The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Tracking a report

    Tracking a report

    In its 2015 election manifesto, the All Progressives Congress (APC) promised, among other things, to:

    “Initiate action to amend our Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true Federalism and the Federal spirit.”

    With these words, APC caught the attention of a public that was tired of the wobbly structure that the military foisted on the country. And with the nomination of a presidential candidate that the party presented to them as Mr. Integrity and corruption-buster, Nigerians enthusiastically rooted for APC and saw it to the finish line.

    Satisfied that they did their part and voted for a better structure and sustainable future full of promise, electorates waited for results in the form of fulfilled promises. And they waited and waited. Then they listened in disbelief as somekey leaders of their favorite party dilly-dallied with one excuse after the other: Oh, we didn’t promise restructuring. Oh, yes, we did, but our priority is the receding economy which we inherited. Our people want food on the table, not devolution of power. And the people were in shock. Have we been duped?

    Then reason prevailed. APC announced its committee on restructuring. And there was a long gasp which morphed into a thunderous cynical chorus. “APC is deceiving Nigerians! How can an anti-restructuring guy like Nasir El-Rufai chair a committee on restructuring? Can anything good come out of such committee? It just shows that the party is not serious about restructuring”

    Undeterred by the negativities, Governor El-Rufai and his committee went into action, holding consultations across the country, receiving memoranda from Nigerians, and foraging into records of two decades of constitutional conferences from 1994 to 2014. In the end, the committee submitted its report, which, to the surprise of many thoughtful persons, is faithful to the spirit of the APC manifesto with its recommendation of devolution of power to states, including a bold effort on the question of resource control, local government, and state police.

    Surprisingly, neither the timeliness of the report nor its content has tempered the unease and the distrust that many citizens had expressed. And while the mixed reaction is normal with such contentious issues, the disproportionate amount of suspicion of the party’s motive compared to trust in its will to deliver on the committee’s recommendation is alarming. Indeed, when such deep derision is vocalized by a senator of the party, one begins to wonder whether this divided house of APC is working against its own interest.

    Compare such negative reaction to the enthusiastic reception of the report by some opposition leaders including former President Jonathan and Governor Dickson, leading to their call for the immediate implementation of its recommendations?  This is political maturity and it deserves commendation. We must join them in tracking the report and insisting on action by Mr. President and the National Assembly.

    I am not a mind-reader and I have zero ability for knowing human motives. I rely on what I see as the basis for what I know. And what I see is a report that aligns with some of my expectations about what restructuring must look like. Therefore, rather than dismiss the report as a gimmick, I welcome it as the beginning of our movement toward a truly federal structure.

    Right on top of the agitation for restructuring has been the contentious issue of fiscal federalism and resource control. The El-Rufai committee proposed a constitutional amendment to give states control over mining and onshore oil exploration, which means that oil-producing states will now have control over on-shore oil revenues.

    Second, determined to rebut the charge of false advertising against its party (remember Speaker Dogara’s #political malpractice), the committee took up the important issue of devolution of power to the states, with a recommendation that “the first schedule, Part I and II be amended to transfer some powers to the states.” Among the powers to be transferred from the Exclusive to the Concurrent List are Food, Drugs, Poison, Narcotics, Fingerprints and Identification of Criminal Records, Registration of Business Names, Labour, Mines and Minerals, including oil fields, Geological Surveys and Natural gas, Police, Prisons, Public Holidays, Railways, and Stamp Duties.

    Third, as mentioned above, the restructuring of the policing system is one of the recommendations of the committee. The demand for state police has been one of the most forceful issues since the last days of military rule. Though this demand has been resisted over the decades with the Police leadership taking the lead in the resistance, its obvious inability to maintain peace and order over the entire country has finally dawned on the most adamant advocates of the status quo.

    We cannot deny the fact that, as the resisters fear, state governors are human beings who may be tempted to abuse the system of state police as it was in the First Republic. But as humans we are expected to learn from experience. Therefore, we must consider thistendency to abuse in formulating the lawsto set up state police. Rather than make governors the exclusive authority over the police, there are various approaches to establishing a free and independent police force.

    Fourth, for the effective performance of the additional responsibilities that states must carry with the devolution of powers, they will need additional revenue. Therefore, the committee recommended a constitutional amendment to give more revenue to states and reduce the share of the federation account that goes to the federal government. It also recommended an amendment to the Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission Act, so that it can have the power to review the derivation formula and make recommendations to the President.

    Fifth, contrary to some comments, the committee did not vote against state creation. It noted that there is a constitutional provision for it, whereas there is none for the merger of states. And in view of the current voluntary intra-zonal cooperation among states, it is important to have a constitutional procedure for merger should any of such cooperation lead to an interest in merger. This is a commendable recommendation. Hopefully, this recommendation is not only accepted but that a warm embrace of its provision by states is encouraged. But assume three states merge. Is the merged state treated as one for purpose of federal allocation?

    Sixth, one of the most far-reaching recommendations by the committee is that on local government. While some commentators have understood this recommendation as respect for local government autonomy, I see it as respect for state jurisdiction over its local governments. I do not see the local governments as being more independent or freer than before. However, states are now going to have constitutional authority to create and fund local governments. And while many will see this as a de jure affirmation of what has been a de facto practice, the difference is that funding will now come from states and not from the federal government.

    Other recommendations including those on referendum and independent candidacy are long overdue and if accepted should make the polity more open and fairer with more participation by citizens. In sum, then, these recommendations are our first step toward becoming a true federal republic.

    Four factors are responsible for public cynicism. First, there were discordant notes about restructuring and true federalism coming from some APC leaders. Second, the timing of the committee report toward the end of its third year in power gave room for the usual political sarcasm. Third, no matter what the party does or doesn’t do regarding restructuring, some of its political rivals, especially in PDP, will gleefullypoohpooh it. Finally, there are thoughtful and vocal advocates of restructuring for whom what has been offered by APC is simply not adequate. These include, on the one hand, advocates of regionalism among which I count myself, and on the other hand, separatists who see no redemption in any form of restructuring for the Nigerian state.

    APC and the Buhari administration will do well for themselves and for Nigeria to implement the El-Rufai Committee recommendations before 2019. Any delaying tactics or untoward action will be politicallyunwise.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

     

  • Deconstructing a message

    Deconstructing a message

    Nigeria is truly blessed. Beside her many ethnos and cultures, religions and sects, there is also an enviable diversity of individual talents and skills in various walks of life including military strategists and tacticians, analytical and speculative intellectuals, smart accountants, gifted prophets and clerics, learned lawyers and judges, skillful physicians and compassionate nurses. Add to these the long list of master artisans from home builders to motor mechanics and service providers from drivers to nannies. With such an impressive demographic, this country should be a socio-economic powerhouse.

    Unfortunately, Nigeria is only a potential socio-economic powerhouse. For that potential to become a reality, all the pluralities of ethnos, cultures, religions and diversity of skills and talents need to be thoughtfully harnessed and skillfully deployed. This is the task of the institution of politics,which, following Aristotle, is a practical science concerned with the happiness of the citizens. As such, politics is the master or authoritative science because the ends of other sciences serve as means to its ends. Politics is for the human good. And whatever their immediate ends, ultimately, all other sciences must aim at human good, which is the immediate and ultimate end of politics.

    If Aristotle is right, Nigeria has not been able to fully realize its potential as a socio-economic powerhouse because her politics has not succeeded in thoughtfully harnessing and skillfully deploying the multiplicity of ethnos, cultures, religions, and its diversity of skills and talents. Why? This is a question that begs for an answer.

    Furthermore, however, if Aristotle is right, and politics is the authoritative science, it is strange that, unlike other sciences which require a period of apprenticeship, politics appears to be an open theater for everyone. Political science does not aim at training politicians. It is an empirical or scientific approach to politics. Political philosophy doesn’t pretend to train politicians either. It is a normative approach to study of politics. For this reason, it is not unusual for citizens trained in other theoretical and practical sciences-intellectuals, lawyers, and yes, soldiers– to be drawn to politics as the master science.

    Of all those drawn to politics from other fields, soldiers are probably the most impatient and the most presumptuous. Perhaps due to their training in leadership, they are impatient when the ship of state is steered into troubled waters. And perhaps because they are tasked with responsibility for the external security of the nation, they presume to have answers to all the challenges facing the nation at any time. Nigeria, like many other African countries, has had its share of the tragedy of the know-all mentality of its warrior class.

    When in 1998, we thought that we had laid the ghost of militocracy, it resurfaced in a civilianized form when our democracy had to march to the orders of a General who could care less about the niceties of democratic norms. From strongman interference with the internal leadership decisions of National Assembly to the brazen intervention in the sacred work of electoral umpires, and the thwarting of people’s mandates in several states through orchestrated impeachment proceedings and abuse of emergency declarations, the nation was a victim of autocratic democracy.

    We were told that for the sake of continuity of programs and policies, the strongman’s choice of a successor was inevitable. And he did, even though against all democratic norms. But how did that end? And when he picked another successor, what was the outcome? Is the strongman not armed with a crystal ball?

    And now, are we being asked to join a popular political movement? Led by whom? Caveat emptor! Here are real concerns.

    First, Dr. Obasanjo argued that neither APC nor PDP is “a worthy horse to ride to lead Nigeria at this crucial and critical time.” Then, second, he floated “Coalition for Nigeria Movement (CNM)”as the alternative because “we cannot just sit down lamenting and wringing our hands desperately and hopelessly.” Third, he describes CNM as “a coalition for democracy, good governance, social and economic well-being and progress. Coalition to salvage and redeem our country.” What does this mean?

    Is the Coalition a political party? No, the erudite doctor responds. It is only a Movement for now. However, nothing “should stop such a Movement from satisfying conditions for fielding candidates for elections.” Indeed, this is simply deception at the most disgusting level. It is using a kobo coin to hide a Naira note.

    In the first place, though a political movement can have several issues as its focus, it is more effective the fewer the issues. Recall NADECO with its goal of dislodging the military and restoring democracy. Or the Nationalist Movement before it. Here, there is nothing outside of the orbit of CNM. Its objects are the run-of-the-mill campaign issues. If an organism quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. Why the deception?

    In the second place, Chief Obasanjo has dismissed the two major political parties as contenders for 2019. They are both to be discarded. Therefore, if CNM is only a Movement now, it is  only reasonable to expect it to be up and running as a party by the time that INEC declares open campaign for 2019.

    In the third place, anyone that believes that this is a brand-new Movement that only occurred to Dr. Obasanjo in the last three weeks is hopelessly ignorant of Ebora Owu as the tactician-in-chief. The former AD Governors, most of whom are co-founders of APC, know better. The idea for the new Movement germinated in the conspiratorial crevices of the tactician’s mind as soon as Buhari took the oath of office in May 2015. OBJ assembled his loyalists and encouraged them to work on mobilizing others to form a new political party. The meetings went on around the country since then, with the initiator looking for the best opportunity for outing. The southern resentment against the December fuel crisis, continuing herdsmen attacks, and lopsided federal appointments only provided the desired opening.

    On February 1, at the Ogun State launching of CNM, the former president provided more details about the Movement. He argued that the “instruments we have used so far in our nation-building and governance since independence have not served us well, it is imperative that we should rethink and retool.” To which I ask: what instruments have we used?

    We started with a genuine federal and parliamentary system. It did not fail us. But the military did not allow it to prove effective. They introduced a unitary and presidential system which has failed us since 1979. What re-thinking and retooling does CNM offer? We are told that it is “proposed as the new direction to mobilize our population to unity, cooperation, development, rule of law, employment, law and order, justice, integration, peace, security, stability, welfare and well-being”, a highfalutin account with no attention to specifics. Look in the manifesto of APC and PDP and you will not be disappointed that they both echo the language of CNM.

    When specifics such as nation-building and insurgency and violence are identified, these are not missing from the proclamations of APC and PDP. So, it could be that the difference we are promised is in leadership of the new movement. “Among many other things that CNM will do is to raise standards of political leadership and governance.”

    Excellent. But who are the leaders being presented to us now? They are dissenters from APC and PDP. We were shown this script before.Remember? It was in 2014 when APC emerged as the party of change which drew its leadership core for PDP, CPC, ACN and ANPP. With the announcement of 12 governors from the existing parties having declared interest in CNM, what different standards of leadership can we expect than what they are bringing from their various party bases?

    A popular political movement does not by itself transform a nation. More ominous, such movements quickly degenerate into dictatorships because of the tendency to identify popular with unanimity. Indeed, several known world dictators started as organizers of popular political movements. There was one in Zaire led by Mobutu. There is one in Cameroon.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

  • Is APC doomed?

    Is APC doomed?

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) was barely two years old when it defeated the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Remarkably, three years later, both parties are being dismissed as “the wrong horse to ride” in a recent statement from the self-appointed custodian of national conscience.

    Ex-President Obasanjo was an early supporter of APC in 2014. The entire leadership of the new party paid him a courtesy visit at his Abeokuta mansion. Those were good times when the new party was riding on the goodwill of Nigerians against a ruling party which had been abandoned by its first president and party leader. How time changes!

    But no matter his place in Nigerian history, Obasanjo would not have an audience if Nigerians felt that his attack was misplaced whether during the Jonathan presidency or now. Nigerians are intelligent people who would not be goaded into following anyone against their reasonable judgement on any matter. Therefore, the fact that Obasanjo’s press statement has received such a positive reception by a broad segment of the populace should give APC leadership serious heartburn.

    While some PDP stalwarts saw Obasanjo’s statement as an admission of his error in abandoning the party and its candidate in 2015; others, including his daughter who had been a vocal critic of her father pursuant to his letter to Jonathan, stand solidly behind him. And though the ruling party appeared to have been blindsided by the latest salvo from the predictable letter-writer, it has also trodden softly in its response, choosing to highlight some achievements of the government.

    Considering the history of Dr. Obasanjo’s unsolicited interventions and the outcomes of such interventions for various administrations from Shagari to Jonathan, when his missives had provided the fuel that fired the termination of those administrations, it is timely and reasonable to ask the burning question: “is the end of the Buhari presidency in sight and is APC doomed?”

    For those with vested interests, the answer is a categorical “yes”. The man they mischievously or endearingly nickname “Ebora Owu” is an enigma better to avoid. Those who crossed his path are miserable living testimonies. So, the myth goes. In the matter at hand, however, it is better to err on the side of reason. What are the issues?

    The logic of Obasanjo’s complaint centers on good governance, which is accomplishment in, localizing an American jargon, yam and palm oil issues. Specifically, the former president identifies “the lice of poor performance in government” including “poverty, insecurity, poor economic management, nepotism, gross dereliction of duty, condonation of misdeed-if not outright encouragement of it, lack of progress and hope for the future, lack of national cohesion and poor management of internal political dynamics and widening inequality” as the ills which “are very much with us today.”

    Dr. Obasanjo is not isolated voice. His concern about “kinship and friendship that place responsibility for governance in the hands on the unelected” only echoes an earlier complaint of the lady in the other room. His complaint about “poor understanding of internal politics” which “has led to …making the nation more divided” has been a recurring critique of many southerners since the beginning, when many pointed to lopsided appointments. This is also true of the issue of having competent hands in key sectors of the economy and foreign affairs. There has been a deafening chorus of complaints from thought leaders and the public in the last three years.

    Why has the noise not been taken seriously by the presidency? Every president has a coterie of loyalists who tell him about the massive support he enjoys across the land. They were there in Jonathan’s villa. They were responsible for Obasanjo’s term elongation agenda which fell flat on his face. They are professional politicos and court jesters bragging about their grassroots influence. A wise president would see through the fog of lies they feed him and break away from their fatal grip. He will arm himself with credible intelligence about his vulnerabilities. He will not see those who helped him to ascend the throne as rivals to be sidelined. He will not bite the fingers that feed him. I am not too sure that President Buhari has been loyal to his benefactors who would have benefitted him in return with sound advice.

    I do not know if the Buhari presidency is doomed. If it is, it will not be because Obasanjo turned against him. And despite Obasanjo, there is still enough heat from the shining sun to dry the wet laundry on the cloth line. In the matter of the prospect of the ruling party, APC, it unfortunately missed its bearing very early one. Perhaps it may now be getting back its mojo. I start with the party and then the presidency.

    APC was voted for massively as the party of change. It had the goodwill of many Nigerians in 2015. Then, not too long after, the arrogance of power and egoistic pursuit of same set in. Cohesion and collective interest became a slave to self-interest. The highest hierarchy of the party that should root for its overall interest and chart its course succumbed to the cult of personality. The result is mass disenchantment.

    It became quite clear to many of its members and supporters that the party had lost its focus when the National Assembly, where it enjoyed a super majority, voted down a bill for devolution of power, which had featured prominently in its manifesto. Later both the president and the chairman of the party would openly prevaricate on the matter with the chairman suggesting that the priority of the party was for the welfare of Nigerians as if there is any distinctive difference between these issues.

    Now if the party has sincerely returned to its source of strength as the party of change, with the reported recommendations submitted by its committee on true federalism, there is a prospect of change in its fortune. We may cautiously suggest that APC is not doomed if it can now convince Nigerians that it is ready to address the fundamental structure of the country. For when this change is implemented, many other things will follow.

    As for the Buhari presidency, its lifeline now is to accept the recommendations of the committee and take immediate steps to implement them. Should it seek to dither on the recommendations or delay their implementation, then Obasanjo’s wish might just be fulfilled.

    Note that, historically, the former president’s complaints have never targeted the lopsided structure of the country. But this flawed structure has been at the foundation of all the ills: nepotism, corruption, inequality, poverty, and underdevelopment. When power is so concentrated in the center with corresponding resources at the disposal of the federal government, we should not be surprised that all those ills are the co-travelers. Change the structure, beginning with the modest action of devolving power to the states, and the responsibilities shared between the center and the periphery would make a huge difference in the lives of the people.

    Why has Obasanjo now called for the abandonment of both APC and PDP? Without prejudice to his Coalition for Nigeria, with which I have no problem, I would like to hazard a guess. Both APC and PDP have now come to the realization that Nigeria needs to be restructured. PDP organized the last National Conference of 2014 which came up with far reaching recommendations. Now APC is being faithful to its manifesto with recommendations for devolution of power to states. For Obasanjo, both parties are moving in the wrong direction.

    In this matter, the former president is not only against the direction of the two parties. He is also against the expressed preference of a super majority of Nigerians across the six zones. Unless Obasanjo’s Coalition for Nigeria also embraces restructuring early on, I do not see it in the forefront of Nigerian politics anytime soon.

    To the extent that APC moves fast in the matter of restructuring and the Buhari presidency commits to its early and effective implementation, the party will prevail. As for Buhari, since he has not declared his interest, prediction of his fate is premature.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

     

    @SegunGbadeg2002

     

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Killer-herdsmen and the logic of accommodation (2)

    Killer-herdsmen and the logic of accommodation (2)

    In an era of an enormous explosion in the population of both humans and cattle, open grazing has proven to be an unsustainable approach to cattle breeding and rearing because of its inherent potentials for conflict. This is not a question of ethnicity or religion. It is simply an economic matter. Provided their herders do not, cattle do not discriminate between grass and crops. They are all food. Neither do they discriminate between the farmlands of Hausa, Fulani, Tiv, Biron, Igbo, Edo or Yoruba. Every farmland they are led through is suitable for feeding. Cattle are equal-opportunity feeders. No one can blame them.

    Now, as for herdsmen, you would expect some modicum of respect for crops on farmland and for the principle of non-trespass on the economic privacy of others. But when legitimate fodder is unavailable, and their cattle are on the verge of starvation, ethical concerns could take the back of the burner. It is a case of competing economic demands where they can get away with it. And since they are not sure that they will easily get away with it, they prudently, even if immorally, arm themselves with AK-47s. It’s the philosophy of armed robbery, isn’t it? Armed robbers claim no moral consciousness. They simply want your good and in case you resist, they must prepare against your stubbornness.

    Farmers, on the other hand, are like homeowners who are defenseless against armed robbers. They only rely on the rule of law and on its enforcers for protection. And while the latter have shirked their responsibilities for far too long in the matter of the atrocities committed by herdsmen, whether foreigners or indigenes, the recent events have called attention to the need for government to wake up.

    Predictably, state governments have taken up the challenge against the backdrop of violence against their residents by herdsmen, with policies ranging from anti-open grazing laws to various forms of accommodation regulations. One such accommodation regulation is the registration of herdsmen in some states and regulations governing sanctions when cattle destroy farm crops. Some states also include laws against cattle rustling or killing by farmers.

    One problem with such regulations is their effectiveness. Chief Olu Falae has been on the receiving end of herdsmen brutality with his kidnapping and the repeated destruction of his crops to the latest case of arson on his farm. While he is certain that herdsmen were responsible, the Police have not been able to identify and arrest the culprits as far as we know. Therefore, the various state efforts to regulate open grazing and prevent conflict and destruction are simply ineffective band-aids on a festering national wound.

    It is because of the realization of the futility of such approaches that some state governors and legislators have gone to the extreme of banning open grazing within the confines of their states. Can we really blame them? They were elected to protect the lives and properties of their citizens and they are simply doing their job how best they know under the circumstances that they face.

    Miyetti-Allah has rejected anti-open grazing laws because it is inimical to the economic well-being of their members. Herdsmen are pastoralists by nature and culture, we are told. Is this true? Herdsmen may be cattle breeders and cattle rearers. But does this commit them to a life of nomadism. The ancient Hebrews, the ancestors of the present citizens of the State of Israel, were cattle breeders and herders. They were as nomadic as our Fulani herdsmen. But Israelites have modernized the art of cattle breeding. As the Minister of Agriculture has also observed, the cattle that is made to travel hundreds of miles on foot are not happy cattle at the end of the journey, that is, if they make it to the end. And what about the waste of the potentials of young men and women condemned to a lifetime of nomadism? Culture is simply not a good argument for open grazing.

    If not open grazing, then, what is the alternative?  Perhaps Miyetti-Allah is not opposed to alternatives to open grazing. Perhaps what they are against is finding and negotiating those alternatives prior to the promulgation of anti-open grazing laws. Granted, but states have limited alternatives. Most of their residents, for whom they are politically and responsible, are farmers, not herders. Again, it is not a matter of ethnicity. They simply do not feel a sense of obligation to non-residents. This is the political reality of a federal system. It is why in the United States, citizenship of the country does not confer on residents the same privileges in different states. For example, non-residents pay higher tuition when they register as students in state colleges other than their own. Thus, a student resident of Maryland pays in-state tuition in Maryland state colleges while a student from New York pays higher non-resident tuition when registered in a Maryland state college.

    Having come to an appreciation of its indispensable role as an arbiter in a matter of great importance that can tear the nation apart, the Federal government has now taken up the matter. But what are the options being canvassed?  First, it came up with the idea of grazing reserves, which was first presented as a bill to the National Assembly in 2008. Second, it toyed with the idea of ranching. Third, it seems that the government has now settled on the idea of cattle colonies.

    Two points are important to note here. First, each of the suggested alternatives-grazing reserves, ranching, cattle colonies-requires the availability of a large landmass and ownership of land across the nation is governed by different customs and conventions. Therefore, the federal government will not find it easy to acquire land simply by fiat. It is gratifying that the Minister of Agriculture has, for all intents and purposes, come to terms with this reality. Second, herdsmen, whose culture and economic needs require to engage in cattle breeding, are only one link in the chain of links in the industry. There are other links including the wealthy businessmen who invest in livestock farming and employ the herdsmen, just as we have commercial famers and the farmhands who are the face of the industry.

    Commercial farmers buy their farmlands from landowners or they lease those lands from state governments. In addition, commercial farmers buy their equipment and the services of agronomists, soil scientists, and technicians. They also use extension services provided by state governments. The question then is this: which of the alternatives of grazing reserves, ranching, and cattle colonies best approximates commercial crop farming?

    Frankly, I do not see the difference between cattle colonies, ranching, and grazing reserves except for the size of the former which, we are told, will be big enough to accommodate several cattle owners. However, as it has become clear since it was thrown up by Minister Ogbeh, beside the substance of its merit or demerit, the idea of cattle colony evokes a negative feeling, and rightly so. Why would a post-colonial enclave, which has continuously decried its colonial history and raged against internal colonization of various kinds, reopen old wounds with this unnecessary flirtation with creating cattle colonies, which Nigerians have mischievously labelled Fulani colonies? Branding is everything and labeling is a huge part of branding.

    Ranching is the global best practice in commercial cattle breeding. Minister Ogbeh says that ranching is “of an individual venture” for herdsmen and investors. But is there a good reason ranching in our peculiar condition cannot be a cooperative venture? After all, we have commercial farming as cooperative ventures. Instead of accommodating several herdsmen and their cattle in colonies, it is more productive to organize them in ranches as cooperatives.

    Miyetti-Allah’s argument against ranching is that it is technologically driven, and the Nigerian climate is unsuitable for ranching. If the latter is true, won’t the same objection apply to cattle colonies? Regarding technology, however, the federal government should deploy the resources it has promised for cattle colonies to ranching with better outcomes of healthy cattle, prosperous herdsmen and a peaceful and united nation.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

     

    @SegunGbadeg2002

     

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

  • Killer-herdsmen and the logic of accommodation (1)

    Killer-herdsmen and the logic of accommodation (1)

    The brutal and heartless violence inflicted on Benue farming communities by Fulani herdsmen over the New Year holiday is the latest in what has become a perennial crisis of bloodletting. The pictures were simply too gruesome for my sensibilities and I quickly deleted all after seeing a few. We may look at the incident and earlier ones and the prospective solutions from several perspectives: common humanity, human rights, and legality and constitutionalism.

    How was it possible for human beings with souls and hearts to inflict such mortal damages on their fellow human beings? What could possibly excuse such beastly attacks comparable only to a lion mauling its victim? As they lifted their machetes, did those human slayers see goats or human beings like themselves? And why did they think that whatever grievances they had justified the wanton and senseless massacre?

    One official of Miyetti Allah, the socio-economic and cultural organization representing the herders, argued that the herders were defending their livelihood against farmers and cattle rustlers. Assume that the herdsmen traced their loss of 1000 cattle to the individuals they macheted to death, was that a reasonable excuse? What are the courts for? What is policing for? When their cattle destroyed farmlands and ruined the economic hopes of farmers, did they react by macheting their cattle to placate the farmers? Did they not attack the farmers for complaining against their cattle? Didn’t that mean that they value the life of cattle more than they value the life of human beings? These are the questions that swirl in my head as I ponder the mindset of the creatures who were capable of such callousness.

    Perhaps my sensitivity to violence against humanity beclouded my thinking. Perhaps there was more to it that I had ignored. Could there be a moral excuse, if not a religious one, which I was missing? So, beside what the defenders of the attacks may describe as a “myopic idealism” of common humanity on my part, let me try and look at other angles: economic survival, human rights, legality and constitutionalism, which have featured in one form or the other in the discourse of justification.

    Economic survival is one justification that has been attributed to the herdsmen in respect of their attack on defenseless fellow citizens. Miyetti Allah observed that the anti-open grazing law promulgated by Benue State government gave its members no option because their livelihood was at stake.  By nature, they are pastoralists. They must move with the seasons to find pasture for their cattle and money for their pockets. That they ran into farmers’ lands, fed their cattle on farmers’ crops was just unfortunate. That has never been their intention. But they must survive economically. Do farmers have the right to economic survival? Sure, they do. And do farmers own the land on which they have their farms? Yes. So, whose economic survival interest has moral weight and ought to prevail in case of conflict? Your guess is as good as mine.

    How about human rights? Again, we must concede that both farmers and herdsmen have human rights, which must be respected. But in case of conflict, governments also have the responsibility of intervening and adjudicating competing interests in the light of known facts.  The most relevant human rights to our discussion include the right to life and the right to freedom of movement. The latter has been brought up in the case of Miyetti Allah against the Benue State government. With respect to the right to life, however, there is clearly a case to be made against anyone, herdsmen or farmers, who takes the life of an individual without due process. The United Nations has established this. As the President has vowed to bring every culprit to justice, we are waiting and watching.

    Freedom of movement is the second. But clearly this right cannot be absolute. Just as in the case of the argument for economic survival, if the right to freedom of movement is asserted in contexts in which it conflicts with the right to economic survival of another individual, it is the responsibility of the political authority to intervene. That is presumably what Benue State government did by passing its anti-open grazing law.

    But Miyetti Allah presumably does not depend on the elusive concept of human rights. The group invokes the legal and constitutional frameworks of the country to lay claim to the rightness of its cause. It argues that the Nigerian constitution provides for the free movement of citizens as well as goods and services across state lines and no state government has a right to stop them. Passing anti-grazing law by one state, it argues, is a violation of this legal provision. Therefore, it demands that the federal government must call Benue State government to order. It is not argued that the state has no jurisdiction. Only that since free movement of goods and services is on the exclusive list, any state law that conflicts with it must therefore be rendered null and void.

    Both arguments are unfortunately unsound. The provision for the freedom of movement of individuals is, again, not an absolute one and its validity in specific contexts must be determined by its effect on other civil rights, including the right property. The land use act vests the ownership and control of lands in states. States allocate lands to individuals and families as needed. Furthermore, some family lands with requisite titles have had to be grandfathered at the inception of the land use act. Therefore, the right of such families to their land must be weighed against the constitutional right to freedom of movement. And where I have an allocation from my state, my title to it gives me a right which cannot be violated by any trespasser even when I acknowledge that he or she has a right to freedom of movement.

    The same logic applies to free movement of goods and services. Just as there is a civil right to free movement of goods and services, so there is a civil right to property which may not be violated by appeal to the right to move goods and services. This is so simplistic a logic that it’s hard to imagine how it did not occur to Miyetti Allah, which based its argument on the constitutional provision for free movement of goods and services.

    In the long-gone era when herdsmen respected the sanctity of the right of farmers to their farmlands and crops, no governor or premier thought of legislating against open grazing. But no governor can in good conscience stand by to watch the economic lifeline of his or her citizens destroyed by cattle with impunity.

    Importantly, the right of the farmer against such impunity is divinely sanctioned, as Exodus 22:5 declares: “If anyone grazes their livestock in a field or vineyard and let them stray and they graze in someone’s field, the offender must make restitution from the best of their own field or vineyard.” As my Pastor explains, “even the scripture is against open grazing and invasion of other people’s farmlands by cows.” I am almost certain that there is a corresponding injunction in the Holy Koran.

    Hopefully, the federal government is not shirking its responsibility in this matter. The Presidency was unfortunately slow to respond. As I observed last week, presidential leadership required that the president address the nation and visit the state to reassure affected citizens that they have a compassionate father who cares for their wellbeing.

    However, all is not lost. The president hosted the Benue delegation and appealed to them to exercise restraint to allow the government to work on solutions. But he also appealed to them to accommodate their fellow citizens. It’s unclear what this means. Accommodate them as their cattle graze on farmlands? Or accommodate their need for open grazing provided they do not trespass on farmlands? Or yet still could the president be thinking ahead and appealing to Benue and other states to be open to the solutions being proposed by the federal government? I will examine these solutions next week.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Disrespectful remembrance

    Disrespectful remembrance

    Another January 15 is here, our chosen Remembrance Day in honor of our fallen heroes. They labored and sacrificed for us to have a country to be proud of. Having a country is the lowest common denominator of humans in a world with artificial boundaries. Having one that is the pride of her citizens is the dream of patriots. It was for this dream that our armed forces fought, and many died.

    Admitted, many of our soldiers had few or no options. Though they were not conscripted, they were compelled by circumstances of birth. But there were also many that chose to give up more lucrative and peaceful alternatives. Instead of going into civil service with its promise of regular promotions and power to influence policies, they signed up to protect and advance the territorial integrity of a nation that they loved. Along with their fellow citizens, without paying attention to the barrier of tongue and tribe, many of them made the supreme sacrifice for their beloved country.

    If the spirit of the dead can ponder choices made or avoided, they might now ask: to what purpose? Was it worth my death? Indeed, is this nation worthy of my sacrifice? And if they could march back en masse, it is not unimaginable that, notwithstanding the side on which they fought and died, they would be united in vengeful accusation: we died for your sake and what have you done to justify our sacrifice? You have only made us regret.

    Would they be right? What might be our answer?

    Of course, they would be right. And in case you object, you will only be confirming their assessment of our lack of integrity, in view of how we have ridiculed their memories. They are right to the extent that while they fought for the unity and progress of the country, we have never been more disunited; and we have made negligible progress, considering where we could be.

    First, with regards to the symbolic memorialisation and remembrance of selfless sacrifice, we failed to come together as one to acknowledge their sacrifice with genuine and proper memorial across all the zones, regions, states, and local governments. Without such a grand national ritual of genuine remembrance, we have only managed to demean their memory. Surely, families organise annual memorial services in honor of their patriarchs and matriarchs. And periodically, in a few cases, ethnic nationalities honor their favorite officers with elaborate memorials. But as a nation, we have not really acknowledged the significance of the civil war. If we did, January 15 would not be the Memorial or Remembrance Day. Instead, we would remember the fallen either on the day that the first shots were fired or on the day the war ended.

    I surmise that our leaders decided on January 15 because in their usual paranoid sensitivity to the mere mention of the civil war, they fear giving it more recognition than is necessary. But ignoring its significance does not erase the fact of history; it only demeans and belittles the sacrifice of those brave men and women who heeded the call of the nation at its hour of need.

    It is, perhaps due to this first sin of forgetting, that we have been afflicted with the scourge of failure to understand what went wrong and come up with appropriate solution. With a wrong diagnosis of our ailment, we applied the wrong medication which has only aggravated our disease-state with the manifestation of embarrassing symptoms in our economic life, social fabric, spirituality, and political system.

    For the economic symptoms of dysfunction, consider the following fact. Between 1967 and 1970 when our heroes sacrificed for the unity of the nation, we fought a civil war without borrowing a kobo. We even boasted to the world that money was not our problem but how to spend it. Forty-eight years later, our cities and villages are wallowing in abject poverty and gross inequality. While less than 1 percent of the nation lives in obscene opulence, many fellow citizens are dying of hunger and disease. And of the 1%, less than 20% make their wealth from honest hard work. The remaining 80% are parasites in the rentier economy that has been responsible for the nation’s backwardness.

    Back in 1970, universities received adequate funding and produced excellent graduates whose productivity further advanced the economy. But since the mid-80s, without an economic plan that factors in population growth along with its requirements of educational, health, and social needs, we have relied on our gut instincts concerning those needs or, at worst, on hope that things will work out. Now, we find ourselves unable to provide for the educational and employment needs of the population. There are those with good connections that get into the workplace in the public sector only to find that they are not guaranteed wages as at when due. Governments owe workers an average of five months’ salary. Yet, we expect high productivity from those workers.

    There are also social symptoms of national dysfunction. What the economy fails to deliver, the devil provides in the dysfunction of our social life. Villages with their reservoir of moral values are deserted for the cities with their rivers of vices. The mixture that ensues in such a context could go either way: virtue takes preeminence and the vicious is educated and assimilated into the realm of virtue, or vice takes over and subsumes the virtuous. Unfortunately, the latter is the case with the further consequence that vice gets exported to villages from which virtue flees. Cultism and illicit drug are no longer the shameful preserve of our cities; villages have a fair amount of their share of these maladies, no thanks to village city returnees.

    Mortified by the distress of economic and social life, and desiring to escape the material reality of our individual and national circumstances, we seek refuge in spirituality. Churches and mosques litter our landscape from the coast to the desert. Men and women of God assure us that all will be well with their messages of prosperity that is our portion only if we obey God’s instruction, including the very important one regarding giving. So out of our nothingness, we give so we could receive. But it soon occurs to us that many come deceptively in his name, bearing false witnesses for their own material benefit while the masses still wallow in abject poverty. But why would God allow this if not to further punish us for our disrespectful remembrance of the fallen heroes?

    The most undeniable evidence of our national dysfunction is the political system and the leaders that it has spawned in the last 50+ years. It is significant that of the leaders that have ruled this country since 1966, only three have been true civilians without military background. How is it then that the military leaders that took us into and out of the civil war and led the country for more than forty years have failed so woefully to truly honor the sacrifice of their fallen colleagues with a political and developmental agenda that lift the country?

    Going into the 2015 elections, the selling point of President Buhari for many of us was his legendary leadership acumen: capacity for discipline and integrity, and a unique ability to bring the country together in UNITY and PROGRESS. This was what I believed. This was what I sold to readers. What went wrong? To fail to notice that something is terribly amiss is to be under a spell.

    Many of his fellow-citizens do not think that the president has met their expectation in grave matters. They don’t believe that he has used his bully pulpit effectively. He needs to reassure them that he truly belongs to everyone and to no one. For instance, in the matter of the killer herdsmen, the symbolic gestures of an address to the nation plus a presidential visit are more reassuring than press statements. In times like these, leadership empathy is a necessity. Our heroes died so we could live in peace. We could do much better to honor their memory.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

     @SegunGbadeg2002

     @HarvestDayPubs

  • What is in the nation’s future?

    What is in the nation’s future?

    The beginning of a new year is a good time to seek information about the future and, for believers, only the divine being makes this information available through his servants. Of course, not everyone seeks to know. But a prophet has a responsibility to deliver the message whether anyone is interested or not.

    This year’s prophecies range from the pedestrian to the exciting. Some bet on the old law of induction, assuming the regularity of nature. Others err on the side of caution, assuming nothing is to be taken for granted. Some prophecies stay within the realm of the spirit to highlight what they see as the lot of the believer in 2018. Others cross the spiritual border to the political, with unfettered predictions for politicians.

    From Daddy GO Adeboye, there are prophesies about assassination attempts, record breaking temperatures, and misunderstanding among nations but no war. That we have started the last lap of earthly sojourn with a countdown to the end could be scary for those who are not ready to meet their maker because they have not shown mercy to the needy, or they have been responsible for the needless suffering of the masses. The upright is not worried.

    From Bishop Oyedepo, it is well for the anointed. Here is more of prayerful affirmation of a positive outlook than a declaration of disaster. It’s a New Dawn for the believer— in family life, finances, and spiritual life. “No one shall be a victim of road accident”, and it will be the “most fruitful year”. No need for worry because “no evil occurrence” around the life of the believer. Even the “strange things that will be the order of the day in 2018” are to the benefit of the believer because they will enjoy a “double restoration of all” that they had lost. These prophecies are soothing to the soul.

    MFM GO Pastor D. K. Olukoya, released 45 prophesies for 2018. With emphasis on 18 as a signifier of bondage, it’s a year for repackaging and reloading bondage, with “terrible attacks on marriages” and “wild and merciless striking of infirmities.” It’s a year in which “terror will swallow terror and vomit poison” and where you either “fight or perish.” Thankfully, it is also a year “of great fall for corruption” and one in which “personalities against this nation will destroy themselves.”

    There are more daring political prophecies. Prophet Wale Olagunju of the Divine Seed of God Chapel Ministries in Ibadan who “accurately predicted President Muhammadu Buhari’s victory” in the 2015 Presidential election has now “revealed that the Nigerian president will be dethroned in 2019 election by former VP Atiku Abubakar.”

    Olagunju also has prophecies on the future of the country. According to the prophet, even if Abubakar defeats Buhari in 2019, Nigeria will not avoid disintegration: “No amount of peace talk can prevent Nigeria’s disintegration. It is a matter of time”, and “the Igbo’s desire for Biafra nation has received divine approval.”

    As for party fortunes, the man of God declares that PDP is not dead and it “will bounce back and its members in the APC will return to their original house” while the “present rumpus in APC will continue.”

    Furthermore, the prophet declares that “any party that fields Buhari for the 2019 presidential election will be fielding liability as his candidacy will make the party lose the election.”

    Olagunju’s political prophecies are not limited to the realm of democratic politics as he also prophesied that “a new generation of military officers will in future overthrow the government of Nigeria to clear the rot perpetrated by reckless politicians.” This should send jitters down the spine of every democrat and lovers of civil rule.

    There is some similarity between Fr. Mbaka’s 2018 prophecies and that of Prophet Olagunju, and both had prophesied the victory of Buhari over Jonathan in 2015. Of course, we cannot scientifically prove that the prophecies of the men of God caused the victory or defeat of any candidate. The best they can claim is that they have the gift of knowing the future through what God reveals to them. We are not able to empirically verify God’s revelation of his thought and future action to anyone. Only believers understand.

    On New Year Eve 2015, Fr. Mbaka prophesied that Jonathan’s presidency was over because God had rejected him and Buhari will win. Buhari won and later praised Mbaka’s bravery at an Aso Rock meeting. However, the relationship was short-lived as Mbaka was upset with Buhari’s handling of his job as president.

    Specifically, Fr. Mbaka complained that Buhari had not addressed hunger and suffering. He observed that 2017 was “one of the most horrible years in this country”; that the “hardship is not from God, they are man-made; and that “the cabal and satanic agents …have wickedly kidnapped the goodwill and good intention of Mr. President…” He then urged Buhari to “change or be changed.” “The wind will be too strong that Mr. President and the cabal will be blown out of office shamefully.” The President is “to be blamed, not your cabal. You have your brooms, but the cabal have their bags; either you sweep them away or they throw you into the bag.”

    On the fight against corruption, Mbaka is uncompromisingly harsh, accusing Buhari of “selective” war, “a witch-hunt” in which “your party becomes a hideout for criminals so that any person who does not want to be arrested will become an APC person. Is that not corruption in itself?” This is brutal, coming from a servant of God who once openly canvassed for the president.

    We might ask: In 2015, why did Fr. Mbaka not see this turn of events happening in 2016-2017? Was he denied the spiritual gift to see beyond one year? That is an unfair question. God reveals what he wants to reveal, and it is not unusual for those he favors to turn out to be overwhelmed by human nature. Consider Samuel and Saul. God did not blame Samuel. After all, it was God’s declaration of Saul that Samuel affirmed.

    We should note, however, that the voice of humans is indeed the voice of God. And as there are spiritual prophecies, so there are secular predictions based on experience. A meteorologist uses scientific data to predict the weather so that we are all prepared. A political scientist predicts the outcome of elections based on polling data and social-economic trends that impact the lives of citizens.

    In 2015, the Economist endorsed Buhari for president just as Mbaka the man of God did. But in a recent scathing write-up, ominously titled “The Rise and Fall of Buhari”, the magazine soured on the president, arguing that he “is being plagued with failures across every single sector in the economy, the like that has never been seen before.” It refers to the recession which gripped the nation shortly after the inauguration of the president, the fall in the value of the Naira, the rise in unemployment and the hike in price of petroleum products and the ongoing scarcity of the product.

    What the spiritual father observed, the secular magazine confirmed regarding the fight against corruption: “As for the corruption fight, the facts on the ground do not show any one at all. Apart from a few officials harassed or imprisoned without court order, the country is yet to witness the first victim of the said campaign at the court stands…Government waste is on the rise, officials caught in graft were swiftly excused….”

    These are matters of grave concern. The President still has time to rein in graft and summon the better angels of citizens. But leadership must change 360 degrees. He must resist taking citizens’ patience for granted. Characterising every genuine complaint as malicious attack will not serve the President well. Elections aside, President Buhari wants to leave behind a legacy of good stewardship that is remarkable for alleviating the suffering of the masses. Ideas about good governance that are offered to correct the lopsided federal structure must not be dismissed as unpatriotic. There is still time for POSITIVE CHANGE.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

     

    @SegunGbadeg2002

     

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • As 2017 retreats

    As 2017 retreats

    This is one heck of a year with a mix of pleasant and unpleasant memories, which does not cease baring its fury as it roars by to its end. Of course, for better or for worse, we will remember A.D. 2017. Whether, on balance, history will be kind to it is too early to tell.

    We feel the impact of events differently due to different personalities and temperaments. What touches me as tragic and unbearable may be of little importance to you. An event that appears to some as negative may be perceived as positive by others. Think electoral victory and loss. In the matter of the impact of a year on a nation, therefore, relativism holds sway.

    Despite this relativity of outcomes, it is not out of the ordinary for fellow-citizens to agree that a year has been particularly good or bad, if events are categorized according to their impact on the nation. A famine that leaves half of the population dead is catastrophic compared to winning an international soccer match. While we may rejoice over the latter and be thankful for small mercies, the former is a scourge of unforgettable proportion.

    On balance, is 2017 a year of positive developments? On the positive side, insurgency was degraded and denied a territory to lay claim to. Second, though we walked in the valley of the shadow of a second civil war, reason prevailed. Lesson learnt? We must continue to seek the best approach to governance in a multi-national state. Third, while we started the year with apprehension and unease with respect to the health of the Number One citizen, we are ending it with the president in good health.

    There are also negatives. The nation is still divided along primordial lines of resistance, almost sixty years after independence. We operate a quasi-unitary system to promote unity. Yet we are like separate unfriendly countries. Lesson learnt? Try a different direction. The economy stumbles along in fits and starts. The latest is the avoidable fuel shortage crisis that spoils the fun of Yuletide for many families, spawning conspiracy theories which further endanger desired unity. Politics, the institution that should provide leadership for national greatness, has unfortunately capitulated under the weight of corruption and nepotism.

    On the international scene, there are positives and negatives as well. There is a consensus on the urgency of a collective war on terrorism and the need to help the displaced and dispossessed victims of civil wars and terrorist attacks around the globe. ISIS has lost ground and cannot now boast of a caliphate headquarter. The battle is, of course, far from over as the wounded snakes still constitute imminent danger.

    The world needs peace to tackle issues of hunger, poverty and disease that afflict millions of its inhabitants. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons and biological agents continue to pose danger. The energy that ought to be directed to solving economic challenges gets dissipated while nations confront divisive issues of disarmament and geopolitics.

    Unfortunately, we witnessed the retreat of a once powerful leader in the promotion of freedom and justice around the world. Thankfully, others who still believe in the oneness of humanity are on hand to fill the vacuum. Just as individuals are not indispensable, nations also aren’t, and none should take others hostage. If the international community braces itself up to its calling, it can, through the United Nations, always count on the coalition of the willing. Recent events point to the resolve of that body to reassert its moral authority.

    From the foregoing, it seems clear that we have a mix of positives and negatives across the national and international platform. However, I am not willing to allow pessimism to get the better of me. Therefore, I conclude that in 2017, the positive outweighs the negative.

    However, the real reason that 2017 is a positive year for me is the spirit of community that trumped every negativity. Followers of this column may recall that in mid-October, I wrote about Okeho, my beloved country home, as it celebrated the centenary of its relocation to its present site. I see Okeho as an exemplar of the community spirit that is needed to make our nation great. If individuals can invest their time and resources in lifting and advancing their communities, the nation will be lifted and advanced.

    Officially, Nigeria has a total of 774 local governments. Each of these has an average of 20 towns or villages for a total of 15,480 local geographical communities. These local communities are deprived of many basic amenities. Their children go to school but there are no employment opportunities for them in their immediate environment and they have not been trained to be self-employed. There was a country and a region which prioritized gainful employment and provided opportunities for young school leavers to go into farming by establishing farm institutes, or go into artisanship by establishing trade centers. That was so yesterday!

    Without opportunities for progress in their village communities, young Nigerians invade the regional or state capitals where they drift along, often getting into trouble and into criminal gangs, populating prisons and detention centers. Children whose parents are in the forefront of virtue education back home arrive in cities and find themselves recruited into circles of vice. It is the worst nightmare of parents.

    Fortunately, while some thus find themselves in the belly of the whale in cities, others escape and make good lives for themselves, their parents and their children. That is the story of Okeho and the reason for my excitement in October. The many young men and women that made it to the celebration of the centenary were an inspiration to me. Since my family and I departed the country more than 25 years ago, I have only been back so infrequently that I hardly encountered the young professionals that I met in October.

    Meeting them was exciting. But knowing that they were all so dedicated to the progress of the community to make opportunities available for the ones left behind in the marathon of life was even more thrilling.

    At the end of the celebration, these young people decided to get involved. They set up committees for economic development, health and wellness, environment and infrastructure, education and mentoring, and history and tourism. They identified short-term, medium-term and long-term goals to achieve and they have been making progress in their deliberations on how to tackle the many developmental issues. I am elated.

    Of course, there are Nay Sayers. There are sadists whose intent is to inflict the most harm just to daunt your spirit. They will drag you to the mud to suck life out of your optimism. But they are in the minutest minority and the majority do not relent. This is the spirit that I appreciate in my fellow communitarians who believe that one with all is better than one with self. They give me reason for hope. Even when I was rudely shocked by some nastiness, I quickly warn myself not to empower dispiriting agents.

    Here then is my wish for my readers. Each of us comes from a community that needs us at this moment when all else appears to be against the spirit of community. If we lose our small communities to rural-urban migration, we lose the values that they inculcate in the youth. We will not have a nation that is value-conscious if we do not have communities that instill values. Looking back to offer help to communities in need does not detract from our national consciousness. For these communities are the indispensable cords that join the nation.

    Go then to your community. Set up community development organizations. Get involved in the struggles of the young ones trying to make something out of their lives. Encourage them and offer any assistance within your reach for their progress. In so doing, you are helping to build the blocks of national development. That used to be the spirit of our African ancestry not too long ago. We need to revive it in this age of rabid individualism.

     

    Happy New 2018!

     

    Follow me on Twitter

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

  • Fake federalism or a case of overstretched arms

    Fake federalism or a case of overstretched arms

    Federalism is a system of governance in which the center and the parts are coequal with each having assigned rights and responsibilities based on the principle of efficiency and effectiveness. If the assignment of responsibilities doesn’t respect this principle; if one level takes on responsibilities that overstretches its arms such that its reach is weak and therefore ineffective, it is safe to conclude that we have a debilitating case of fake federalism.

    But I will avoid labels because it turns off ears that ought to listen. Indeed, I will be charitable. I assume that those who insist on a strong center want the best for the country. They want to use the resources that accrue to the nation for the benefit of all the citizens of the nation. They do not want one section to suffer for lack of resources. It is a laudable intention. After all, we are one nation, indivisible.

    We are one family; the center is the patriarch, intent on spreading joy throughout the clan. What is the most efficient and effective approach? Is it by doling out goodies from the center or by going through the regions/states? Is it by the center taking on every task that it considers good for the family, or by sticking to those it alone can do best while ceding to states what they can do best?

    The latter was the intent of the founding fathers leading to the adoption of the Independence Constitution in 1960 and the Republican Constitution in 1963. With regions thus trusted and empowered, each of them launched a regional development agenda that also led to a huge lift for the country until 1966.

    When the military took over in January 1966, it diagnosed the nation’s ill health as disunity. It was a wrong diagnosis. What ailed the nation was selfish greed on the part of partisans. Based on its diagnosis, it prescribed the wrong medication which, instead of forging unity, ripped apart the country and led it to a civil war.

    In fairness, we must not deny that the military also embarked on national development and that it scored some achievements between 1966 and 1979 especially after the end of the civil war. But it was at the expense of regional initiatives and some of the federal government initiatives could have been more efficiently and effectively achieved by the regions or states.

    Civilian takeover did not change the direction of governance as the federal government continues to overreach. An example was the Shagari administration which launched a federal housing project across every local government without paying attention to the interests and needs of states. Hardly was any of the houses occupied. They now serve as ugly reminders of the overreach of that federal government.

    That approach however continued and even now, with a government of change in the center, the patriarchal model of federal governance is pretty much in place with the government taking upon itself responsibilities which fail to respect the principle of efficiency and effectiveness.

    I start with the most recently touted federal intervention by the Federal Ministry of Interior. Several media sources reported on Tuesday that the Ministry had just acquired 13 modern fire trucks and 11 water tankers for the Federal Fire Service (FFS) “to combat fire outbreaks” as the headlines put it. If you just read the news headline, however, you would be spared the remarkable details that emerge as you read further.

    Combating fire outbreaks is seemingly commendable, especially if that is within the Federal Capital Territory, where it can be most efficient and effective for the central government to operate its firefighting trucks and water tankers. However, the Ministry has taken on a more ambitious operation. The 13 fire trucks and 11 water tankers are to “combat fire outbreaks in the country.” The Minister, full of praise for the President who approved the scheme, added that “one bus for conveying fire fighters and other operational equipment are included”.

    The Federal Fire Service officials, including the Controller and Deputy Controller were naturally happy as they praised the move for its potential to save lives. While observing that this was the first time in history when the federal government responded to the need of the department for modern equipment, they expressed appreciation to the president and the government.

    Then it occurred to me: is this really an efficient and effective approach to firefighting? Why do we have a Federal Fire Service that is tasked with the responsibility of “combating fire outbreaks in the country”? I tried to educate myself by seeking clarification in our constitution. Isn’t this particular task best discharged by local government, not even state government? I did not find any clue. But my instinct about this tells me that there is something awkward about a Federal Government Fire Service. It is an overreach.

    Then I found an eye-opener. The “Federal Fire Service” was established in 1901 when there was no Nigeria and thus no federal government! The Honorable Minister alluded to this in his speech berating past governments of the federation for neglecting the agency. Those governments most likely had good reasons. The 1901 Fire Service was not meant for an amalgamated country. Therefore, it’s time is in the past. In the present, this government of change has the responsibility to take the country to the 21st century with adequate division of labor among its constituent parts.

    A few weeks ago, there was another news story about abandoned Federal Basic Health Centers across the country. Pictures don’t lie, and those pictures show outgrown bushes and dilapidated buildings around the centers. With good intention for the health of the children on the part of the patriarch, the children still suffer terribly from ailments that Basic Health Centers are supposed to cater for if they were structured to be efficient and effective. The question is “why is the federal government in the business of direct delivery of basic health care?”

    I caution against misunderstanding. Surely, the Federal Government has a right and a responsibility for the health of citizens and for keeping citizens safe from fire hazard. Indeed, there is no reason why both the federal and state governments can’t share this right and responsibility. But from this, we cannot logically or justifiably infer any responsibility on the part of the federal government for delivering these services directly to the people. Since there are other approaches such a responsibility cannot be logically inferred. And since there are more effective approaches, such a responsibility cannot be fairly or justifiably deduced.

    One effective approach is to leave the responsibilities for fire safety and for basic healthcare to local governments and state governments respectively. Of course, the federal government has the power of the purse in view of the lopsided revenue allocation system. This should change when these responsibilities are devolved to states. But even now, there is an approach that other federations judiciously use efficiently and effectively.

    The federal government can make polices for basic health care, encourage states to adopt these policies, offer grants to states that choose to, and monitor the performance of those states in providing basic healthcare to their citizens. If this were pursued as a goal, the basic health centers will function as expected, and the health of the people will be efficiently and effectively promoted as the federal government intends.

    What approach makes sense for fire safety? The Federal Government has an abiding interest in the safety of citizens and this includes safety from fire havoc. How best can it promote this interest knowing that it cannot, by itself, effectively prevent fire hazard across the 774 local governments? It is best to leave fire prevention and firefighting to states and local governments.

    There are other areas such as primary education and agriculture where states are best positioned to function efficiently and effectively for the benefit of their citizens and therefore for the good of the country, if the federal government will devolve responsibilities along with adequate resources to them and stick to those areas where it alone can perform best.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • At the edge of hell

    Consider with me the following stories. First, a man sold his one-year old baby for N190,000. He also sold a neighbor’s son for N120,000. For what purpose? It was to raise funds to bury his mother-in-law. This is in 21st century Nigeria.

    Second, as The Nation reported recently, a father, alleged to have regularly defiled his daughter and threatened her with death if she ever revealed the secret, impregnated the 10-year old. The case was heard at a magistrate court in Lagos.

    There is a third case. A 31-year old man was docked for allegedly defiling two sisters whose parents were his neighbors. This happened when the girls’ mother was sick in hospital. The girls were 2 and 4. He first assaulted the 2-year old. It was when he assaulted the 4-year old a day later that he was apprehended.

    Are these true stories or are they fictitious?  Multiple media sources reported the first story. The second and third were reported by The Nation. All cases are presently being litigated in the judicial system. But as we know, however the legal outcome turns out to be, it cannot determine the moral perversion they represent. These cases are a striking reflection of the state of the nation’s moral abyss. We are at the edge of hell.

    Here, I focus on the first case. There is a Biblical account of something more sordid which occurred at the depth of the famine that occurred in Israel during the reign of Jehoram when Samaria was besieged by the King of Syria. In 2 King 6: 26-30, we read of two women who made a pact to eat their sons one after the other. They killed and ate the son of the first woman. But on the second day when the son of the second woman was to be killed, the mother backed out and hid her son. The first woman whose child had been eaten protested to the king. Upon hearing her complaint, the king tore his garment and covered himself with ash, a cultural sign of grief.

    Though time is hard for many people with high unemployment and poverty, Nigeria is not in a famine. And though, the case of baby selling is not as grievous as that of infanticide, it is ironically worse in view of the purpose for which it was allegedly carried out.

    Our fellow Nigerian sold his daughter and his neighbor’s child to fund the funeral of his mother-in-law. Not too long ago, this moral perversion was unthinkable. Traditionally, we value children more than gold. Omo laso (Children are irreplaceable outfits) is how the Yoruba verbalize it. One would sell one’s possessions to take good care of one’s children. Grandparents are sometimes even more invested in their grandchildren than the parents.

    How is it even imaginable that a child can be sold out for the funeral expenses of his grandmother? In what universe of values is this reprehensible act possible? Only in a universe devoid of values. That is where beloved country is right now. How did we get here? Where are the purveyors of national values? Where are the preachers? Where are the custodians of traditional values? Where are the political leaders?

    I start with political leaders. In the biblical story referenced above, Jehoram, the King of Israel tore his garment upon hearing the complaint because the case drove a sword through his heart. In the nation that he ruled over, it had come to that point when mothers resorted to infanticide and cannibalism because of famine. It broke his heart.

    Does the story of child kidnapping, abduction, and selling break the heart of any Nigerian political leader? Does it occur to any political leader how their policies and practices might contribute to such morally repugnant and callous actions on the part of their fellow compatriots? Do they bury their heads in shame or do they laugh it off as they wine and dine with their mistresses in their private clubs in Dubai or Paris?

    “How is this a matter of shame for political leaders?” you ask. The question is reasonable, but it shows a lack of familiarity with the constitution which each of them swore to defend and protect. Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution imposes certain duties and responsibilities on the state and thus on the leaders who voluntarily undertake to serve.

    As declared in the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, among others, those responsibilities include 1. “the security and welfare of the people” as the primary purpose of government; 2. furthering a social order in which (a) the sanctity of the human person is recognized, and human dignity is maintained and enhanced; and (b) “children, young persons, and the aged are protected against any exploitation whatsoever, and against moral and material neglect.”

    Surely, the security and welfare of the vulnerable among us, including children and the aged, is the constitutional and moral responsibility of the state and its leaders who ought to model decency, modesty, and dignity that followers emulate. While a few have been conscientious in the discharge of this responsibility, the majority have been the most despicable in its violation. They model ostentation and recklessness which followers struggle to copy. The result is the torpedo of ageless cultural values in pursuit of vainglory.

    Religious leaders, especially those in the Pentecostal Order of Prosperity, are in general, not better off. While they are supposed to serve as the conscience of the nation, calling out sinful leaders as John the Baptist and his predecessors did, not minding the sacrifice that it involves (Elijah, Elisha and John suffered immensely in the hands of hostile kings); their focus is on peripheral matters such as the scriptural status of tithing. Those genuinely called to the ministry are in the minority. Those for whom the ministry is an alternative career for money making are many. In the circumstance, it is hypocritical of them to preach against the immoralities they themselves indirectly embrace.

    On their part, traditional leaders, who are the custodians of the cultural values that are at the foundation of the nations that make up the country, find themselves at the crossroad of history. On the one hand, even if they are so inclined, they are no longer effectively in charge of their territories and so cannot evoke the authority of their ancient gods to sanction violators of tradition. On the other hand, however, many of them have been coopted into the club of modernity with emphasis on conspicuous consumption and possessive individualism. Therefore, they are not able to model modesty and integrity. Indeed, the partnership between traditional and political leaders have made matters worse for the values that make a nation great. How can traditional leaders serve as brake on the accelerator of political leaders when they depend on the latter for their own survival?

    What makes our sample case so morally egregious is its combination of two atrocities. First is child abduction, which is against the constitution as discussed above. Second is desecration of the dead. This needs explaining.

    To bury his mother-in-law, the suspect in our case sold his son and neighbor’s son. By so doing, he has tarnished the memory of his mother-in-law whose spirit must be turning in the grave that such an atrocious act was committed in her name and for her sake. We are not told how old the mother-in-law was. But I venture a guess that if she was properly taken care of in her life-time, she would probably still be alive. I further hazard a guess that the woman would have preferred to be laid down to rest without fanfare knowing the financial condition of her daughter and son-in-law.

    There is another angle to the story. Many human beings are worried more about their reputation among their peers than about the deceased when they are unable to meet their public expectations concerning the funeral of their loved ones. This is an irredeemably obnoxious aspect of the modern Nigerian culture which reasonable citizens concerned about the future of the nation and her people must condemn.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs