was informed by the need to regulate the procedures for the tracing, recovery, management and disposal of illegally-acquired assets as required under various extant legislations.

    Such extant legislations are the EFCC Act, 2004, the ICPC Act, 2000, the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 as amended in 2012, the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 as amended in 2013, the Nigeria Financial Intelligence Agency Act, 2018 as well as the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, 2019.

    He also explained that Section 4 of the regulation retained all the powers of law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies in their extant laws as they relate to asset recovery and, therefore, the issue of taking over the powers of the agencies does not arise.

    Malami noted that where more than one agency is involved in the tracing of the same proceeds of crime, the Attorney-General shall coordinate and ensure that there is synergy and successful recovery.

    In addition, the minister highlighted that Section 3 of the 2019 Regulations recognised the need for agencies to provide details of seized and forfeited assets to the databank established by the Federal Ministry of Justice, while Section 11 of the Regulation addresses the issue of what happens once assets are disposed of.

    He explained: “It is clear from the regulation that when the assets are disposed, the funds recovered whether it is recovered from outside or from within the country shall be paid into the Asset Recovery Account in the Central Bank of Nigeria.

    “From the moment it is paid into this account, the Minister of Finance becomes accountable for the management of these funds for the purpose of moving it into the consolidated revenue account and to disburse it as required under the Appropriation Act.

    “This is an important improvement from what has been the procedure where agencies maintained multiple accounts after disposing assets.

    “It is also important to note that since 2017, the president approved a line item in the Appropriation Act where recovered asset is identified as a source of revenue. No president in the history of Nigeria took this step to understand that all recovered assets belong to all Nigerians and should be properly accounted for.”

    Another benefit of the regulation, which he pointed out, is that it provides for a disposal process that makes stakeholders participants in the exercise.

    For example, he said, Section 10(1) of the Gazette reads: “The Attorney-General of the Federation shall set up a structure for transparent management of all Final Forfeited Assets” comprising of relevant stakeholders.

    “Section 10(2) enumerated the stakeholders to include but not limited to Federal Ministry of Justice, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, Federal Ministry responsible for matters relating to Finance; Central Bank of Nigeria and Federal Ministry of Works and Housing.”

    Other stakeholders listed in the Gazette are Accountant-General of the Federation and Auditor-General of the Federation, Nigerian Army (Joint Task Force), Nigerian Navy, Nigerian Police Force, Nigeria Security Civil Defence Corps, Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency and representative of Civil Society Organisations.

     

    Controversial asset forfeitures?

    The AGF is not the only one interested in how law enforcement agencies use their forfeiture powers and how recovered assets are dealt with.

    Civil forfeiture does not require a criminal charge to be filed, thus cash and property can be taken from individuals who have not been convicted.

    There are sometimes allegations that the authorities, including the EFCC and ICPC, seize large amounts of cash from individuals and firms, using highhandedness and arm-twisting.

    For instance, a bank chief in an Alison-Madueke laundering case claimed that the EFCC coerced him into admitting receiving $40 million, which was also forfeited, and that he had to raise the extra sum from friends to be allowed to leave the commission’s detention.

    The EFCC denied the allegation.

    Last Wednesday, ICP) was accused of misleading the court into granting an order of temporal forfeiture of assets being linked to Haruna Momoh, former managing director of the Pipelines and Product Marketing Company (PPMC).

    A statement by ICPC spokesperson Rasheedat Okoduwa, last Monday, alleged that investigations revealed that the former PPMC MD misused his office to enrich himself, using several companies, including Blaid Property Limited and Blaid Construction Limited.

    Mr. Ade Adedeji, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), is representing Blaid Group, the company owned by Ochuko, Momoh’s wife, whose assets are being linked to the husband.

    Speaking on behalf of his clients, Momoh’s lawyer denied any wrongdoing, insisting that the wife was being persecuted in an attempt to get to the husband.

    He said the ICPC failed to inform the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court about a previous order granted by Justice Binta Nyako, a judge of the Federal High Court, directing the commission to refrain from investigating and to release assets belonging to Blaid Construction Company and Ochuko Momoh.

    In the suit with file number FHC/ABJ/CS/132/2019, the company with its director had asked the court if ICPC had powers to further investigate after the EFCC, a parallel agency, had already carried out an investigation and the company cleared of wrongdoing.

    Blaid Construction sought an order restraining ICPC from investigating, and a directive to “vacate attachments placed on their assets and also erase all inscriptions made thereof particularly by notation “Keep off, under ICPC investigation.”

    Justice Nyako overruled ICPC’s argument, saying there was no probable ground to keep holding on to the seized assets of the company.

    The judge held: “Consequently upon this, I find and hold that no law enforcement agency can carry out investigation in perpetuity.

    “Making reference before me, it appears that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had conducted investigation on the Plaintiffs and has not found any indictment against them leading to the discharge of the Interim Orders of Forfeiture.”

    Referencing the judgment, Adedeji said: “ICPC had appealed the judgment through filing of notice of appeal. But rather than prosecute their appeal, they surreptitiously approached the FCT high court and misled the court as if the appeal never existed.

    “And without disclosing to the new court that there was a judgment of the federal high court against them, they moved the court ex-parte to grant an order of temporary forfeiture.”

    Describing the move by ICPC to obtain a forfeiture order as “an abuse of court process”, Adedeji said it was a means to score cheap publicity while boosting their image as “hard-working and crime busters”.

    He said steps are being taken to vacate the order of temporary forfeiture.

    The lawyer added: “We are also considering filing petitions against counsel involved in misrepresenting facts to court to obtain ex-parte order which ordinarily would not have been granted.”

     

    ‘’… Non–compliance with the regulations of these

     provisions and the guidelines and directions made pursuant to these regulations shall be considered

    insubordination and attract liability under the Public Service Rules”

  • ‘Nigeria implementing border drilling, not border closure’

    Prof. Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan was appointed as Director-General, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) on September 30. In this interview with ERIC IKHILAE, he speaks on his experiences, the border closure, the P&ID judgment debt controversy, among others.

     

    What has been your experience since you assumed office?

    When I assumed duties on 30th September 2019, I had my inaugural meeting with the staff of the institute in Abuja the following day. I am yet to go to Lagos. When I came on board, as the new DG, I decided to start from my understanding, in the first two weeks, of the nature of the problems and challenges that exist in the institute, both in its Abuja and Lagos campuses.

    This is an institute that is 40 years old. We have been squatting in Lagos for over 40 years. The administrative headquarters moved to Abuja since about 20 years ago. We have been squatting in the Supreme Court for 20 years. In fact, we are still squatting in Lagos and Abuja.

    We have a total of about 317 staff, both in Lagos and Abuja – comprising about 69. Research-based staff, about 15 professors of Law and about five Senior Advocates of Nigeria – who are all part of the team. The others are administrative staff, among whom are professional and technical staff. In Abuja alone, we have about 120 staff, out which we have 28 technical, professional, matured and responsible staff, who are currently squatting at the basement of the Supreme Court, sharing space with reptiles.

     

    What steps are you taking to address this accommodation challenge?

    When I appeared before the House Committee on Budget last week, I told them about our problems. I have also spoken with the Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) that they need to help us with some of the houses that have been recovering. I have also spoken with the AGF and all other security agencies that I know are seizing properties here and there. We can use that until we get a permanent comfortable office. I tell everyone, wherever I go about this unenviable state of affairs with the institute and that we need help. I also told the lawmakers, when I appeared before them that, by our functions, we were supposed to serve them free. They did not need to pay us. The millions of naira they give to some private lawyers and roadside consultants to packages some things for them would be saved if we are well engaged. We are supposed to be drafting Bills and Motions for them for free. In fact, 70 percent of their mandate can be handled by us. Either we provide these services on demand or we do their thinking for them. We can study the temple of the nation and then, draft a motion to that effect. It is submitted to them; they debate on it and take a decision. We can also provide services to them in the areas of Bill arguments, Bill analysis or even the drafting of a full-blown Bill, if the need arises, to back up the Motion. We are supposed to help the National Assembly save money and provide them with technical trainings, engage their committees on Justice, Human Rights, Foreign Affairs, among others. I also told them (the legislators) that we cannot  function well because of budget constraints.

    What do you hope to achieve in your first 100 days in office and beyond?

    By the time I am 100 days old in office, I want to make sure that we get concrete results. And, we are not in a hurry. We just will take things as they come. In the next four years, I intend to engage in capacity building and concentrate on ways to improve the institute’s capacity to deliver on its mandate.

    I just came back from this ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) Economic Integration conference and told my directors that there was a demand for us to mount specialized training programmes on Comparative Regional Economic Integration Law and Practice.

    Nigeria is hosting ECOWAS Parliament in Abuja, ECOWAS Court of Justice in Abuja and ECOWAS Commission in Abuja. These are three ECOWAS institutions in Abuja and we (Nigeria) are the one funding them. Since 1975, we have been responsible for about-70 percent of ECOWAS budget. We have been the big brother, hosting all these ECOWAS institutions, and yet many of our institutions, both MDAs and academic institutions, do not know much about these three ECOWAS’ organs that are all located in Abuja. While the staff of our institutions are paid in naira, these ECOWAS bodies’officials are paid in dollars.

    We want to refocus and reposition the institute, from its analogue ways of doing things, to a digital one. We shall add new strategic programmes as we move on.  When I made up my mind to accept this appointment, I was convinced that we need to refocus this institute, to move away from its analogue regime of doing things and operate effectively. We are supposed to be guiding the Law faculties in universities in the country; we are supposed to be serving all arms of government. Can you imagine, at the budget defence session, members of the National Assembly told us that they did not know us? So, we need to improve on our visibility. But I need to first, empower my staff through technical training series. We also intend to reposition some of our programmes.

    Internally-Generated Revenue (IGR) is another strategy that we shall explore. In our offices in Lagos and Abuja there are books that we have published. But most Law faculties, most academic institutions do not have these publications. So, we are working to have these books sold to them. We have a printing press, which we shall introduce to potential clients and to contest favourably in the market. We are equally moving away from analogue publication. I have invited a creative director, so as to move all our publications to e-book subscription.

    Then, the second phase will be e-book purchase, because our key target groups are the young, students, professionals and lawyers, who are always on the go. They do not have time to buy these hard copies. They want to subscribe and purchase on line. This is part of the repositioning that I am talking about. Why do we have to always wait for budgetary allocation? I don’t believe in that. We should be able to generate sufficient funds with our potential.

    The ECOWAS Court of Justice complains that member states, including Nigeria, hardly implement its decisions. What is your advice to Nigeria on this?

    It is not necessarily so, that Nigeria doesn’t implement the court’s decision. All member states have had and are still having one or two challenges in the implementation of their treaty obligations under the ECOWAS, in terms of compliance, enforcement monitoring and implementation of some of the agreements at the national level. No regional bloc survives without the member states respecting the treaty obligations, putting measures on ground – budgetary, administrative and legal – to implement their treaty obligations. Nigeria has been doing its best to implement some of the court’s decisions and the treaty obligations, but it has not been easy.

    Does the continued closure of the nation’s borders not violate the ECOWAS Protocol on free movement of goods and people?

    We were at a conference in Accra (Ghana), we just came back today. A number of participants raised the issue. They queried why Nigeria closed the border with Benin Republic and argued that it amounted to a violation of the Protocol on free movement among member states. And, luckily there were three Nigerian ambassadors from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the conference. They had to give a response. And, thereafter, I had to address the press there. The Nigerian diplomats explained that the borders are not closed, but that Nigeria is carrying out border drilling. Here is the distinction: a closure of border is different from border drilling. When you restrict activities in your border for the process of border drilling, it is to address cross-border crimes.

    Even the media have a misconception about it. Border closure restricts the movement of persons, goods and services. That violates the Protocol on free movement, because the Protocol guarantees that right of all citizens of the 15 member states of the ECOWAS, to move across the borders for not more than 90 days, without a visa. But, on the 90th day, you must return to your country or in the host country, you must get a resident permit for yourself or for your business or for your service. Otherwise, you must return on or before the 90th day. If you stay beyond the 90 days, you are violating the Protocol and that member state can deal with you by their immigration laws.

    The truth of the matter is that every country can engage in border drilling exercise in order to curb criminality or border crimes. In our own case, from Benin in particular, for years, we have been having the problem of smuggling of goods into the country. The Protocol of ECOWAS, which we have been respecting for years, is what these people who are engaged in smuggling, are abusing. Even, if you meet some people in Cotonou (in Benin Republic), they will tell you that the place is just like a state in Nigeria, that they depend on Nigeria, and that if we shut the border for a long time, their economy suffers, because they have liberalised their ports system, in such a way that people prefer to come through Lome or Cotonou ports.

    So, is it your position that what has happened is not border closure per se?

    Yes. It is border drilling. That is what the diplomats said. This particular drilling going on right now is to address smuggling of drugs and other goods, including rice. Benin ports are known for harbouring 16, 25 or even 27 years old expired rice, coming from Thailand and other places, being uploaded at the Cotonou ports, repackaged and re-bagged. And then, they smuggle them into Nigeria. It is not because we are producing our own rice. It is not because we want to protect local investors, no! It is because, the Protocol itself did say that, before you can actually move, not persons, but goods from one neighbouring country to another, you must make sure that 70 per  cent of that goods were actually produced in that particular member state that is moving it to another member state. Tell me, where is Benin producing rice? That is the problem. Sometimes, we don’t seek for clarifications of issues. People are just shouting that the borders have been wrongly closed.  Nigeria is not violating any Protocol.

    Some people have even accused Nigeria of contributing to the suffering of ECOWAS citizens, who they claim, can no longer move freely because of the closed borders, even when it hosting three ECOWAS organs. No! That is not true. If you go to the borders right now, going by testimonies of other participants that also attended the meeting in Accra, especially one Ivorian, the border is open for people, who have all their papers to move in and go out. The Ivorian passed through the Seme border. People are actually moving. But, when people want to sensationalise it, they will say, even persons are not moving. If you have your valid documents, in and out of Nigeria, you will go. But if you have goods along with you, and the goods are part of the smuggled goods, you will be prevented from entering. Those that are smuggling expired rice into the country are not putting any measure on ground to protect the health of the citizens, who are eating the harmful rice. That is the problem. They make a lot of money for their economy and then, think we can go to ‘hell’ in Nigeria. That is not what the Protocol says.

    So, the border drilling is about combating cross-border crimes, and our target this time round, are the smuggled goods, which the Protocol says no member state can actually move good from one state to another. You must show that 70 percent of such goods were produced by your state, because, you have to add value.

    This is the current state. It is not true that Nigeria has been violating treaty obligations. We have been complying, although we have had some challenges. We also have to prioritise sometimes. If you compare us with many other states in ECOWAS, you will find that we have been most consistent in compliance with the decisions of the court.

    The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami recently complained about the problem of rising judgment debt, arising from damages awarded against the Federal Government and its agencies. Who do you blame for this and how can we curb this ugly trend?

    Well, the problem of judgment debt was inherited by this administration. Even this Attorney-General inherited it. But, it is nevertheless, against the Nigerian government and its people.

    In the past, many state officials and heads of parastatals behaved very irresponsibly, and people thought they could get away with anything.

    Look at the Process & Industrial Development Limited (P & ID) case for instance, you enter into a contract with a company, the company had already incurred some loses and also borrowed money to execute part of the contract. All of a sudden, you failed to discharge your own part of the obligation, what do you expect? When you borrow money as a contractor or an investor from the bank, the interest keeps accruing and you have no control over it.

    At a point, where we needed to enter into a negotiation, we failed to do that. So, as a nation, at a point when we needed to get ourselves an arbitrator to peacefully arbitrate on our behalf, we did not do that. We dismissed it as rubbish and we believe that they can go nowhere with us.

     

    Read Also: Nigerians will benefit from border closure — Minister

     

    arbitrate outside. So, in this case, the company decided to use the United Kingdom (UK) as an arbitration panel venue for the dispute between the company and Nigeria.

     

    A judgment was given, we could have appealed against it, but we did not. We could also have negotiated out of court, we did not. We could have set up a review panel to review the decision and the award given, we did not. Then, at a point in time when this administration came on board, it started asking questions and wanting to know those responsible for the judgment, and concluded that it was not going to abide by it.

    Meanwhile, the cumulative interest on the award given, in terms of the judgment and the loses they were incurring was rising. Don’t forget that the company borrowed money from the bank, and interest is rising by the day. The loss is not about the arbitral award given, but what contractor or investor was actually facing. So, they (the company) made a case for all this accrued money to be built into the arbitral award against Nigeria, and it rose to $9.6billion. We can’t pay that kind of money, because that amount is practically the life wire of our annual budget. It is a key chunk of our national budget, which means we won’t be able to do anything if we give away such amount of money.

     

    Many have blamed this administration for being negligent in its handling of the P&ID case by failing to act on time. How do you react to this?

     

    Every administration will need to understand why it is fighting over such an issue. You don’t just accept; you have to actually review it. It is like me assuming duty and then, everybody is coming to me to say this is what we are doing and that I should continue with it. Things are not done that way. I need to review and understand certain things. I need to understand why I should give approval or continue with it.

    The fact that the AGF knows the implication of the enforcement of an arbitral award did not prevent Nigeria (under a new administration) from reviewing and understanding the whole thing and how we even got there in the first place.

    The Federal Government has refused to accept the word: negligence; because you have every right, as a new administration, to review how the country got into this mess. Who are the people responsible? You have to find out. Why do you have to negotiate when you know you can fish out the culprits?

    A former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) was involved; a former AGF was involved. All kinds of retired judges and lawyers played some roles in it, against the provisions of the code of conduct for public officers. They gave suggestions and even gave a draft about how the judgment should look like, against their own country, because of money.

    These are facts, which this administration did not make up. People thought they could get away with some of these things. That is why, sometimes, you need to study, you need to review. Then, you are better informed.

    Even if they (the current administration) were actually negligent, it was for good, because it enabled this administration to fish out all those involved. They used intelligence, both within and outside Nigeria. And immediately after getting information, they went and block this first phase – the enforcement of the arbitral award – which worked.

    Now, they have gone against the appeal, and again, it worked. That was the second strategy. I think that is how it should be. You don’t assume responsibility when you know that you can fish out those responsible, if for nothing else, as a preventive measure. Next time, people would be more cautious, knowing that they cannot get away with phony deals.

     

    Do you have an idea about other measures being put in place to address this issue?

     

    In a nutshell, the Federal Government has given a direction to the AGF to set up a committee to review all these cases and put in place strategies for renegotiation or at least a mediation process. I think we have made good progress in the P&ID case by getting the judgement not to be enforced against Nigeria. That is one step.

    Another step is the opening up of an appellate review system, which we are getting through. But, the most important thing is the directive of the President, that when the AGF handles this particular case up to a level, he should now come back and put our MDAs and state governors on the proper track, and insist that, from now onward, you cannot box the Nigerian government and people into this kind of rubbish, when you don’t have the capacity to deliver on your part.

    So, I think it is about financial prudence and a sense of responsibility on the part of those in governance at all levels. So, we need to put our house in order otherwise, we will be getting these kinds of cases and it would have no end. I don’t think it makes any sense.

     

    ‘’The border drilling is about combating cross-border crimes, and our target this time round, are the smuggled goods, which the Protocol says no member state can actually move good from one state to another’’

     

  • Ganduje backs establishment of Court of Appeal division in Kano

    By John Austin Unachukwu

     

    KANO State Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje has backed the establishment of a Court of Appeal Division in Kano.

    He said this would assist in the efficient dispensation of justice.

    Ganduje spoke while receiving a delegation from the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa.

    The delegation, led by Justice Abdu Aboki, said their visit was to supervise structures donated by the government for the proposed Division of the court.

    Ganduje said: “We are happy that the Court of Appeal is coming to be established in Kano. Kindly extend our gratitude to the President, Court of Appeal, for accepting our proposal for the establishment of Court of Appeal.”

    He assured that Kano was ready to host the division, adding: “We will give our support for office accommodation, residences of the Justices among other things.”

    Read Also: Kano Commissioners-nominees for swearing-in Tuesday

    Responding, Justice Aboki thanked the government for the quick response to the need for the establishment of a division of the court in the state.

    He said: “We are in Kano under the directive of the President of the Court of Appeal to come and inspect structures to be used for the establishment of Court of Appeal.”

    Meanwhile, Ganduje has reappointed the immediate past Kano State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr. Ibrahim Mukhtar into office.

    The governor also appointed the Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Kano, branch Mr. Lawan Abdullahi Musa, as the Commissioner of Housing and Transport.

    The state House of Assembly has since screened and confirmed the 20 nominees and they have been sworn-in by the governor.

  • Court to hear suit on dissolution of Ogun Judicial Commission Dec 4

    By Adebisi Onanuga

    The National Industrial Court of  Nigeria (NICN), Ibadan Division, has fixed December 4 to hear a suit challenging Governor Dapo Abiodun’s dissolution of the state Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

    Justice Dele Peters fixed the date after taking submissions from the parties.

    The suit, filed by a former member of the Commission, Mr Abayomi Omoyinmi, is marked NICN/AB/09/2019.

    The first to fourth defendants are the government, the governor, the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice and House of Assembly.

    When the suit came up for hearing, claimant’s counsel, George Oyeniyi,  told the court that the  government on October 31 okayed the appointment of new members for the JSC.

    He claimed that they  were sworn in on November 4, despite the suit challenging their appointment.

    Asked by the court if the defendants had responded to the processes  served on them, a Chief State Counsel from the Ministry of Justice, Abeokuta, S. A. Omotola said: “No. But we would do the needful”.

    Justice Peters, thereafter, adjourned till December 4 for hearing of pending applications.

    In its motion on notice, the claimant is asking the court for an order directing the defendants to maintain status quo on JSC’s membership until the determination of the originating summons.

    He prayed the court to order an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from submitting or presenting any person for appointment as member of the commission and from assuming office of or performing the functions and or duties as JSC pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons.

    He sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the second and fourth defendants from taking any steps or proceedings towards or in pursuance of the filling of the offices of member of the commission pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

    He also prayed the court for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the second and fourth defendants, their agents, officers and or any person, howsoever, described from appointing, presenting any person for appointment as member of the commission pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

    Omoyinmi, through his counsel, Oyeniyi, raised six issues for determination by the court in its originating motion, supported with a 46-point affidavit.

    Read   Also: Challenges before Dapo Abiodun

    He asked the court to determine whether the second and fourth defendants, have the power to dissolve the JSC contrary to the provisions of Section 201 of the constitution and whether it is legal for the second defendant to order the claimant to be locked out of their offices or prevented from gaining access to same from June 25 till date pursuant to purported resolution of the fourth defendant; whether the rationale and ground relied on by the fourth defendants in its resolution of May 31, calling for the dissolution of chairmen and board of statutory and non-statutory boards and commissions in the state is in tandem with Section 201 of the constitution and as such not ultra vires, illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect.

    The claimant asked the court to determine whether by the provisions of section 199(1)(C) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the purported dissolution of the commission and removal of the claimant and other members from their respective offices through a resolution purportedly passed by the fourth defendant sometime on May 31 is proper, legal lawful and in accordance with the provisions of relevant laws of the state and the Constitution; whether the dissolution and purported termination of the claimants and other members was not a violation of the provisions of Section 197 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended and  ultra vires.

    He asked the court to determine whether the claimant is not entitled to be paid his remunerations  up till the date his tenure of office will lawfully expire in line with section 199 (1) (C) of the Constitution.

    He therefore asked the court  restrain the defendants from treating the claimant’s appointment as having ended  last May and/or appointing other persons to replace them; and directing the defendants to effect immediate payment of the salaries leave allowances/bonus, among others.

    In the affidavit in support of the motion, the claimant averred that contrary to the fourth defendant’s assertion that the tenure of office of the claimant has come to an end last May, the tenure of office is statutory and fixed for five years.

    He averred that that himself and other members are entitled to severance allowance, once in every four years, which by law is 300 per cent of their basic salary.

    He averred that he served the state diligently and having abandoned his private job for the call for service should entitled to all dues.

    He stated that the allegation by the fourth defendants that chairmen and members of statutory and non-statutory boards and commissions received their severance allowances from the last administration could not be substantiated.