The Nation Newspaper

Category: Friday

  • Most maligned governor in the land

    You cannot help but sympathize with Governor Theodore Ahamefule Orji of Abia Abia State; he must be the most harangued, maligned and abused governor in the land. He is up against an armada of antagonists led by a deep-pocket, very clever, albeit bitter erstwhile godfather who has in his corner, some of the most competent journalists, publicists and propagandists. They have the rare advantage of what is today, perhaps the most-read newspaper in the land. With such a force arrayed against one man and his government, he is bound to look bad, inefficient and incompetent. Indeed he will appear in the eye of the public, whatever colour they choose to tar him. There is no prize for guessing what hue that would be.

    Abia’s ugly narrative But it is only providence that whisks the flies for the cow that has lost its tail. In other words, if not for some divine grace, TA, as Governor Orji is called, and his administration would have become extinct like that copper-coloured three-penny coin (toro). The story of TA and his estranged god-father, Chief Orji Uzor Kalu (OUK) is a very long and corny one that would require an entire book to tell adequately. To situate it in a few words, TA served as chief of staff to OUK in his eight-year rule as governor of Abia State (1999 – 2007). TA must have served his master well, covering his back (and even his front) so diligently that he found him good enough to succeed him. But it turned out that OUK really did not want a successor but a puppet, a stringed marionette that would keep up a façade while he continues to enjoy the over-lordship of Abia State which after eight years had diminished to the size of OUK’s personal estate.

    Thus when TA won the 2007 election and was sworn in, it turned out that he was worse than a marionette for that is capable of some mobility. He was actually an artwork; an inert installation in Abia Government House by OUK that neither moved nor spoke nor capable of any action. So it was that OUK and his clan continued to rule Abia for another three years (making a total of 11 years). Then there came that divine jolting that freed TA and Abia from the spell of OUK. Since then, a fresh light had begun to shine on that entity called God’s Own State where dark principalities had held sway; flowers have begun to bloom in a land that was made arid by a band of ravaging locusts. Abians may go to bed and sleep with both eyes closed. All around, there is a renewed up-welling of harmony, hope and happiness.

    Yes, Abians have regained their freedom. They have broken the chains of economic, psychological and spiritual slavery. Today all the leaders, the political and intellectual elite and majority of the people have risen as one to say never again. But the barbarians are still at the gate baying for blood and seeking to regain their lost paradise.

    PDP through the back door This, in a nutshell, is the ugly narrative of Abia’s recent history. But only the battle has been won, the war rages on with remorseless heavy shelling still resounding. Recall that OUK at the peak of his reign quit PDP, the party that gave him life and founded another political party with which he won two states. But a mansion built on quicksand is only but a mirage. Today, OUK desperately wants to return to PDP (Peoples Democratic Party). Last year he tried to sneak into the fold through the back door but TA who is the leader of the party today by virtue of being the governor of the state, foiled the move.

    Now, hardly had a new PDP chairman mounted the saddle than OUK moving to corral him into admitting him back to the PDP fold. But vintage Igbo wisdom acknowledges that only a tree would stand still when an axe is raise against it. TA simply rallied the party leaders in the state, paid the new PDP chairman a visit and made a few elementary and commonsensical points that every adult ought to understand to wit: OUK’s return to PDP must be on the condition that he must subordinate himself to the current leader (there can’t be two captains in one boat, lest it capsizes); two, he will have to be admitted through the local party organ and his re-admission is to be supervised by the current leadership and lastly, he must pledge to abide by the rules of the party. Anything short of this will throw the Abia PDP into a cataclysm immediately OUK steps into it.

    Let’s try reconciliation The point therefore, is that OUK must realize that his reign in Abia had long-ended, he must come down from his high-horse, he must understand that a good son would one day grow up to his father and even outgrow him. When that day comes the father would have to adjust to living under the now great shadows of his son. In Igboland a father’s fervent prayers is not to raise a child that never grows. A player who cannot discern when the game has change never wins it; the game really has changed in Abia.

    One of the virtues of great leaders is the ability to forgive, reconcile and make peace for the greater good; especially if the goal is for the good of the people. That was the essence of Mandela. If OUK’s craving is not for relevance and personal gains, then he would find it easy to reconcile with the other leaders of Abia State for the greater good of her people. On the other hand, he has achieved a level of greatness and he does not need a political party membership to validate him or grant him relevance. Trying to ‘shock and awe’ a sitting governor and other great sons of the state to submission is clearly a wrong strategy.

    LAST MUG: It’s a Coke, no it’s a fake

    Coca-Cola must have been hit by large-scale fakery. Last Monday I bought a pet bottle of coke and I couldn’t go past just two sips of it. First it erupted like a volcano upon opening it messing up my desk. No, first it was too difficult to uncork so I had to deploy my teeth. I took a sip and a burning-peppery sensation coursed down my throat. This couldn’t be Coke I thought. I took another sip; no, it isn’t. I took a closer look at the bottle and it looked a little rough-hewn. I found another bottle and all my suspicions were con–+–firmed. All the evidence are still on my desk so I could show friends to beware. The Nigerian Bottling company must act fast.

     

  • Sabella Abidde and the mob of Sodom

    This copious quotation from the Bible may well be a fairy tale; especially so for Mr. Sabella Abidde, a columnist for The Punch. His January 22 article (“Of adulterers, thieves, paedophiles and homosexuals”) condemning the same-sex marriage law actually provoked this piece. Going by that intervention of his, the Bible would be mere “Christian anthology”, and God would be “the God of Moses and Abraham”. And to think of a universal God is to be in “denial,…gullible or being brainwashed.” But let’s remind him quickly that the fool says in his heart that there is no God.

    Abidde said in his incensed piece that, “The Torah and the Bible do not explicitly condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage.” The above extract puts a lie to his assertion. The Bible is actually replete with reproach and damnation for this human perversion which incidentally, had been with man from the beginning of time. The Qur’an describes it as abomination (Surah 29). Displaying so much intellectual arrogance, Abidde terms Nigerians as primitive, hypocritical, retrogressive and even hateful for legislating against homosexuality. He weighs in that reputable scientific and medical journals and organizations in Europe, Asia and America have variously said there is nothing wrong or sickening about homosexuality.

    Abidde and many of our Diaspora brothers and sisters are not alone in condoning homosexuality. Last week, the Archbishops of Canterbury, Justin Welby and the Archbishop of York, both in Britain wrote Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan and Uganda’s Yoweri Musoveni asking them to reverse anti-gay laws passed in the two countries. They argued that homosexuals are loved and valued by God thus are not to be discriminated against. The Catholic Pontiff had spoken in the same vein while South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu put it more succinctly that his God is not a homophobe. World leaders from USA, Britain, Canada and so on; especially the so-called developed world, have been virtually up in arms against Nigeria for enacting a law against homosexuality.

    Abidde asks: “What kind of a man or woman hates another human being simply because the “others” are of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community?” But it is not about hate but about the inherent danger and corrosive effect of this aberrant behavior to the society. As we can see in the quote above, the people of Sodom had become so morally and spiritually blighted and it is obvious that the early Abrahamic society was ‘dead’ beyond redemption; to the point that God told Abraham that if he found nary ten good people in Sodom, he would save it from destruction.

    How many really good people are in the world today? In a world that glories in carnality like the men of Sodom of yore, how many know the difference between right and wrong anymore? In a hollow and soulless world where churches are empty and God has been intellectualized, how many people read the scriptures anymore. In a British and American age where people live an entire life without seeing a copy of the Bible, humanity will surely perish by its own depravity.

    Abidde and his fellow intellectuals call it ‘sexual orientation’ but the cost of this ‘orientation’ is too horrific to be ignored; in fact no other human perversion can scourge humanity the way homosexuality has the potential to do. For instance, in boarding schools across the country, wide-eyed young lads and lasses are being forcefully and/or guilefully raped by perverted seniors; in the military, cabals of gay top brass recruit younger officers and men into their club with the blandishment of promotions and juicy postings. Many jobless young men and women are initiated into homosexuality in exchange for jobs, favours and connections. Of course these young people were not born with gay ‘sexual orientation’ but necessity has forced them into it.

    For most of these young people coerced into this cult, their lives have been damaged with their social and psychological well-being destabilized. Many of them will never be able to relate well with the opposite sex not to talk of running a proper family. Imagine the death of the man and woman family! What about the harm done to the anal cavity of these young people; and the ensuing permanent damage that leaves some of these young people having to wear diapers in their old age? Abidde never mentioned the diseases that result from anal sex.

    We love gays; they are our brothers and sisters but we hate their behavior. We want them to see and accept that they have a problem so that we can partner with them in the quest for therapy and reform. Finally, even if the new gay mob browbeat us all into acquiescence, even if the whole world goes gay, our maker has His ways. He did it before and He will do it again:

    “Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens. So he overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.” (Gen. 19 vs 24-25)

    Yes, even what grew on the ground they stepped, HE wiped out!

  • More about Zakah

    Worried by the big vacuum which the refusal of most Nigerian Muslims to pay Zakah has created in the society, the Muslim Community of Bodija Estate (Ibadan) and its environs organised a public lecture last Sunday to educate its members on the nitty gritty of that third pillar of Islam. And yours sincerely was invited as the guest lecturer. The venue was the premises of the ultra-modern Mosque of the Community strategically located on Awolowo Avenue. In the lecture which drew a rapt attention of the audience, I stated inter alia as follows:

    Perhaps no institution in Islam has brought as much harmony to human societies as Zakah. Its divine decree and revelation to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in the 5th year of Hijrah was a social revolution coming to mankind with an ecstasy of delight. That decree was the Fatwah that ushered Zakah into the world and made it the third pillar of Islam.

    Hitherto, there was no organised system of redistribution of wealth for the purpose of alleviating poverty in any society. Although the Prophet had introduced Sadaqah as a pecuniary bridge among the Muslim social strata, this was voluntarily done according to the whims of the rich. It had neither time nor measure.

    While in Makkah, the Prophet was limited to only two pillars of Islam. These were ‘Iman’ (Faith) and Salat (observance of five daily prayers). The three other pillars came to him through divine revelations in Madinah. Of the three, Ramadan first came in the third year of Hijrah while Zakah followed in the fifth year. Both were finally anchored by Hajj in the 7th year. However, Zakah is our immediate concern here.

    Zakah is not about the rich and the poor alone. It is also about harmonious social interaction of individuals and groups in the society to boost tolerance, love and concord. With the coming of Zakah as an obligatory pillar of Islam, the mutual suspicion between the rich and the poor was brought to its barest minimum. And the instrumentality of governance was formidably strengthened. Zakah is the only pillar of Islam that affects other people. Faith, Salat, Sawm (fasting) and Hajj are all personal. They cannot be shared with anybody. It is only Zakah that requires the give and the recipient to the benefit of the latter.

    Life without Zakah

    Without Zakah, it would have been much more difficult to enforce law and order as the rampancy of overwhelming poverty among the people would have been generally viewed as an act of insensitivity on the part of the rulers. And this would have randomly engendered rebellion against the authorities.

    The word Zakah which means purification of wealth is mentioned 35 times in the Qur’an. And about 30 times out of these are mentioned along with Salat. This is to enable the Muslims attach as much importance to Zakah as they do to Salat. Though Zakat is meant for only those who have excess annual income, just a few Muslims who can afford its payment care about it despite being one of the five pillars of Islam. Many people have performed Hajj so many times that it has virtually become their annual hobby. Yet, they have never paid Zakah even once in their life time.

    No pillar of Islam is meant for the rich alone. Allah knows that more people will have less material resources and therefore designs a means of redistributing wealth among all while making it obligatory so that the givers will not see themselves as superior to the recipients. Like the other four pillars of Islam, Zakah becomes obligatory on all Muslims who are privileged to make legitimate excess annual income. What makes the difference between the givers and the recipients of Zakah, therefore, is the little excess recorded in personal income by the supposed givers. After all, a recipient this year may become a giver next year and that does not necessarily make him a rich person. This further confirms that Zakah is not exclusive to the rich.

    Hajj is the last pillar of Islam. It is expected of whoever will perform Hajj to have fulfilled the obligations of the other four pillars of Islam before jumping to the last one. But due to lack of understanding of Islam and the seeming glamour in Hajj performance, most Nigerian Muslims, out of sheer ignorance or misconception or even whim, have performed Hajj several times at the expense of Zakah by substituting the latter for Sadaqah.

    Problem of Nisab

    The main problem of Zakah in the world today is in the controversy over the interpretation of Nisab (i.e. the minimum taxable amount from which Zakah is supposed to be paid) as prescribed by Prophet Muhammad (SAW).The controversy over that amount is the bane of Zakah and the main cause of the glaring poverty among the Muslims.

    Some modern scholars have become so lazy and perhaps so intellectually retarded that they only rely on research carried out by primordial scholars some centuries ago for the exhibition of their own intellectualism. They believe that the research carried out according to the situation of those periods should suffice to project of Islam today. Thus in matters of Zakah, such scholars are so rigid on using gold as the measure for determining Nisab that they do not care if Zakah is no longer paid and the five pillars of Islam are technically reduced to four. Such scholars have ignored the fact that the same Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who prescribed gold as a measure of Nisab for sellers and buyers of gold also prescribed silver (as a measure of Nisab for the sellers and buyers of silver as well as the majority of Muslims who are engaged in other businesses). That same Prophet even went further to name the amount of Nisab in certain currencies available during his time.

    And since payment of Zakah is not about money alone subjecting the Nisab (minimum taxable amount of money) to the market price of gold is like surrendering a whole pillar of Islam to the whim of the Jews who are determined to obliterate Islam by all means. It is generally known throughout the world that the principal traders in gold are the Jews. And they are the ones determining its price from time to time. While some scholars insist on waiting for the current price gold to be able to determine Nisab only a few people know that as of today it requires just a minimum of about 200 UAE Dirham which is an equivalence of $54.5 or N8,656 as the net amount saved or owned in kind in a year from which Zakah is to be paid. And only two and a half per cent of this amount is payable annually. The figure here is based on 200 UAE Dirham in accordance with the Prophet’s prescription. By this, only those who have less than N8,656 net in a year will not pay Zakah. Yet Nigerian Muslims prefer to spend thousands of dollars on Hajj annually without paying Zakah. The irony in this is that such people are just wasting their money on mere tourism which fetches no reward whatsoever.

    Zakah compared to Hajj

    Paying Zakah annually before consideration for Hajj is like making provisions for one’s household before embarking on that holy journey. Not making necessary provisions for the family before embarking on Hajj automatically renders such Hajj invalid. It is better and more rewarding to pay Zakah and leave Hajj if a choice of opportunity cost must be made between the two. Hajj is for self alone while Zakah is a social venture which affects the lives of others.

    There is a conditional alternative to Hajj but Zakah has no alternative at all. The Prophet was reported to have said that anybody who is able to observe all the Jum’ah (Friday) prayers dedicatedly in a year without missing any will have the reward of a Muslim who performed Hajj once in a life time. No such alternative can be related to Zakah. Its payment is a trust between the payer and Allah the Supreme Giver.

    To be sincere, how many workers in Nigeria actually save less than N8656 in a whole year? The amount of money spent on GSM recharge cards alone by some people in a month is much higher than that Nisab. In some other religions 10% is paid as tithe on gross income as many times in a year as there is income. In Islam, Zakah is paid on net income only (and not on gross income) only once in a year. Yet, two and a half per cent or 1/40 of the net income is the prescribed amount to be paid after bearing all necessary expenses and payment of outstanding debt.

    Due process

    In Islam, everything is done by due process. And Zakah cannot be of any exception. The process of paying Zakah includes the following:

    · Being a genuine Muslim

    · Attainment of the age of maturity

    · Intention to pay Zakah and not Sadaqah;

    · Timeliness (i.e. after one year of accumulating the wealth from

    which Zakah is to be paid);

    · Paying the correct amount (i.e. abiding by the rule of Nisab);

    · Ensuring that the Zakah paid is collected by the recipient;

    Disbursing such Zakah locally to deserved beneficiaries

    The wealth on which Zakah must be paid are basically seven. These include: gold; silver; cash income; agricultural products; livestock; property and mineral resources.

    Every male or female Muslim who has a net income of at least N8656 which is an equivalence of 200 UAE Dirham prescribed by the Prophet as reported by Ali Bn Abi Talib, the third Caliph. The Prophet was quoted as saying that if you have a net income of 200 Dirham or 20 Dinar you are liable to the payment of Zakah. The fact that he mentioned Dirham which was coined in silver before Dinar which was coined in gold confirms that he gave preference to silver over gold as a measure of Nisab. And based on the quoted Hadith, Umar Bn Khattab also laid emphasis on silver during his caliphate.

    Both Dirham and Dinar are still very much in use today in some Arab countries. For instance in countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Syria and Morocco, the currency in use is Dirham while countries like Jordan, Iraq, Libya and Kuwait use Dinar.

    Most of the prescriptions of Nisab by today’s Nigerian scholars are based on the current global market value of gold. This is contradictory to the position of the second Caliph (Umar Bn Khattab) who adopted 200 silver-based Dirham prescribed by the Prophet to enable as many people as possible pay Zakah even as he did not prevent those who preferred gold as measure from using it. (For reference, see the section of Zakah in Bulughul Marami and Riyadus-Salihin).

    Insisting on gold as a universal measure of Nisab in today’s world is nothing but an ambush for that third pillar of Islam as well as a clandestine collaboration with the enemies of Islam to ditch the third pillar of that divine religion. The Prophet had guarded against this by considering the implications of not paying Zakah before he prescribed Dirham and Dinar. Going by the current market value of gold some Nigerian scholars now insist that the Nisab for Zakah this year should be about N710000 while others are prescribing various other amounts. In a nutshell, there is no uniform Nisab based on consensus. Yet because of its dynamism as a religion, Islam had adopted for statutory sources for its law (Shari‘ah). They are the Qur’an, Hadith, Ijma‘u (consensus of opinion) and Qiyas (analogical deduction). These sources are applied in order of their arrangement.

    Why Dirham?

    The Message as a column chose the UAE Dirham in this case because of Nigerians’ familiarity with it. Many Nigerians either travel to Dubai for business transactions or pass through that globally acknowledged transit city on their way to some other countries. Through this, they become familiar with the UAE currency called Dirham which the Prophet recommended as a matter of priority. The argument that the Dirham of the Prophet’s time was different from today’s Dirham is as pedestrian as saying that since the Prophet did not mention Naira in the measure of Nisab, Zakah should not be paid in Naira. Can anybody prove that the available gold or silver during the Prophet’s time was not the same as that of today? Just as gold is gold whether during the Prophet’s time or today so is Dirham or Dinar the same.

    What is statutorily payable from N8,868 is N221.7 (which is 21/2% or 1/40) of that amount. Today, the Dirham used in the United Arab Emirates is globally recognised as denominated in silver just as the Dinar used in Jordan and Iraq is recognized as denominated in gold.

    With regards to landed property, no Zakah is paid on residential building that is not commercialised. If however, a part of it is commercialised and made a source of income (i.e. a part of it is let out) Zakah should be paid on the amount realised from the income so generated. If an open land is rented out commercially, Zakah should be paid on the amount realised from it provided that amount reaches the prescribed measure (Nisab). But if the property is sold out the payable sum on it should be 21/2% or 1/40 of the amount realised from its sale.

    Other properties on which Zakah should be paid include machinery leased out which generates income or a plot of land leased out on commercial basis or a well of water used for commercial purpose. Whatever is realised from any of these should be assessed according to the prescribed measure and 21/2% or 1/40 of its net balance be paid as Zakah after deducting all expenses incurred on its process and payment of any debt.

    As for the agricultural products, the prescribed minimum quantity from which Zakah should be paid is 653 kilograms. Such products include cash crops, legumes, fruits as well as tuber. There is no payment of Zakah on anything less than that weight. And the measure to be paid on agricultural products generally is 10% if the farm is not irrigated. But if irrigation is involved, only 5% is to be paid. This is to enable the farmer to cater for the cost of irrigation. The Zakah on farm products is paid immediately after harvesting. Payment of Zakah on agricultural products, especially crops, may be more than once in a year because it is a matter of pay as you harvest.

    In the case of livestock, the quantities from which Zakah should be paid vary from animal to animal. For instance, one cow is given as Zakah out of every 30 cows. One goat or one sheep is given as Zakah out of every 40. One year old goat or sheep is given as Zakah on every five camels.

    The minimum taxable Nisab on gold is 20 Dinar. Out of this, half of one Dinar, which amounts to 1/40 of 20 Dinar is payable. Anything in excess of 20 Dinar is calculated accordingly. Besides gold and silver, there is no Zakah on mines until they have been converted into cash or cash-able values. Zakat may also be paid on expected payment of debt if the debtor is reliable and trustworthy.

    In an Islamic environment, collection of Zakah is done by the ruling authorities or their appointees. Such appointed collectors should be highly responsible men and women of truthful and trustworthy characters. Men are to collect Zakah from men. Women are also to collect from fellow women. The Zakah so collected should be deposited in the central treasury for onward distribution to the qualified beneficiaries.

    The beneficiaries, are contained in Qur’an 9 verse 60 as follows: “Verily, Sadaqah (obligatory alms) are only for the poor and the needy and those who work on its collection and those whose hearts are to be reconciled (i.e. new converts) and to free those in bondage and the heavily indebted and in the path of God and the wayfarers; a duty imposed by God; God is all-knowing, all seeing”.

    The administration of Zakah to these people should be done by the State authorities in Islamic societies or committee headed by Muftis of each locality or Chief Imams of area Mosques in non-Islamic societies.

    The wealth on which Zakah is to be paid must have been acquired from a pure, legitimate source (Halal). And the modality for distributing it must also be based on purity both esoterically and exoterically.

    In a non Islamic environment, there is hardly a definite calendar year for Zakah payment. This is arranged on a Mosque to Mosque basis or organized privately by societies and individuals.

    It is better to dispense Zakah within the extended family or in the neighbourhood than to carry it outside one’s environment. In countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran and the likes, the time for paying Zakah is set to coincide with Ramadan period. This does not however mean that every Zakah time must fall in Ramadan.

    Generally, the business of Zakah is as serious with Allah as it is in the lives of the poor masses that will benefit from it. Thus, it is not a topic to be fully treated in a single day column of this type. It may therefore be continued in this column in the near future.

     

  • Politics or statesmanship?

    Politics or statesmanship?

    Politics can be noble; it can be morally uplifting. But the community must be ready to defend its nobility and demand that those who go into politics do so for the good of the community

    I is public knowledge that where two or three Nigerians gather especially outside of their native land, discussion quickly turns on the Nigerian condition: the terror of Boko Haram insurgency andthe cancer of corruption, the exploding international fame of Nollywood and the exploits of Super Eagles. Since 1999, however, politics has come alive and has been a dominant aspect of these spirited discussions.

    Two generalisations in particular dominate the discussion of politics in general and Nigerian politics in particular. Politics is rotten and debased. Politicians are unethical, unreliable and unpredictable. Both are summed up in the dismissive jab: it’s all politics. This raises two questions: If politics is so demonstrably debased, why is it at the centre of our lives? And if politicians are so incurably unreliable and unpredictable, why our societies so organised that politicians are in control?

    Add to the foregoing the peculiarity of the Nigerian condition where ethnicity and religion make demands on the political, complicating an already complex institution and you have a triple jeopardy. And a third question pops up for an answer: if politics and politicians must be in the driving seat of our national life, can we ever make them accountable to us?

    We cannot make them accountable to us because there are multiples of “us”. While the pardon of a convicted corrupt politician elicited condemnation among one group, it was praised by another as the height of statesmanship. And while a religious organisation received the gift of a sanctuary without any compunction of conscience, secular organisations berated the gesture as a bribe.

    Is the accusation fair? Are politicians unethical, unreliable and unpredictable?Is politics rotten and debased?

    If politics is rotten and debased, the reason cannot be unconnected with the character and/or action of politicians. After all, politics differs significantly from an apple or tomato that can rot without human agency. We may conceive of politics as an institution, a formal system of rules and regulations that society designs to advance its interests, or as an art of governance, or as a device for sharing scarce resources in a population. From none of these conceptions can we necessarily deduce a cynical view of politics if no human agency is involved. But, of course, human hands are implicated, and those can be dreadful, wicked, and rather unclean.

    Society cannot do without politics as a system of rules and regulations; society must seeks ways of advancing its interests; where four or five are gathered, there must be a device for governance; and in the face of scarce resources, principles for sharing must be devised, accepted and implemented. We cannot avoid politics; but we can do without debased politics. We can have politics without bitterness, apology to one of the oldies of the game.

    I once argued that the debased notion of politics doesn’t do justice to what politics is all about, and that there is a much more noble character to politics. It is what we now identify as statesmanship. And this makes sense to the extent that we also mark a clear distinction between the politician and the statesman. As John Rawls once put it in his characteristic elegance, the politician looks to the next election, the statesman looks to the next generation. Of course, being a philosopher, he cannot help adding that the philosopher looks to the indefinite future, echoing Aristotle. Let us discountenance the self-serving posturing of Rawls and Aristotle with respect to the role of philosophy. But isn’t it true that the politician only looks to the next election?

    What is sad about this is that a political community such as ours needs direction that only statesmen can give but if all we have are politicians whose concern is election, their focus is always going to be taking undue advantage of the cyclical returns of elections. And they will approach these without regard for ethics or morals. Recall the infamous position attributed to a late political leader in the southwest. Approached by a young aspirant, the old man was quoted as asking the young aspirant: “so you want to be a politician? Have you ever lied? Can you kill?” Thinking that these were disqualifying attributes, the young man responded negatively. But to his surprise, he was discouraged from pursuing his ambition because he “was not ready for the world of politics.”

    I don’t believe that this was a true story. But it makes the point that nothing noble or communally rewarding can come out of a debased politics such as the one we have embraced since the inception of the republic. And we don’t appear to be eager for a change because even when the old soldiers of raw politics pass on, they pass on the tradition to their successors. And those individuals who genuinely feel the urge to serve and can do a great job at it are scared away.

    The First Republic witnessed the abuse of political power with the use of regional police to harass the opposition. Subsequent military administrations thought that the way to correct the odious practice was to abolish regional police. However, since the Second Republic, we have witnessed the increasing politicisation of the federal police that has always seen itself as the security wing of the ruling party. If we had true statesmen and not politicians in the saddle, we would have devised a means of assuring everyone, including members of the opposing political parties who have not thereby renounced their citizenship that they all count and would be protected by the police. Meanwhile, concern for the next elections has driven the approach of politicians to security matters, including sensitive appointments, even when lives are being mowed down indiscriminately by terror agents.

    Africa in general and Nigeria in particular, can still learn from the Mandela legacy of statesmanship. For a human being to make such an enormous sacrifice for his country and to walk away from the allure of power when the ovation was loudest is not what we have come to associate with our clime. But it is what made Madiba a hero of the human race. Politics can be noble; it can be morally uplifting. But the community must be ready to defend its nobility and demand that those who go into politics do so for the good of the community.

    Signing off……for now

    I was rounding off this piece for submission when Opalaba called. “You need a break”, my friend announced. “Excuse me?” I intoned. “You are not getting younger,” he continued, “and I am scared of losing you. Who is listening anyway?” I knew he was serious. So I tried to cheer him up with one of our common favorites from the King of Juju: “Emi o ba won wa, emi o ni ba won lo….”It worked! My friend joined me and I could hear his dancing steps. However, he refused to stop before he got to where his emphasis was: Ara ma n fe simi… I got the message.
    I answered the call right from the beginning of this paper. Even with increasing demands on my time as I took on additional responsibilities at my job, I did not waver. Now I must take Opalaba’s advice. But I’ll be back.

  • Vacation pickings: on Jonathan, Okonjo-Iweala, Ango, e.t.c.

    Great to be back on the beat after a few weeks’ absence though a reporter is never completely off the news track. Just as a paranoid old man would fear to close his eyes in sleep lest he never wakes up again same way a true man of the pen would not take his eyes off the news lest he misses the great (news) ‘rapture’. In the same manner, though Expresso was on vacation, he kept his finger on the pulse of the country. Below are some vacation pickings:

    2015: Would President Jonathan bite the bullet?

    Now that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has released the time-table for the 2015 elections, anytime soon, President Goodluck Jonathan will break the ice. He will have to make that most important announcement of his life now, to wit: whether he will run for the presidency of Nigeria next year or not? That seat has never been more contentious but not just because it is the number one stool in the land but because some elements in the north of Nigeria believe the pendulum of the presidency must swing back to their corner of the country. They feel terribly hard done by since their kinsman, President Umaru Yar’Adua died on duty in 2009 barely two years in his first term and his vice, Jonathan had mounted the saddle. They are inconsolable in their grief.

    But the incumbent, Jonathan, who got the job by divine default, so to speak, believes he is entitled to a second term; besides his people never got around to the big seat in all of Nigeria’s five decades some have argued. But at the end of a second term he would have ruled Nigeria for ten years. So as it stands, Nigeria seemingly sits on the horns of dilemma. Expresso’s verdict is: yes, Jonathan is entitled to a second term in office and has every right to contest. But no, he does not deserve a second term in office because he has grossly underperformed in nearly six years on the saddle. Nigeria is worse off today than in 2009 and he is unlikely to win in a free and fair election today than in 2011.

    Now what is to be done? Should he resign as has been suggested by some opponents? No, that would amount to abdication. No leader does that. As we await Jonathan’s confirmation of intent to run in the next election, is it possible that he can buck the trend? Can he shame his detractors and take the wind off his opponents’ sail? Can he bite the bullet? Can he mount the rostrum and make that historic announcement that defines an epoch and rewrites history? This is the most crucial moment of Jonathan’s life; he is today, poised at the juncture of history where he could choose to be among the greatest Nigerian (and African) leaders or plunge into the abyss of ignominy like many before him.

    Can President Jonathan make that most difficult but noble announcement? Can he bite this bullet?

    Time for Okonjo-Iweala to go

    One loathes to note once again on this page that the second coming of our dear Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has turned out to be a debacle and she may well find a reason to step down now that she has any honour left. The Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister of the Economy (CME) seems to have lost the capacity to put the economy together again. Just three quick points will suffice for now. First, corruption has blossomed under her watch with appointees in a free-for-all pillaging of the treasury at a magnitude we have never experienced before. She could well be the Coordinating Minister of Corruption (CMC). All the institutional checks against official corruption are under-funded and debased under her watch.

    Second, for three fiscal years consecutively (2012 to 2014) we have become convinced of her inability to prepare a basic annual budget or implement one. She promised from the outset to reverse the outlook of the budget by bringing down a crazy recurrent expenditure which gulps more than 70 percent of Nigeria’s income. She has been unable to do that because she has not shown us that she is on top of the economy as it were. Year on year, the budget has come out as a roadside bin where all manner of thrash is thrown in. It is shocking that an Okonjo-Iweala’s budget contains an 11th jet for the president! Our budget is littered with so much rubbish items that one wonders whether the document passed through the scrutiny of the CME the Budget Monitoring Office (DMO). We shall blame it on fatigue… let Madam CME take bow (out) please.

    Ango Abdullahi and other saber rattlers

    As we say in my place, it is good for the wind to blow hard enough sometimes so that it might reveal the naked hind of the hen. In this quest for the presidency in 2015, we have seen the nakedness of some elite of the north. Some who we had so much respect for have proved to have the most unsightly behind. Everyday, people we hitherto regard as elders and statesmen; learned and well-spoken invoke hate, bitterness and blood upon the polity. As if they don’t get enough blood from the daily bomb outs and slashing of throats. When it is not Professor Ango Abdullahi, it is Dr. Junaid Mohammed, Nasir el Rufai, Abu king Shuluwa and their ilk. They scream at the rest of us that blood will flow and Nigeria will become a Hobbesian state should power not return to the north in 2015. Let it be known this is the truest sign of cowardliness; but nobody is cowed and only a fool thinks with his muscles. Then again, the problem of the north is nowhere near the seat of the presidency but a grim elite that holds its people hostage and refuse to change with the times.

    Aregbe’s new beard

    It was a pleasant surprise the other day to see Osun State governor, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola wearing a trimmed and managed beard. No longer the shaggy, rowdy, free-growing facial locks. Expresso had picked on the famous beard late last year and it had generated a heated, albeit, healthy debate in the house to the point of calling in an expert to determine whether it is haram in Islam to trim the beard.

    I am sure the good people of Osun, not the least madam, will be happier for Aregbe’s new look. Also salutary and statesmanly is the governor’s decision to consider giving schools back to their original owners as has been advocated on this page. It is vintage leadership to listen and reconsider issues when necessary. But yet again there is a new troubling matter: the 200,000 capacity Christian Convention Centre to be built by the state government in Oshogbo. We say it is a no, no, no. Great as the idea is, it is not government’s business. No matter its economic value government can only support, but never to erect such structures. We hope it is not late to backtrack.

    And Pa Alampasu bids goodbye to poverty

    Surely that name, awkward as it may sound, must ring a bell now. Yes, Dele Alampasu is the young boy between the posts when Nigeria’s glorious lads thrilled the world to a sweet dose of football in the Under-17 World Championship. When Dele returned to his rustic Itoki, Ogun State neighbourhood after his exploits, the sleepy community came alive in wild jubilation. If it seemed like fairy tale for Dele, it is reality for Papa Alampasu. His joy knew no bounds; the lowly okada rider was quoted to have said that God had rescued him from a life of crushing poverty. No more okada for him, he declared. In fact, Pa Alampasu has determined to migrate to the lights and glitz of Abuja, away from his dark, crushing village setting.

  • Sodomy: A case of two Davids

    And when our messengers came to Lot, he was grieved for them because he could not protect them against the sacrilegious acts of his townsmen (who were neck deep in homosexuality). Lot concluded: ‘this is a day of woe.’ And as the evil doers came rushing towards him he said: ‘’my people, here are my daughters; they are (sexually) more lawful to you than your fellow men. Have fear of Allah and do not humiliate me (with your sacrilege) before my guests. Is there no single good man amongst you?

    “Then, the Angels said: ‘Lot! We are the messengers of your Lord; they shall not touch you. Depart with your kinsfolk in some part of the night and let none of you look back, except your wife. She shall suffer the fate of the others. Their appointed time is the morning. And, is the morning not near? And when our judgment came to pass, we laid them (and their towns) upside down and let loose upon them a shower of burnt stones bearing the tokens of your Lord. Such is not far off from all evil doers”. Q. 11: 76, 77, 81 & 82.

    The above Qur’anic quotations are in reference to the people of Prophet Luth (called Lot in the Bible) and the consequences of their evil deeds. But as the last quoted verse indicates, the story of such evil machination did not end with them and its consequences will surely not end with them. Every civilisation has an elasticity limit. And the end of any civilisation is signalled by audacious confrontation with God. Now, the imperial West with its open adoption of sodomy as civilisation seems to be heading for eternal perdition. Having reached the elasticity limit of its civilisation the West now thinks that, contrary to the Qur’anic and Biblical provisions, the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were afflicted by the above mentioned calamity either because they were not clever enough or they had no nuclear power with which to fight God.

    Gay crusader

    Before now, the known chief gay crusader of this era was no less a personality than the Prime Minister of Britain, David Cameron whose campaign for free homosexuality and same sex marriage was being internationalised. At the Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting held in Australia in 2011, Cameron’s preoccupation was to sell the constitutional entrenchment of free homosexuality to other Heads of governments, particularly those from Africa. He threatened to withdraw his government’s technical and financial aid to any country that refused to allow gay freedom in her constitution. The so-called champion of democracy did not see any despotic tendency in that intimidation.

    Calling the bluff of devil

    The first reaction to the devilish threat came from the then Ghanaian President John Atta Mills who publicly and eloquently told his fellow countrymen that his government would not tolerate the linkage of foreign aid to promotion of gay rights. President Mills open denunciation came after David Cameron boasted in the British Parliament that he had sold the concept of gay rights to the Commonwealth countries. President Atta Mill asked: “If the aid is going to be tied to things that will destroy the moral fibre of our society, do you really want that?”

    Ghana was not alone in such denunciation. Uganda, at that time, also asserted in reaction that she would rather suffer any economic backlash from anywhere over her opposition to gay rights. Both countries then separately went ahead to proscribe homosexuality and consigned Cameron’s threat to the refuse bin.

    Out of the 54 members of the Commonwealth at that time, 41 maintained laws banning homosexuality, with many of those laws dating back to the British colonial rule. Uganda in particular described Cameron’s threat to cut bilateral aid as bullying tactics. And Ghana, which enjoyed some 36 million British pounds aid the previous financial year, said it would not compromise on immorality and bastardization of cultural value. It will be recalled that Cameron had been harping on gay rights since assuming office as Prime Minster of Britain. He was apparently sponsored by the gay cult on the promise to take the campaign for gay rights to the outside world, convinced that the British point of view on this evil venture was the law by which all her former colonies must abide. In that case, Britain’s point of view was considered to be more salutary than Africa’s.

    When, shortly after the Australian Commonwealth Conference, Malawi, another African Country, sentenced two homosexuals to 14 years imprisonment with hard labour, David Cameron quickly responded by slashing $30 million from that Britain’s aid to that country.

    Personal contact

    Yours sincerely first heard of the presence of a gay group in Nigeria in 1998 when the preparations were in top gear for the take off of the Fourth Republic. On investigation as a journalist, I discovered that the Headquarters of the group was then in Ibadan. And in my search for a scoop, I endeavoured to meet the leader of the group but my efforts proved abortive. However, I was able to get his telephone number (not GSM) through which I spoke with him from Lagos. During our conversation, he told me boastfully that all hands were already on deck to get same sex marriage legalized in Nigeria through the National Assembly. He told me that the group had money, men and power to back up its demand emphasizing the status of the ranks in the group.

    The group’s Headquarters then was somewhere off Osuntokun Avenue in Bodija, Ibadan. But when I tried to locate the place about two years later, I discovered that the group had relocated to Abuja where it could closely monitor the legalization of its project through the National Assembly. Thus, I was not surprised when an attempt was first made in 2003 to sponsor a bill in the National Assembly for the legalization of same sex marriage in Nigeria.

    Thank God for David Mark

    However, we thank God that the Senate President David Mark, maintained his dignity and upheld the cultural honour of Nigerians by not allowing any debate on such an obnoxious bill. Even his Deputy who was initially rumoured to be working in favour of the evil bill promptly denied it and cooperated with the moralists in the Senate to ensure that no evil law emerged from that legislative arm of government. In his remark while the bill remained on the table, Mark told his colleagues that such a bill was not only incompatible with African culture but also antithetical to religious beliefs in Nigeria. Bravo! Allowing a debate on such a sacrilege would have brought any image left for the Senate at time to its lowest ebb. The point here is that not all who bear the name David can be devilish or angelical at the same time.

    It could be assumed that for David Cameron to have championed such a desecration, he must have also been a gay. And what can be strange in having a gay as the Prime Minister of Britain when publicly known Gays are consecrated as Bishops in the Church of England which is headed by the Queen. And despite the hue and cry on Cameron’s heretic action, the Queen who is the Head of State remains silent an indication of consent on her part.

    Political consideration

    A political school of thought suggested that David Cameron might have been noticed the rising population of gays in his country and therefore driven by blind ambition to win election through that under the disguise of campaigning for gay rights. But if that is true of his campaign for the sacrilege inside his own country what votes does he expect from African countries? An analyst said he needed the acceptability of the Commonwealth countries as a springboard for his gay rights campaign at home. At least if he told Britons that almost all the Commonwealth countries had accepted to include gay rights in their constitutions that might ginger the British electorate towards voting for him. After all, he had also taken his gay crusade even to the secondary school level in England saying that teaching children about equality for gay people and the importance of civil partnerships should be “embedded” in Britain’s school curriculum.

    The irony of Cameron’s new crusade is that he had, in the past, opposed any inclusion of gay rights in the British constitution. Even as recently as 2003, he voted for the retention of section 28 of the British acts which prohibited gay rights in Britain.

    But in a sharp departure from his Tory past, Cameron came out shamelessly to apologise for supporting that section and turned round to say that teaching about equality was an important way of combating homophobic bullying.

    Museveni’s u-turn

    Incidentally, David Cameron was not alone in his U-turn mazy odyssey. Even the same Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni who first vehemently opposed any legislation allowing freedom of sodomy in his country has now turned round to speak from both sides of his mouth. He is deploying his presidential power to block any official prohibition of sodomy in Uganda an indication that he has become a convert of the gay cult. What is true of Museveni here is equally true of President Barack Obama of the United States. The latter was once an ardent campaigner against homosexuality. His changed attitude to that obnoxious evil came to the fore only last year. It is not clear yet what informed that change of attitude but in a capitalist world where anything, including evil trade by barter is quite possible, anything could have happened.

    Cameron’s changing attitude towards homosexuality was highlighted in a study by the National Centre for Social Research which found that 36% of respondents thought sexual relations between two adults of the same sex were “always or mostly” wrong. This is down from 63% in 1983.

    Cameron’s disciple

    Long before carrying his gay campaign to the Commonwealth meeting in Australia, Cameron had secretly done a lot of homework in that direction. For instance, a well known unrepentant gay woman, Ruth Davidson, 32, had been elected as leader of the Scottish Conservative Party at the instance of Cameron after the entire membership of the party had rejected her leading rival’s radical proposals to create a new centre-right party.

    She is widely seen as David Cameron’s favourite chosen to lead the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party by a comfortable margin after a most bitterly-fought and divisive leadership campaign in the party history. Officials in London believe that Davidson, a lesbian and the youngest of the four candidates, would be able to freshen up the Tories’ faltering appeal to Scottish voters. Her victory saves the prime minister from the embarrassment of watching the UK party being split by Davidson’s rival for the leadership, Murdo Fraser.

    France of evil

    The case of President Francois Hollande of France is however neither strange nor surprising. France and her leaders are permanently known as champions of evil around the world. And they have a way of justifying their evil acts at any given time. France is the foremost European country in the persecution of Muslims. With about 10% of the country’s population (6.5 million Muslims) the French government has never found any deserving human rights for Muslim women to wear hijab legitimately. Ironically, the French gay cult with a population of about 5.4 million is granted an official legitimacy in the constitution under the guise of human rights. This confirms that the so-called human rights are a euphemism for indecency and satanic machination in France. And, of course, Hollande is its flag bearer.

    For initiating a bill forbidding homosexuality in Nigeria, both the Federal House of Representatives and the Senate deserve kudos. The heroes of that landmark law are the Senate President David Mark and Speaker of of the Parliament the Rt. Honourable Aminu Tambuwal who championed its enactment and President Goodluck Jonathan who actually signed it into law. History will always keep them alive for this.

    NSCIA’s reaction

    In an appreciative reaction to that law, the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) opined through a press release as follows: We (in the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs) hereby commend the two national legislative houses (Reps and Senate) for passing the bill forbidding same gender marriage or illicit same gender sexual relationship according to the popular wish of Nigerians. We also praise and support President Goodluck Jonathan for signing the bill into law at a record time even against evil pressure from the Western leaders. The law is a further confirmation that Nigerians will hold on to the chord of God at any time no matter whose ox is gored. We urge Mr. President to surge ahead with his good intention on this law and count strongly on God’s support and further guidance as Nigerian Muslims will always queue behind him in fighting such satanic vices…..”

    Conclusion

    It does not matter that Britain, a once colonial empire is returning to the path of perdition and sinking with most NATO member nations. Neither does it matter that some evil-minded Nigerians are subjecting that law to devilish debate by subscribing to the Western woes. Such is however not strange since most Nigerians would do anything for money. What matters at this stage is majority of Nigerians have expressed their readiness to keep far away from the madding crowd of the insane West. Congratulation! Sodomy, according to the Qur’an and the Bible, is the straight path to Hell which pious Nigerians can’t afford to thread it.

  • Conference believers, unbelievers and agnostics

    Conference believers, unbelievers and agnostics

    An insightful discussion of the increasingly polarising tactic of the Jonathan presidency on anational dialogue could benefit from concepts of religion and spirituality. For one thing, Jonathan and the nation need all the help from above to wade through the chaos that will most certainly ensue if this does not turn out well. For another, however, at least as I will argue in what follows, just as we have believers, unbelievers and agnostics in the religious domain, so we have them in Mr. President’s national dialogue. But while the class of unbelievers has remained unchanging and unchangeable, the class of believers appears to be dwindling while the class of agnostics seems to be fast becoming unbelievers. But assume that the President himself is a firm believer; he needs more believers for his pet project to succeed and for his legacy to last. It’s up to him how he reshapes this.

    A bit of clarification is in order. Nigerians have been clamouring for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) since the early 80s, and since then there have been believers, unbelievers, and agnostics. The reasons adduced by the various categories for or against the original conference idea vary according to the interests of the various constituents. Thus it was to be expected that members of the military and their hangers-on flatly rejected the idea of a SNC not for any patriotic reason but because, well, they had no good reason to upset the applecart of the status quo which favoured them and their constituency. On the other hand, the majority of the population across the country openly canvassed for a restructuring of the polity via the SNC. In the 1990s, following the annulment of the June 12, 1993 elections, virtually every progressive, sickened by the impunity that characterised the handling of national affairs by our military officers, joined the demand for a SNC. In the struggle against Abacha’s junta, three demands featured prominently: release Abiola, return his mandate, and convoke a SNC.

    Today’s unbelievers in Jonathan’s national dialogue were firm believers in and proponents of a sovereign national conference. If they don’t now believe in Jonathan’s national dialogue, there must be a good reason so they are not guilty of inconsistency.

    As there were believers turn unbelievers, so there were unbelievers turn believers and, as many commentators have pointed out, Jonathan himself belongs to this category. So was Senate President David Mark. Even the NLC, through its Vice President, was against the national conference before it was for it. Senator Mark’s objection, based on the idea of sovereignty of the people vested in the National Assembly, was later recounted without a bit of explanation. And in short order, a presidential endorsement rolled in, followed by a flurry of activities that brought us a report on the agenda and procedure. If unbelievers thus become believers, original believers understandably have questions bothering on their genuine fear about getting it right and avoiding gimmicky posturing that is calculated to attract political support without the intent of effecting any real change. Hence their rejection of what they consider a Greek gift.

    Agnostics are of a double mind arising from what they perceive as an insufficiency of evidence to sway them one way or the other. Therefore, they consider withholding judgment as the rational course of action. There were original agnostics who never felt that they were presented good reasons to support the call for a sovereign national conference but who also felt that there was sufficient reason to worry about the future of the country. And now, there are those who still worry about the future of the country but are also worried that the president’s national dialogue may not be the panacea it needs.

    Unbelievers and agnostics about Jonathan’s dialogue must not be dismissed as a selfish or an unpatriotic bunch. They need convincing with serious evidence that the president is serious and that the dialogue is the answer to the nation’s structural challenges. Thus far, unfortunately, there have been only negative signals that even believers are now getting worried that they are being sold a dummy.

    There are three areas of needless contention if the President really desires a successful outcome. First is the matter of people’s representation versus special interest selection. Second, there is the issue of citizen referendum versus National Assembly imposition. Third, there is the question of a new constitution versus an amended constitution.

    On the first matter, there is a deep confusion about what is recommended by the Conference Advisory Committee and what is ratified by the government on how conference participants are to be chosen. Is it by direct election by the people or by selection by organisations? If media reports are correct, the Federal Government may have opted for nominations of participants by ethnic and cultural organisations instead of direct election using federal constituencies. This is perhaps to avoid moneybags hijacking the process. But this only sets up a different kind of challenge: which of the many nationality-wide organisations in Yorubaland, for instance, gets to choose Yoruba nationality delegates? By what approach? Would the Yoruba nationality need its own national dialogue to adopt a method of delegate selection? The same is true of other nationalities, especially in the south with its plethora of organizations.

    On the second issue, it is clear from the beginning, including the belated transformation of Senate President Mark that there is a meeting of minds between him and President Jonathan on the ultimate authority over the outcome of the national dialogue. Thus even when Senator Okurounmu appeared to distance himself from the idea of a national assembly imposition, suggesting in an interview that the president’s mandate to them was clear, what is clear now is that the National Assembly has the final word. The people are not going to have the right to determine what their nation looks like. For once, there is an opportunity after 100 years of forced relationship, for the people to collectively express a general will to forge a new relationship and pursue a commonly determined goal, and they are being denied that opportunity! Whereas we are so craftily creative in matters sordid and mundane, and we rationalize such move on the need for home-grown approaches, in a matter of immense importance such as affording our people the right to say yes to the nation of their choice, we plead impotence.

    The second and third issues are joined at the umbilical cord. Recourse to legality is the rationale for denyingthe people the right to a referendum. It is the same legality that is cited as the rationale for the rejection of a new constitution. We knew this was coming when the Deputy Senate President gave a hint about the activities of the Senate Constitutional Amendment Committee. We should therefore expect that after all the jamboree, and a humungous outlay of resources, we will only have an amendment to the 1999 constitution that favours the National Assembly at the expense of the people and we will again have a country, a mere geographical expression, rather than a nation. Why, then, do we need a national dialogue, if this is the predetermined outcome?

    At least as far back as the beginning of the struggle against militarism in the wake of the Abacha dictatorship, along with others, I have argued for, protested in favour of, and rallied in support of a sovereign national conference. I have written about it over the years and I have been consistent in its advocacy. The idea, as I have always understood it, is that the people are sovereign and they have the ultimate right to self-determination. At the inception of the new debate that led to this seeming breakthrough, I contributed to the debate against the first position of Senator Mark and the NLC. And when Mark rethought his objection, I encouraged proponents to seize the moment. Now, I am beginning to fear that we are being fooled again. But we cannot afford to relent. There is too much at stake.

  • A humanitarian gesture

    A humanitarian gesture

    Who shares his life’s pure pleasure and walks the honest road; who trades with heaping measure and lifts his brother’s load; who turns the wrong down bluntly and lends the right a hand; he dwells in God’s own country and tills the holy land”.

    An unassuming Nigerian Muslim brother is perfectly fitting into the above quotation and ‘The Message’ is a witness to this. In a society like Nigeria where virtually all things are upside down and the rich feed fat on the blood of the poor while about 97% of the national wealth is in the hands of only three per cent of the citizenry, it takes only a divinely guided few to embark on humanitarian gesture to the benefit of the poor. One of such few is Imam Abdullah Shuaib, the Executive Director of a foremost Zakat and Sadaqat Foundation in Nigeria.

    In a famous authentic Hadith, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) once counseled Muslims to right the wrong by taking necessary action in correcting any obscene situation. He said: “whoever amongst you sees something wrong should correct it with his hand. But if he is incapable of doing so let him correct it with his mouth (by condemning it). And if he is still incapable of doing that he should then correct it with his mind (by shunning it completely). But the last option is classified as an evidence of a weak faith”.

    Determination

    In accordance with that Hadith, Imam Shuaib observed, painfully, that Nigerian Muslims were suffering from two endemic ailments. One of these ailments is ignorance while the other is poverty. In his intellectual diagnosis he concluded that healing one of the ailments would mean healing the other automatically. And he found his solution in a particular pillar of Islam (Zakah). But then, he noticed that virtually everything was wrong with the manner in which Zakat is administered in Nigeria. And realising that the danger inherent in the neglect to which Zakat was subjected formed the main cause of the two identified ailments, he decided to correct that anomaly in his own little way by embarking on a unique mission of helping the poor through the divine means of administering Zakat as it should be done. He had to resign from his official job to engage in this difficult but highly rewarding venture.

    Testimony

    To bear witness to this noble venture and further encourage the young man, a galaxy of well-meaning Nigerian Muslims assembled at the New Great Hall of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) penultimate Saturday to pay a rare attention to a hitherto neglected pillar of Islam (Zakat). Most prominent among such highly dignified Muslims who attended the occasion was His Eminence, Dr. Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar CFR, mni, the Sultan of Sokoto and President-General of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA). Others were the Chief Imam of Lagos, Alhaj Ibrahim Garba, the Baba Adini of Lagos Sheikh Hafiz Abou, the Chairman of Al-Jaiz bank, Dr. Umar Mutallab, the Secretary-General of the NSCIA, Professor Ishaq Olanrewaju Oloyede, the Executive Secretary of the Muslim Ummah of Southwest Nigeria, Professor D.O.S. Noibi, the Chairman of Mushin Local Government, Lagos, Olatunde Babatunde Adepitan (OBA), the Chairman of Agege Local Government, Alh. Jubril Abdul Kareem, the Chairman of Yaba Local Council Development, Alh. Raheem Jide Jimoh, the Chairman of Zakat and Sadaqat Foundation, Sokoto and a host of others.

    Unlike most Imams in the Southwest Nigeria who turn themselves into illegal collectors and consumers of Zakat when they are supposed to be payers and distributors of Zakat, Imam Shuaib does not only generate wealth through Zakat for distribution to the poor he also encourages others to do same. Recalling what prompted him to venture into the business of collection and distribution of Zakat and Sadaqat in his brief at the Lagos gathering, he said:

    “…It is no longer news that Nigeria is stupendously a rich country blessed with abundant human and material resources that can stand the test of time in the world. But the news is that over the past few years including the year under review, Nigeria is plagued with different challenges and crises such as violence, ethno-religious conflagration, restiveness and insecurity among others. These challenges have compounded the already worsened standard of living of the poor and needy people with youth unemployment on the increase. On the one hand, Nigerian polity is being heated up by inflammatory statements of some ‘do or die’ politicians and, on the other some ethno-religious chauvinists are beating the drums of ethnicity and pseudo-religiosity. These tendencies are tearing us apart and are in apparent contradiction to the last line of the first stanza of our national anthem: “One nation bound in freedom, peace and unity”. As you are aware, the gap between the rich and the poor keeps widening on a daily basis. Who is benefitting from this wicked and ungodly situation? Let us recall the warning given by Allah against this type of situation and its attendant consequences which are very instructive: “And fear a calamity that may afflict not only the iniquitous amongst you but also the innocent ones. And know that Allah’s retribution can be very severe”. Q.8:25.

    Solution

    Islam offers a way out with the institution of Zakat which serves as the beacon of hope for the hopeless. It also stands out as an economic mechanism for the poor and the needy to attain economic freedom as well as a veritable tool for national integration, development and unity of mankind. It is important to remind you of the parable of the faithful in their affection, compassion and mercy to one another which is like the entire body such that if one of its organs is afflicted with an ailment, the whole body will suffer from fever and insomnia. I believe that with proper utilisation and effective disbursement of Zakat fund to genuine beneficiaries, anxiety, fear, rancour, bitterness, enmity, hatred, religious bigotry and violence will cease and the unity of our country and the Muslim Ummah in particular will be strengthened while the poor and needy people will be better-off and the wealthy people among us will feel more secure become more prosperous with Allah’s abundant blessings .

    No discrimination

    At Zakat and Sadaqat Foundation, we do not discriminate on the basis of religion or tribe against any Nigerian seeking for assistance. Our records speak volume about our services to all and sundry without any bias or prejudice. We have been used by Allah to wipe away the tears of many, put food on the tables of thousands of families that were hungry, assisted others to break the circle of poverty, saved lives and supported the educational needs of indigent Nigerian students within and outside the country. All these noble acts were accomplished with the Zakat fund in order to create a socio-economic balance in the society and achieve the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) especially on poverty reduction, qualitative and quantitative education by the year 2015 deadline”.

    Monetary value

    “….To demonstrate this commitment again this year, over 84 million naira is being distributed for the year ended 1434 AH (2013) as Zakat to over 1,900 beneficiaries across the Southwest, Southeast and Southsouth geopolitical zones of the country compared to the N41, 168,930 disbursed last year. This shows an increase of over 51% of Zakat distributed in the past two months in the mentioned zones consisting of Ebonyi, Anambra, Ogun and Osun States. And by the grace of Allah, we hope to be in Abia, Bayelsa, Rivers, Oyo, Kwara and Edo states as well as the Federal Capital Territory for the remaining Zakat disbursement in the next few weeks. (The disbursement was carried out in Oyo State last Sunday).

    Today, (Saturday, January 11, 2014), we are disbursing a total sum of N63, 60, 355 to over 400 beneficiaries in Lagos State alone compared to N35, 461, 661 to 700 recipients last year. This shows a difference of over 43.7% increase in the Zakat collected and distributed in Lagos State within one year. Out of the N63, 060, 335, to be distributed today, 41% is allotted to economic empowerment; 38% to medical support; 8% to provision of hired shelter and 7% to educational needs of indigent students. It is necessary to mention here that the Zakat and Sadaqat Foundation is able to achieve this feat due to the support received from Nigerian Muslim payers of Zakat and Sadaqat…..”

    While acknowledging with thanks, the invaluable roles played by His Eminence, Dr. Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, the Sultan of Sokoto and President-General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, the Pioneer Chairman of the Foundation, the late Dr. Lateef Adegbite and the current Chairman, Dr. Umar Mutallab as well as a host of others too numerous to mention here, Imam Shuaib passionately appealed to all well-meaning Nigerian Muslim to pay Zakah and Sadaqat to the Foundation as at when due for the benefit of mankind.

    Essence of Zakat

    This year’s Zakat distribution by the Foundation is the 9th in series. The Foundation was established about a decade ago to fill a big vacuum. And it has consistently done that since coming into existence. The issue of Zakat as an Islamic pillar is very serious. But unfortunately it is the only pillar held with levity by Nigerian Muslims. Of the five pillars of Islam, only Zakat stands out in connection with other people. Other pillars are for whoever observes them to the exclusion of others. For instance, a Muslim who claims to be strong in faith cannot extend such faith to any other person. A Muslim who observes Salat regularly cannot share it with any other person. It is for him alone. Fasting in the month of Ramadan is only exclusive to the fasting Muslim. He cannot share it with any other person. Ditto Hajj. The only pillar that can be shared with other people is Zakat. And that is the pillar deliberately kept in abeyance by most Muslims.

    Claiming not to have enough resources as an excuse for not paying Zakat is nothing less than self-deception. Some people of other faiths are ordained to pay 10% of their gross income any time they are in possession of such income no matter how often. And they obey. Islam ordains the payment of only two and a half per cent of Muslim’s net income once in a year. And they disobey. One can see why Most Nigerian Muslims are as wretched as they are. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) extols the upper hand in charity and prayed for the givers. He also pitied lower hands and discouraged them just as he dignified hard work and prayed for hard workers while counseling them to keep their hands up permanently.

    The charity rule of law as far as Islam is concerned is that the more you give to the poor, the more prosperous you become. As a Muslim, you cannot eat your cake and still have it. Allah who provides for you knows your capability and your worth. You cannot hide His provided wealth from Him. It is true that there are some contentions about the minimum income from which Zakat is supposed to be paid. But that cannot be used as an alibi for not paying Zakat. We pray the Almighty Allah to continue to guide and assist the payers of Zakat as well as its administrators, especially the Zakat and Sadaqat Foundation that their upper hands may never go under. Amin! Much more will be discussed about Zakat in this column in the near future in sha’Allah.

  • The Muslim family

    If His (Allah’s) sign is that He created mates for you of your own kind that you may find peace of mind through them, and He has put love and tenderness between you. In that are signs for people who can reflect”.

    Q.30:21

    Modern civilisation seems to have given a new connotation to the word family.

    By contemporary definition, that word has come to mean a man, his wife and children. This definition is contrary to that of Islam or what obtains in African culture.

    In Africa as in Islam, family is an esoteric community that emphasises the web of a pedigree. Such a community may be by consanguinity, affinity or fosterage. The main essence of calling it a family is to give every member a sense of belonging and that of security. When family becomes larger than what a compound or a village can accommodate, it becomes a clan.

    Islam does not only recognise family setting with its legitimate norms and characteristics, it also gives adherence to those norms a pass mark in faith.

    In Islam, family is a major yardstick for measuring the seriousness of Muslims. That is why its definition transcends what the west now calls nuclear family. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was reported to have said that: “Marriage is half of Islamic religion. Whoever is qualified to marry but refuses to do so is not part of me”. And, talking about family can only be in vain without reference to marriage.

    Marriage

    This discuss is not about marriage per se. It is rather about the family of a Muslim in all its ramifications, as prescribed by Islam.

    Besides ventilating the atmosphere for harmony and concord, a family is supposed to resolve any conflict among its members. But where a family is afflicted by disharmony, Islam has an alternative means of resolving conflicts. That alternative is the Shari‘ah court.

    Most Muslims, like non-Muslims, do not understand the essence of court beyond dishing out penalties or dissolving marriages. That is why most couples don’t take their conflicts to courts until they have reached the point of divorce. If Nigerian Muslims thoroughly understand Islam, they would have known that going to court over matrimonial conflicts does not necessarily entail bitterness. It is the duty of the family to resolve any matrimonial conflict before it gets out of hands. But where the family fails, it becomes the duty of the local Mosque to resolve. It is only where both the family and the Mosque have failed that a matrimonial conflict can be taken to court for adjudication. And, even that should not be with the intention of dissolving the marriage. For Muslim family, Shari’ah courts are not meant for marriage and divorce alone. They also serve as a forum of arbitration on knotty issues like business and inheritance.

    How Muslims should write Will

    One of the obligatory Islamic duties which most Muslims take for granted is the writing of will. For every Muslim adult, male or female, writing a will is not a matter of choice. It is incumbent. But not many Muslims know this. And the few who know do not seem to be comfortable with it.

    The general thinking is that writing a will is only for old people who are close to death or those who are very rich. This does not only contradict the concept of Islam about death, it also contravenes the principle laid down in Islam about will writing. No one knows when death will come. An octogenarian may continue to live while a man or woman of twenties or thirties may die. The healthy may die while the sick lives. The circumstances of life in this age of technology which cause death are very unpredictable. Thus, death may come to anybody at any time.

    One of the advantages of Tafsir in the sacred month of Ramadan is to disseminate knowledge especially on sensitive but fundamental issues often over-sighted by most Muslims. Writing a will is one of such issues. Will in Islam is called wisayah. It is a very significant means of providing a flexible instrument of transferring estate or a fraction of it to those who are not heirs. It is also a means of leaving a permanent instruction for one’s children, wives and siblings on how to conduct life after the legato might have been demised.

    Wisayah basically means an instruction for posthumous implementation that contains a bequest of assets and debts to others after one’s death. It depicts the differences between hibah which means a gift in one’s life time and wirathah (inheritance). Hibah therefore is a voluntary gift delivered to the intended beneficiary after the death of the giver.

    In Islam, writing a will is not about bequest of wealth per se. It is rather more about the explanation of certain things in the life of the will writer which were not known to his or her family members, relatives and close associates. For instance, if the concerned will writer did not pay Zakah when he was able to pay it, or if he was indebted but did not disclose it to his relatives or if something was entrusted to him without involvement of witnesses or if he made a promise to someone without the knowledge of his relatives, it is incumbent upon him to include such matters in his will. This is to clear any possible ambiguity or doubt about his relationship with other people while alive. The contents of such a will are never disclosed until after the death of the writer. A Muslim will can be written or oral. And it is forbidden for anybody to alter such a will in any form. Altering it is a crime punishable in Islam.

    Writing of will by Muslims is ordained by the Almighty Allah in Q.2:180 thus:

    “It is decreed that when death approaches, those of you that leave wealth shall bequeath it equitably to parents and kindred. This is a duty incumbent upon the righteous. He that alters it (the will) after hearing it shall be accountable for his crime. Allah is all-Hearing, all-knowing.” The Prophet was also reported by Bukhari and Muslim as saying that “Any Muslim who has something to bequest should not pass two nights without writing his will”. And Ibn Majah also reported a narration from Jabir quoting the Prophet as saying those who die leaving will behind died in the path truth and righteousness and they shall receive the forgiveness of Allah”

    Ordinarily, in Islam, a Muslim has no right to share his property among his off springs or relatives by his own whim. The Islamic way of bequeathing inheritance has been divinely spelt out clearly in the Qur’an. And that is a different topic entirely not to be lumped with the issue of writing will on this occasion.

    Who should write a Will?

    If a will must be written according to Islamic prescription then the writer of such a will must be a Muslim. He must have attained the age of maturity. He must be sane. He must use an understandable language and clearly identify himself in his will. He must also append his signature and date to every page of such will. There must be witnesses to the writing of the will and those witnesses must also identify themselves clearly and duly sign the space left for them as witnesses in the will.

    How?

    But if the will is to be orally recorded, the voice of the will recorder must be very audible with understandable language. The executors as well as the trustees of the will must be clearly named and if necessary, described to avoid any confusion that may arise from similarity of names. In that case, four original copies of a written will must be produced. And one each must be given to the four appointed witnesses. No one of the witnesses must know another and no photocopy should be produced for any reason. All available copies must be original. This is to prevent any possible leakage or connivance that may lead to betrayal of trust. Every appointed witness must be an acknowledged trustworthy person of integrity. Ditto the executors.

    Contents of the Will

    An Islamic will should contain the following facts as a matter of necessity:

    1. Listing all the children if any

    2. Listing all the available assets

    3. Listing all liabilities including debts, unpaid Zakah, promises made but not yet fulfilled, entrusted property, illegal acquisition in the writer’s possessions

    4. Listing the wives and relatives including parents, siblings and other beneficiaries who are alive and are qualified as inheritors

    All these must be clearly spelt out without mentioning the amount or share due to each beneficiary.

    5. Listing any special bequest and testamentary transfer and endowment as well as the names of the beneficiaries. All these must be clearly spelt out.

    6. Appointing a guardian or trustee for minor children until such children attain the age of maturity

    7. Specific sections of the will may be addressed to the wife/wives and children

    8. Any written will must be updated from time to time and each latest copy must be given to the witnesses and the trustees while the old ones are withdrawn for destruction.

    9. The executors must not know the trustees. And the trustees must not take part in the execution of the will. Their duty is to ensure that the executors comply with the letters of the will.

    Outside the Will

    Some facts not to be included in the inheritance aspect of the will of a Muslim are as follows:

    A non-Muslim child of a Muslim will-writer or an illegitimate child or a murderer (one who kills his parents) should not be included in the list of those to inherit because they are not qualified to inherit a Muslim parent under Islamic law. If, however, the will writer feels strongly about giving his non-Muslim child something from his estate, this may be contained in the aspect concerning testamentary transfer. Ditto the non-Muslim wife and illegitimate child. But the total aggregate of what a Muslim can will out to those not qualified for inheritance should not exceed one third of the entire estate after the deduction of debts.

    The idea of one third came about from a conversation between Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and Sa’d bn Abi Waqqas. The latter had sought the Prophet’s permission to bequest his entire estate to certain people and groups. The Prophet said ‘NO’. He, (Waqqas), then said what of half? And the Prophet said ‘NO’. Then he said what of one third? The Prophet at that stage reluctantly gave a node indicating that even the one third was too much concluding that “it is better to leave your heirs richer than poorer”. Thus, the final approval became as a Prophetic tradition which Muslim must abide by. This means that one third is the maximum a Muslim can bequest to anybody in his will outside the inheritance bracket.

    Islam does not allow Muslims to bequest or make special provision in the will for those who are legitimately eligible as heirs. Therefore, anybody who is qualified to inherit cannot be included in the will for any gift.

    The copies of the will may be given to banks or any other corporate institutions like courts for safe keeping without the knowledge of the beneficiaries. However, such copies must be accompanied by covering notes. But there must be witnesses to the keeping of such document in the bank or the court. A Muslim must not wait until death approaches before he writes his will since he does not know when death would come. Neither should he wait until he becomes rich before doing same since he does not know if he would ever be rich. For a genuine Muslim, writing a will must begin as soon as he marries. And what is applicable to men in this case is equally applicable to women. The issue of inheritance will be discussed in this column in the future in sha’Allah.

  • The centennial of greed (2)

    The centennial of greed (2)

    I ended last week’s column with the following paragraph from which I intend to pursue my next line of thought on this topic:

    “The greed that motivated the invention of this artifice has continued to motivate its operation even in the hands of indigenes that ought to be motivated by the good of the country. Even if we assume that the amalgamation of the country was an act of God, the question remains if the actions of leaders have been consistent with that assumption.”

    Surely, Lugard was responsible for whatever is our verdict on the amalgamation of the North and the South, whether it is considered an act of God or a heinous deed from the gate of hell.

    Indeed, I see three possible approaches to the evaluation of the act of amalgamation. First, it is not self- contradictory for one person to hold both verdicts. One may renounce the act of colonisation and amalgamation as a morally reprehensible deed because it violates the principle of self-determination of peoples, itself a component of the principle of justice. On the other hand, one may look at the outcome of the amalgamation in terms of the overall good it supposedly produces, from a utilitarian perspective, and consider it an act of God.

    Second, one may see amalgamation as well as its outcome as an act of God. From a fatalistic point of view (what will be will be), if God did not want it, Lugard and his British constabulary would not overpower the forces of resistance in the north and south. Whatever God allows to happen is good, no matter our human understanding. Therefore the amalgamation was not only an act of God, it was also good. This is the spirit of theodicy. But it may also be argued that the outcome of the amalgamation was good for the peoples of the north and the south. And since God is the author of whatever is good, it was an act of God.

    Third, one may see first, the amalgamation in itself as a morally heinous deed for the reason stated above, and second, its consequences for the people of the north and the south as terribly bad. In this case, the motivation for and the outcome of amalgamation is morally obnoxious, whatever small mercies proceed therefrom.

    As the opening chapter of his book makes clear, Lugard did not hide his contempt for the people that he conquered and joined together in the economic self-interest of his country. He thought that African peoples “have left no monuments and no records other than rude drawings on rocks like those of Neolithic man.” Yet, since the 1480s, the Portuguese and other European travellers have been known to come in contact with the most impressive works of art of traditional Africa. If one had such a misconception born out of sheer contempt for a people, then it stands to reason that if one had the power to subjugate, one wouldn’t have a second thought. Might is right. It was this principle that the British took to other lands, including Africa.

    On further reflection, however, the adoption of the principle of “might is right” was not unique to the British. After all, prior to their arrival, there were wars of expansion and conquest of other lands by natives and foreigners. Internal colonisation is no different from external colonisation if we bracket off the colour factor. It is also true that every such act of conquest was in furtherance of the interests of the aggressors. And if the principle is wrong in one case, it must be judged wrong in the others. But aggression happened; the original sin of colonisation was committed, and it is not something that we can now undo. So we must get on with it.

    Getting on with it means moving forward by addressing the matters arising from the act. Amalgamation proceeded from colonization. If the latter was motivated by self-interest, so was the former. If the latter was driven by the principle that might is right, so was the former. The self-declared motivation for the wedding of the north and south was the consolidation of administration and finances in favour of the British. Of course, unlike colonisation, an historical event which cannot be undone because it had happened and ended, amalgamation could arguably be undone, and some have advocated openly for this. I do not think it is a desirable option.

    Let us agree that, with their differential treatment of the component parts, and the deliberate creation of an unbalanced and lopsided political structure for the country, the British did a lot of damage to the concept of a nation of diverse peoples which they sought to establish in Nigeria. The legacy of bitterness and rancour and strife is still very much with us.

    Yet de-amalgamation is not a desirable option for obvious reasons. Assume that we do not now have a perfect unity; there is no good reason to suggest that each part would experience the proverbial paradise of unity on earth after a breakup. South Sudan provides an excellent resource. Second, the various peoples have made significant contributions to the material and cultural matrix of the country that it is inconceivable to tell a complete story of one part without reference to the other parts. The story of Kaduna or Zaria is incomplete without an adequate credit to the residents of the Sabongari. Neither can the story of Lagos be completely narrated without the contributions of the Fulani and Igbo who have penetrated the nooks and crannies of Yorubaland. Like Siamese twins conjoined at the heart, an attempt at separation can be fatal for all. In our case as a nation of multiple nationalities, it is the loss of the true identity of each part that is at stake.

    But no one can deny that we have a flawed structure. And if de-amalgamation is not a desirable option, we have to give serious thought to reinventing ourselves in a way that shames the coloniser and his original ulterior motive, which we have suicidally promoted to the detriment of our full potentials. We all know that our federal system is only that in name. What we practice is a semi-unitary system which stymies innovation, encourages corruption, and promotes cronyism.

    The merit of a true federal structure is the competition for greatness that it generates among the federating units. Take the case of education. The colonial government established the University College, Ibadan in 1948. Each regional government followed with the establishment of its own university. And each institution set its sight on being the best until the federal military government took over all higher institutions ostensibly to promote national unity. What it did was to destroy standard. Establishing or owning educational institutions shouldn’t have been the priority of the federal government because state governments and private agencies are best suited to managing such institutions. At best, the federal government should be responsible for a common national policy on education and the allocation of resources to states for the execution of the policy according to the dictates of their local conditions.The same applies to agriculture, health, and internal security and crime prevention.

    Enough has been written about the ridiculousness of the arguments against state police. But new evidence is presented on a daily basis to give the lie to the hypocritical posturing of the proponents of federal responsibility in the business of securing local communities. Can any reasonable observer deny that the Amaechi-Wike face off in Rivers State is just an instance of how the federal police has been thoroughly politicised? There are other odious examples throughout the nation.

    In his famous essay, “What is a nation?” Ernest Renan suggested that a nation is based on a daily plebiscite, on the desire of a people to continue together, having done great things together in the past. That desire has been frustrated in our case by the reluctance of political leaders to take the bold actions necessary to remove the obstacles in the path of our greatness.It is still not too late to act NOW.