The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • On national values

    On national values

    A nation that dreams greatness needs to invest in the strategic inculcation of national values. The success of such a strategic investment depends on several factors: (a) the scope of the values, (b) the source of the values, (c) the nature of the values, (d) role models and instructors, (e) institutional structures. Let us briefly investigate each of these factors.

    First, by scope I mean the reach of the values deemed national. It is unavoidably tautological to suggest that national values must be national in scope. But that is the inescapable reality. A national value cannot be ethnic orsectarian. Of course, this doesn’t suggest that a value that is acceptable to one ethnic or sectarian group cannot be acceptable to some other group. What it suggests is simply that for a value to be considered worthy of the adjective “national”, it must be embraced by or considered as worthy of the embrace of others.

    Second, one factor that determines the national scope of a value is the source of the value. How do members of the nation come to recognise it as a value worthy of embrace. National values cannot originate from divisive sources. Fortunately, despite the divisions of tribe and tongue in dear country, we have one non-divisive source of our values. It is the constitution which provides a copious account of the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy, which for all intents and purposes is a declaration of our national values.

    Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides a list of our national values, the ideals that we stand for and which government and citizens have a duty to embrace and promote. It reiterates our republicanism, which vests sovereignty in the people with the right to participate in government and the duty to discharge the responsibilities that correlate with that right. We affirm peace, progress, unity and faith as national ideals worth living for and if necessary worth dying for. We reject corrupt practices and collectively resolve to abolish them from our nation. We pledge to secure maximum welfare, freedom and happiness for every citizen on the basis of social justice. We decide that national wealth will serve the common good and not just a chosen few.

    We embrace freedom, equality and justice as the foundation of our social order. In other words, no one will be rendered unfree without due process; no one will be treated like a slave or serf; and justice will prevail because these are values that our nation is built upon. They demonstrate our belief in the sanctity and dignity of the human person. As a mark of our fidelity to these values, we pledge to give every citizen the opportunity to secure adequate means of livelihood under just and humane conditions of work.

    Our constitution even identifies boldly and unambiguously our national ethic which encompasses all of the above: discipline, integrity, dignity of labour, social justice, religious tolerance and patriotism. From south to north, from east to west, and every space in-between, these are the values that we embrace per the grundnorm that binds us as one nation indivisible. It follows that these are the values that we must seek to inculcate in young and old, officials and ordinary citizens at every opportunity in order to make our nation the pride of citizens and the envy of aliens.

    Third, by their nature, these ingredients of our national values are positive roadmaps for national development and national integration, provided there is sufficient adherence to their dictates. And that is what has been lacking. The lack is in two areas. If we are to inculcate national values, there must be instructors and role models for that purpose. But genuine instructors are lacking not because there are no expert teachers of values, but because, there is more to instruction and role modelling than rote teaching and learning. A role model sets a pattern of behaviour that is emulated by the followers. Whether in policy formulation or political practice, whether in religious instruction or sectarian preaching, there is too much of “do as I say” and not enough of “do as I do.”

    Fourth, there must be adequate institutional structures through the auspices of which national values are disseminated and inculcated. Prominent among the institutions that have traditionally taken up this task are schools, religious institutions, voluntary organisations, such as Boys Scout and Girls Guide, etc. In the colonial era and in the post-colonial and pre-military era, these were veritable institutions that took on the responsibility of inculcating national values with dedication and commitment. Discipline was enforced in schools and religious institutions. This translated into a productive workforce and a patriotic citizenry. We remember the teachers that made us who we are and the pastors and imams that lived penurious lives but delivered the words of truth without fear or favour. They are hardly here anymore.

    It is understandable then why government officials worry about national values. The Nigerian Educational and Research Development Council (NERDC) has refocused on how schools can re-engage in inculcating national values. But how might schools disseminate national values? And how might religious institutions? There is an undeniable synergy between national values and religious values. Our major religions preach love, peace, unity, respect, hard work, etc. Therefore, churches, mosques and traditional worship spaces are well-positioned to help inculcate national values.

    Public and private schools are also best suited with appropriate curriculum development in social studies, history, and civics, which focus students as citizens and future leaders on the history and value priorities of their nation.

    How about subject areas like Christian Religious Studies (CRS) and Islamic Religious Studies (IRS)? Are they repositories of national values and thus agents for their inculcation? To the extent that these subjects teach positive values, they are helpful in the dissemination of national values. However, this is not their main focus. Both are to be seen as academic subjects focused on instructing students on the tenets, beliefs and history of each of the faiths. As such, there are areas of agreement and areas of conflict between them. The major prophets of these religions had differing views on the issue of faith and spirituality.

    And while religion, when it is reasonably approached, can be a positive influence on national values, it is unclear what useful purpose is served by having students compulsorily explore in curriculum settings the linkage between religion and national values. Is the purpose to understand the relationship? That is not a worthy subject area for JSS or SSS. Is it to more effectively inculcate national values? That is a less effective approach. Is it to align religion and national values? That is an unnecessary effort. In the matter of teaching religion and inculcating national values, the approach that reason dictates is to keep them clear and distinct. As one of the prophets advised: give to Caesar what belongs to him, and reserve for God what is God’s.

    At any rate, even if for some reason, we find it useful to deploy religious instruction in the inculcation of national values, it is counter-productive to combine two religions under one curriculum head. Just as we cannot combine the teaching and learning of history and mathematics as a subject offering, combining IRS and CRS as one single subject in the curriculum will serve more negative than positive purpose.For such combination cannot avoid inadvertently truncating one belief system or the other, something that can cause more social harm than good.

    By the same token, making religious study compulsory while history is removed from the curriculum doesn’t make much sense. The latter is sorely needed for a heightened sense of national values. It affords us a common memory of our core values, where we have been, and what got us to where we are. History enables us to make useful investigation of our national, social, moral and political values. And historical knowledge is a sine qua non for informed citizenry. Therefore, for promoting national values, it makes better sense to make history, rather than religious knowledge, compulsory in our school curriculum.

     

  • Meeting the herding challenge

    Meeting the herding challenge

    The controversy over how to deal with the time bomb that defines the frequent violent clashes between herders and crop farmers is an unfortunate example of our habitual politicisation of issues of economic and social importance. What it requires is simply getting our bearing right and calling a spade by its proper name.

    What are the issues? Herders naturally promote their economic interests by taking care of their cattle, shepherding them to good pasture not minding the economic interests of crop farmers and their farmlands which their cattle feed on indiscriminately. Naturally too, farmers resent the impunity that appears to characterise the actions of herders. They are resentful because it appears to them that herders are subject to no laws or to different codes which protect them from justice. After all, they see many of these herders with AK-47 flung around their shoulders. Do they have the legally approved licence to carry such lethal weapons in pursuit of their economic interests at the expense of the farmer’s interests?

    While some farmers resist confrontation, deciding to have their gods avenge the ill-treatment in the hands of a powerful foe, others have decided to take their destinies into their hands, fighting with whatever they have, what they regard as economic oppression and tyranny of the mighty and powerful. In the midst of what appears to be a raging silent battle for economic and cultural survival, amidst all that have been our terrible lot at the dawn of the 21st century, there are conflicting reports of prospects of governmental intervention. One such was the idea of a grazing land, which has recently come up in media reports but which has now been denied again in media reports. My intention here is to offer some clarifications which I hope can lead to a morally and economically adequate resolution.

    First, we need to understand the commonalities and the differences between farming and herding. In terms of commonalities, I would like to suggest that they are both farming activities. We entertain no controversy when we talk about crop farming and livestock farming. Farming is defined commonly as the activity of growing crops or raising livestock for food or as raw materials. The synonyms for farming include agriculture, cultivation and land management.

    Second, from the foregoing it follows that farming has a number of divisions or sectors including, livestock, grain production, crop production, land management, etc. and whoever is engaged in any of these activities is by definition a farmer. By the same token, a farm is defined as an area of land that is devoted to the activity of producing food crops or raising animals for food and/or raw materials. For farming, farms or farmlands are necessities. And a farmer therefore is someone engaged in the business of farming, which as we just agreed, include cultivating crops and raising livestock. I suggest that herding is one category of farming and a herder is one category of farmer.

    What’s the difference? Herding is an agricultural or farming device to manage animals domesticated for supply of food or raw materials. While crop farming is space-confined, herding can but doesn’t have to be unconfined. Furthermore, while livestock farming is farming for subsistence and for sale by farm owners, herding is usually done by third parties working for livestock farmers or by individual families as small holders.

    Herding has been described as a way of life. It is claimed that herders are culturally nomadic and they cannot live domesticated life. This may be true to some extent. However, it is not supported by experience of recent times. There are stories in the holy scriptures about middle easterners of Abrahamic religions living nomads lives, including Abraham and Lot, Jacob and his in-law, Joseph and his brothers, Moses and his in-law, and David and his Jesse brothers.

    But where is the nomadic way of life in present day Israel! Or with contemporary Bedouin Arabs? Many have settled for urban life enjoying modern facilities including schools and health care. No condition, they say, is permanent and a culture that condemns a large number of human groups to a life of perpetual hardship and suffering is not worth keeping. By the way, as our Minister of Agriculture once observed, the cattle reared in the harsh conditions of nomadic herding are also an unhappy lot.

    If herding is another method of raising domesticated animals, then it is livestock farming. It prevailed as a method under two related realities which no longer exist. First, there was large expanse of land most of which was unclaimed by any specific groups or individuals. Second, the land was unsuitable for crop farming and the shrub and plants on the land was good for the animals. Neither of these realities now exists.

    The land that Nigerian herders frequent with their cattle belong to individuals and families, though by virtue of military fiat much of these lands now belong to state governments. And the approval for the use of most of these lands is now vested in the state governments. It follows that the lands are not free for use as grazing land by herders.

    While small land owners get away with the use of the land once claimed by their ancestors, commercial farmers can only have access to the quantity of land they need by lease or purchase from the government. Herders hardly do any of these and they freely graze their cattle on the lands trespassing on farmlands with impunity.

    This accounts for the frequent clashes that have occurred between herders and farmers who cultivate the lands across the length and breadth of the country. It is incorrect to see this as a north-south conflict. Rather it is a conflict between the economic interests of crop farmers from north and south on the one hand and livestock farmers who practise nomadic herding in the north and south.

    Clarifying the matter this way enables us to deal with it in a rational way. First, both livestock farmers and crop farmers need suitable land for their farming activities. Second, the former can still use herders once they have a legitimate claim to adequate land that does not conflict with the valid claims of crop farmers. Third, having a legitimate claim to land means that livestock farmers, just as their crop farming counterparts, lease or purchase specific parcels of land for their farming operations.

    This is the economically rational approach to livestock farming.This is what private ranches are about in modern livestock farming. The advantage of ranches includes the opportunity to graze cattle and other animals in well nurtured environment with adequate facilities for education and healthcare for those that still choose herding as a job. Furthermore, the cattle that they raise by this method can be given adequate care, with good feeding grass and shrub specifically planted for the purpose as well as veterinary care for the animals.

    The denial that there is a grazing land bill before NASS is a great relief. It would not have worked if the goal was to stop the frequent violent clashes between farmers and herders and it would have aggravated the tension. The beginning of wisdom and resolution of the crisis is the recognition that it is too late in this day and age to subscribe to the practice of open range grazing land for cattle or other domestic animals. For besides the conflict it generates, it is also economically unviable. At a time when we are encouraging commercial crop farming, it is counterproductive to encourage open grazing which destroys farmlands and pit crop farmers against herders.

    Livestock farmers who employ the services of herders must not be allowed to put their economic interest above national interest. The nation has a primary interest in harmonious relationship among its various groups. In addition, it also has an abiding interest in the economic prosperity of all its citizens. Private ranching as a globally tested method of livestock farming is the best approach to the promotion of the interests of livestock farmers and herders that work for them as well as the interests of crop farmers.

  • A good time for auditory impairment?

    A good time for auditory impairment?

    This is one of such times that I really appreciate Opalaba. He sat and walked with elders and has been instrumental to my learning a bit of their wisdom. When he once told me of his wish to be hearing impaired even for a season, I thought that he was crazy. Then he repeated the wish, suggesting that what prevents us from auditory impairment also prevents us from a happy state of mind. How true!

    In the last few days, I just wish I had no ears. The cacophony of lousy news that have passed through my ear canal have been dangerously depressing.

    Take the fiasco that has been the lot of Budget 2016. First, it was lost and found. That never got explained. Then it was padded and unpadded. By whom and for what? We were not told. Then it was passed. And we praised the Almighty in anticipation of the goodies that will flow. Then in his wisdom, PMB decided to verify if it was a fake, the proverbial oja okunkun or deal of darkness. And behold, he found plenty to worry his honest soul.

    The accusation and counter-accusation followed. Was the Lagos-Calabar rail project there originally? Was it surreptitiously added? Was it passed by the Land Transport Committee? etc. And we got a house of senators divided against itself.

    The committee that vetted and passed the rail project provision confirmed that it did. However, the Appropriation Committees in their wisdom removed it. Why? Well, if it wasn’t in the main budget, then it must have been a padding. Therefore, it cannot be included. It may also just be that the committees resented not being directly informed or involved by the minister. Anyway, they axed the rail project.

    But there was provision for the rail project even in the original budget. This was the billions that the Appropriation Committees found hanging on a tree inside the budget document. Absence of goodwill prevented the committees from asking the necessary question: what is this amount for? Doing so would have resolved the problem. Instead, they decided to share the hanging allocation over their favoured projects. And now it sounds as if it’s a north-south palaver. I am having headache already!

    But there is more to vex the ears and this one is capable of turning a simple headache into a migraine attack. Senate President is charged with violating the provisions of the Code of Conduct Bureau. He protested and initially refused to appear. When he finally did, he fought hard to stall the proceedings. He contested the legality of the body. It wasn’t a court, he claimed. The Supreme Court ruled that it was. Then Senator Saraki approached the Federal High Court with a plea to find the CCT incompetent because of its composition and the investigation of its chairman by EFCC. The assigned judge was about to deliver his judgment but chickened out because of media outcry accusing him of corruption and favouritism.

    The case went on with lurid revelations about Saraki’s fat bank accounts, including hefty daily lodgments. The nation also got to know how he rakes in a monthly pension of N1.2 million from Kwara State even while he was earning regular income as senator.

    In the middle of the revelations at the trial, another bombshell hit the country by way of Panama Papers, a leaked information about offshore shell companies owned by the rich and famous worldwide. Saraki was featured prominently as allegedly having companies on British Virgin Island fronted by his wife. A prime minister of Iceland who was outed in the same expose resigned immediately from office. Saraki vowed not to resign just because of his ongoing trial at CCT. And since he denied that the Panama Paper leakage had anything to do with him, he hasn’t considered that as a ground for resignation.

    Meanwhile, the judge who had recused himself from Saraki’s case at the Federal High Court has, at the instance of Saraki, been ordered by the Chief Judge to deliver his judgment. The order was strange. But nothing is normal about what we have witnessed since the beginning of the 8th National Assembly under Chairman Saraki.

    One of the strangest is the new Senate effort to amend the CCB/CCT law which places the bodies under the SGF. Whatever the merit of the move, the timing is injuriously self-regarding. The Supreme Court had ruled against Saraki that CCT is a court of law. Taking advantage of that ruling, Saraki and his loyalists in the Senate have initiated an amendment to the law seeking to move the CCT out of the SGF’s office and to place it under the judiciary. Should the amendment succeed, how does it affect the ongoing trial? Needless to add, the timing is just as suspect as the timing of the invitation of the former Chairman of EFCC before Senate shortly after Saraki’s wife was invited by the EFCC last year.

    The mother of all headaches is the state of the economy and the groaning of the masses. We know that PMB inherited a complete rot. It’s his unfortunate lot as it happened back in 1984. And we know that with this kind of mess, it takes time for a nation to turn the corner.

    The US economy was in the tanks in 2008 as Obama campaigned for the presidency. And when Obama won, he had to battle the odds for his entire first term. It’s only in his second term that the situation started to change. That is in a country with all the endowments—material, intellectual, infrastructural and political, compared to Nigeria with all the deficits. It is important, however, to get right the medication that the disease needs so that we don’t worsen the ailment.

    When SGF declared recently that the Federal Government borrows an average of N600 billion monthly to pay the salary of its workforce, I saw my blood pressure run out the window. For I had thought that salary payment issue was a state malady. When I read that my state governor had just reached an agreement with labour to dedicate a hundred per cent of federal allocation to salary payment, I shuddered at what this means for the development of state which I am aware he cares so much about.

    There is a structural problem. A state or a nation cannot devote 60-90 per cent of its resources to salary and allowances and expect to develop. If productivity is high, we may expect that the salary going out will bring in much more dividends. But when there is disenchantment and hunger occasioned by non-payment of salaries due to scarce resources, productivity cannot be anything but low.

    The private sector, which should be the driver of economic development and therefore the major employer of labour, is unable to play this role because we have for long neglected the creation of the conditions for the private sector to do that. We have neglected infrastructure. When the money was flowing like a river in the rainy season, we squandered the opportunity.

    No less culpable is the indiscipline that characterises the hiring of civil servants. When I marvelled at the high percentage of resources going to salary payment and wondered aloud how it was possible that states don’t cut their coats according to their clothes, my friend who is familiar with the unenviable career of the rot gave me a tutorial.

    “It’s all politics”, he declared. “In the matter of appointment and dismissal of permanent secretaries, politicians hardly pay attention to the monetary implications. But if you retire a Permanent Secretary, you are bound by law to pay his salary till the end of his life. Now, you will hire a replacement, and that one will also earn his or her salary even if your successor retires him or her. Add to this the many cases of politically-motivated employment of junior and middle level officers into the system.”

    Does it matter that expending the entire resources of a state or the nation on less than 10 per cent of the population is morally outrageous and economically imprudent?

  • Religion as dilemma for liberal democracy

    Religion as dilemma for liberal democracy

    On the one hand, for the liberalism in liberal democracy, with its undiluted commitment to freedom of thought, conscience and action, takes religious freedom as a fundamental freedom. The freedom of religion in liberal democracy connotes the right and the capability of an individual to practise a religion of his or her choice without fear of persecution or molestation. This freedom is unquestionable and it is not subject to social or political constraint.

    On the other hand, the democracy component of liberal democracy captures the collective character of the political community and its implication for common action and governance. Liberalism can accommodate a loner without any problem though it’s unclear why a loner would need a liberal theory in the first place. Where there is a multitude, however, there’s an assurance of a clash of freedoms and the need for a means of resolving those conflicts. Democracy is the choice of many modern societies, including Nigeria. Thus, liberalism, with its commitment to individual freedoms combines with democracy with its commitment to the sovereignty of the people as the foundation of government.

    The freedom of religion or freedom of conscience which liberalism affirms unequivocally for the individual, like other freedoms, must now have to be reconciled with or accommodated in a whole gamut of freedoms claimed by other individuals in a democracy. It soon becomes clear then that the freedom considered absolute for a loner is anything but in a democratic society where there is a clash of multitudes of individual freedoms at stake.

    Herein lies the dilemma for a progressive committed to the sanctity and advancement of liberal democracy. On the one hand, that commitment requires an unequivocal respect for the individual freedoms recognised by liberalism including freedom of religion. On the other hand, that commitment also requires a pragmatic approach that recognises the destructive nature of absolutist conceptions of freedoms, including freedom of religion in a pluralistic setting. It requires an understanding that there have to be restrictions of freedom of religion.The mark of statesmanship is the ability to navigate the two horns of this cruel dilemma.

    Fortunately, we are not in an uncharted territory. From liberal democratic theorists and constitutional provisions, we have the outlines of a compelling approach to resolving the dilemma.

    Thus, we only need to be reminded of the dictum of the apostle of liberalism with regard to the liberty of thought and action. The only reason why a person can be punished for an action, according to John Stuart Mill, is that it harms other people. From this it is clear that a defence of individual freedom will not fly where a person’s action or speech affects others.

    But if we can punish an individual after the fact that his or her action adversely affects others, we can or at least should act to prevent the performance of that action to the extent that it is possible. Prevention, after all, is always better than cure.It is this preventative approach that constitutional provisions, statutes and policies are designed to pursue in clear statements and enforceable codes.

    Constitutions vary in terms of such provisions with some as ultra-liberals favouring as much liberty as possible and some as ultra conservatives with as much restrictions as possible. The US is an example of the former. Iran is an example of the latter.

    With our multiplicity of religions, our constitution pragmatically steers the middle course between unconstrained freedom and unbridled regulation in the matter of religion. It endorses the secularity of the state with a freedom clause that grants the freedom to choose and practise one’s religion without persecution or molestation and an establishment clause that prohibits the state from adopting a religion.

    Despite the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, however, nations have witnessed varieties of violations including the persecution and harassment of citizens on the basis of religious differences. Indeed, religious conflict has become one the most virulent in our contemporary world.Nigeria has had its disproportionate share of this malady with Maitatsine sect in the 1980s and now Boko Haram, both confined to the North.When the constitution fails to protect, what does a leader do? In particular, what does a progressive government do to prevent religious bigotry and protect its citizens?

    This is presumably the question that Governor El-Rufai of Kaduna State was compelled to ask himself. The answer that he came up with in the form of a new legislation to combat the cancer of religious intolerance has been the subject of media interpretation with commentators breaking for or against him. A few in the latter group, including a Christian cleric, has pronounced a death sentence on the governor unless he withdraws the bill. What more evidence does one need for the vitality of religious extremism?

    Incidentally, El-Rufai’s bill is not totally original. It is a rehash of a 1984 bill that sought to serve the same purpose, but which had not received the kind of scrutiny that the new bill has received and had not been effectively enforced over the years.

    A key provision of the bill requires the licensing of preachers in the state. This is to be done by the Inter-Faith Ministerial Committee to be set up by the governor and which is to have a supervisory control over the two Committees of Jama’atu Nasir Islam (JNI) and Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) respectively. These committees are to keep records of churches and mosques as well as the data of preachers in the state. Local Government Area Committees are to keep a register of preachers in their localities and screen their applications for preaching licences with recommendations to the Ministerial Committee. The latter may reject or approve and where it approves, the committees of the major religions are to issue the licences to their respective preachers.

    There is restriction on the playing of cassettes, CDs and other religious recordings (which must not contain any abusive language against persons or religions) to the privacy of individual homes or places of worship. Provision is also made for punishment for infraction of any of the provisions.

    There is little if any doubt with respect to the good intentions of the governor. In any case, it is difficult if not impossible to discern the motive of any individual talk less of a politician. However, one must always give the benefit of the doubt especially in a case such as this when we are confronted at every point of our national life with violent extremism. A leader has an obligation to think clearly and initiate ideas and policies that respond effectively to the challenge. I want to believe that this is what has motivated Governor El-Rufai in the direction of a new or rehashed legislation.

    Is it constitutional? Will it work? Some have argued that the bill violates the constitution because it restricts the freedom of religion that the constitution guarantees. This is not a valid argument because the constitution itself provides for the restriction of the freedom that it grants “in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, etc. and for the protection of “the rights and freedoms of other persons.”

    The major worry is whether and how the law will work if and when passed by the legislators and signed by the governor. It is unclear if the two major religions whose leaders are already up in arms against the bill will cooperate in its implementation. But it is equally unclear why these bodies are assigned the role of registrars when they do not represent every Christian or Islamic organisation or sect.

    Assume, however, that the issue of requisite committees is resolved, how are culprits to be apprehended and punished? The bill charges the Local Government Committee with the function of ensuring compliance with the terms of the licence issued. Presumably the same committees are responsible for apprehending violators and prosecuting them. The matter of enforcement will make or mar the bill if and when it becomes law. It is important, therefore, to be as clear as possible on the locus of responsibility for enforcement.

  • Celebrating a national icon

    Celebrating a national icon

    The classy and stylish Eighth Bola Tinubu Colloquium has come and gone. But for all who witnessed the event, it was an eloquent testimony to the greatness of its namesake and the tremendous goodwill that he has earned through years of consistent demonstration of courage and resilience, fighting against political tyranny and impunity in high places. This will remain indelible in the hearts of many participants and attendees.

    There is probably no better evidence for the enviable political stature of Bola Tinubu in contemporary Nigeria than the fact that his birthday provided the platform for a “vital national discourse” at which the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria made important policy declarations and agriculture, one of the most crucial planks of national economic priorities, was subjected to serious intellectual and policy analysis.

    The choice of the colloquium topic, “Agriculture: Action. Work. Revolution”, is not only timely; it is also critical to the overall agenda and policy thrust of the current administration. The President, therefore, has every good reason for his enthusiastic presence. The topic gave him another opportunity to drive home his determination to impact the lives of the millions of Nigerians who believed in him and entrusted their future to him. He reassured them of his empathetic understanding of their present pain. He also renewed his administration’s promise to diversify the economy, using agriculture to lift the masses out of poverty.

    Indeed, the Eighth Bola Tinubu Colloquium turned out to be another remarkable example of the synergy and meeting of minds between President Muhammadu Buhari as the official face of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its progressive policy thrust on the one hand, and Asiwaju Tinubu, the charismatic national leader of the party who with the scars of decades of struggle for progressive transformation of the nation, continues to re-present the future that is possible for our people and therefore reserving the right of intervention at critical junctures on behalf of the voiceless.

    This synergy and meeting of minds is not lost on President Buhari himself as he declared his self-evident enthusiasm for the topic of the colloquium with his observation that the “theme for (the colloquium) this year could not have been better chosen. As the nation grapples with decades of dependence and profligacy of natural resources, and the coincidence of shrinking of oil prices, the chickens have indeed come home to roost.” For this reason, the President rightly observed that “diversifying the economy can no longer be a slogan; it has become a necessity.”

    And in a moment that betrayed his progressive bona fide and the reason for his initial acceptability to the masses that voted for change in the last general election, President Buhari declared that economic growth must be “broad-based, for every Nigerian citizen” and it “cannot just be for the lucky few at the top.” Since the majority of citizens are in the agricultural sector, it stands to reason to initiate a progressive agenda for economic growth with a laser beam on agriculture.

    That understanding of the meeting of minds is crucial to the overall success of the administration and the continued relevance of the party that it represents. I believe that this is in part a good reason for the President seizing the opportunity of the colloquium to reiterate the commitment of the party and the administration to the prioritisation of agriculture and the specific plans for its realisation.

    Among others, President Buhari pledged his commitment to the ultimate goal of self-sufficiency in the production of the categories of food that are staple to the diet of most Nigerians; and the ultimate ban on importation of such food items as rice, wheat, fish and sugar. That we continue to import these items is a shame and a vivid demonstration of our national deficit in seriousness. These are items that we can either grow at home with our expansive farmlands and teeming population of unemployed people, or can afford not to consume since there are good if not better alternatives.

    What is in jollof rice that is not in ofada rice? It is therefore encouraging that President Buhari has given the marching order with the setting aside of N40 billion for rice and wheat farming and his promise to stop the $11 billion of foreign exchange that we waste on importation of these items. Many Nigerians would willingly decide to partner Mr. President on this journey of hope. Nigeria has no reason to spend its hard earned foreign exchange on food importation.

    Of course, the real success story of this policy thrust cannot and will not be in the amount that we save in foreign exchange if it ends up hurting the masses whose fortune it is designed to improve. The real success story, as Asiwaju Tinubu, the celebrant himself observed, is not about the rate of GDP growth. “Our real quest”, Tinubu insisted, “is to strive to provide the people with sufficient food at affordable prices. The real story is that our farmers and their land must become more productive, but they must also be secured with better pay for their increased output.”

    In other words, a progressive strategy in the agricultural sector is for the ultimate good of the people. The prioritisation of agriculture as an economic strategy is for the benefit of families such that “no child goes to bed in want and hunger.” It is just as well, again, that the President and the party’s national leader spoke with one voice on, as the former put it, “the injustice of hunger and the need for long-term food security.”

    Matching the leadership declarations on policy strategy is the demonstration, by expert colloquium speakers, of practical possibilities and challenges in the agricultural sector. From the Keynote Speech of the Minister of Agriculture, which enunciated the policy specifics and the challenges of meeting them, to the guest speaker’s address on the prospects of a Nigerian Commodity Exchange system from an Ethiopian Commodity Exchange perspective and the fascinating prospects of poultry farming in Nigeria, the audience was treated to a day of so much nutritious food for thought (no pun intended).

    How did all these come to happen on the birthday of a citizen, a day which would otherwise have passed without notice but by the immediate family and friends? How come the birthday of a citizen without official appointment in government became an occasion for presidential policy announcements? The simple answer is that Asiwaju Tinubu has successfully and effectively represented the hopes and aspirations of the masses. He has championed their cause in and out of office. He has demonstrated an uncommon courage in the struggle against oppression and in pursuit of good governance. He has been an indisputable bridge builder across the national divides of tribe, tongue and religion.

    From the North and South, from the East and West, politicians, traditional rulers, intellectuals, market women, civil servants and youths gathered to celebrate the icon of change and the generous spirit that they fondly cheer as Jagaban. As the Yoruba would say, it is futile to engage in the comparison of heads. One who does that kind of exercise may end up suffering untold psychological breakdown. Therefore, it is sensible to allow destiny to play itself out. Some are just destined to be great.

    Yet the Yoruba, in their candid pragmatism, would also remind us that we must engage our hands to influence and improve our lot. This means that we are the architect of our fortunes. Tinubu’s ascendance in national political and business leadership is a testament to this belief. He has his maker to thank. He has his dutiful and supportive wife, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, to thank.

    For the success of the colloquium, which is in its eighth year, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, the initiator and architect of the idea since 2009, has every reason to be proud. Each year the programme has gotten better and better, and certainly, this has been the best thus far. Professor Osinbajo has put a stamp of his penchant for excellence on this annual event. It will only get better.

  • Senate’s pseudo progressives

    Senate’s pseudo progressives

    Hello, Mr. PP”, Opalaba bellowed into the handset in response to my enthusiastic announcement of my presence in the area. There is a history behind this exchange.

    I had once walked into Opalaba’s booby trap of tradition bashing when I accused him of not welcoming me back home. I had suggested to him, as the elders taught us, that if he didn’t consider it appropriate to stretch to me a hand of welcome, he should not expect a corresponding gesture of goodwill to him. After all, he who fails to say “welcome” has lost a right to “I am here and I hope I meet you well.”

    My friend didn’t take kindly my accusation and though I wasn’t going to let him win the debate that ensued, I thought that he had a point. Opalaba insisted that either the elders were wrong or I got the import of their teaching upside down and inside out. In his thinking, the suggestion that the person at home must first stretch a hand of welcome to the visitor or family member returning from a trip makes sense when the two are physically contiguous. It is then easy for the home-bound folk to witness the arrival of the family member or visitor. In such a situation, it is normal to expect a warm welcome back from the home bound person to which the arriving folk may respond “I hope that I find you well.”

    However, while that scenario is normal in the traditional setting, it does not feature often in contemporary setting when even within the same village, I may not know that Opalaba was away or has arrived and vice versa. It was in such a setting that I had accused Opalaba. His response was an outburst of a pent-up anger at whoever or whatever:  How am I supposed to know that you had arrived? Am I expected to have a crystal ball? It’s stupid to quote that nonsensical proverb. It doesn’t apply to this situation. In fact, it’s the reverse that applies: If you don’t announce your arrival with “e ku ile” you forfeit your right to “e ku abo.”Since that exchange, I learnt to announce my arrival.

    That was what happened last weekend and the response that I got was “Hello, Mr. PP.” To my question, “what does that mean?” Opalaba irritatingly suggested that I ought to know. “You are all pseudo progressives,” he derisively averred. “And I just pity the poor folks that you all deceived with your change mantra. Change my foot!”

    Continuing, Opalaba exploded: “What change when you cannot even defend a poor kid taken advantage of? Your legislators were quick to initiate an ethics probe of one of their members for bashing them in an interview. But when a 14-year-old was abducted and impregnated, ‘mum’ was the response from them! Now a bill seeking a law to criminalise such barbaric exploitation of the vulnerable has been dealt a death blow in the Senate. But what have you done as a columnist? ‘Mum’ is the word from you as well.”

    “By the way” Opalaba continued, do you know what’s in that bill? It is the most reasonable and modest set of legislation that any reasonable person, born of a woman, would gladly assent to if only as an honour to the vessel through which they entered the world. And to those who have daughters and sisters among them, you would expect that they would be mindful of the future that they aspire to have those poor girls and women experience and do the right thing.

    “In case you haven’t followed your senators’ legislative blunder, I have identified at least six substantive and largely innocuous features of the gender equality bill. And I would invite your good self to tell me, based on your understanding of the commonsense revolution that APC enunciated and which I believe you subscribed to, which of these is lacking in commonsense or is too radical for your comfort.

    “First, the bill requests parity for boys and girls and men and women in educational placement and school enrolment, including in the award of scholarship. Simply put, obstacles should not be placed on the path of girls or women in the matter of educational attainment. Pray, why would any sane senator oppose this? Are girls and women different species? Are they not human beings? Does their different anatomy place a curse on them? It is just so damning of the mentality of pseudo progressives who are really closeted reactionaries.

    “Second, the legislation seeks to eliminate gender stereotyping and customary prejudices that are ignorantly based on perceived inferiority or superiority of the sexes. Where roles are reserved for men and women based on such stereotypes, it does an irreparable harm to the psyche of young women and men. Indeed, our distinguished senators may not be aware or conscious of the real foundation of their votes on the bill. But they have just exposed the harm that traditional stereotyping had done to their own psyche. They grew up being fed with the rubbish about what women are and in their adult lives they refuse to independently and critically evaluate the old “idols of the tribe”, the prejudices that stand in the way of reason and rationality.

    “Third, the gender equality bill seeks to eliminate sexual and domestic violence, including rape, assault and sexual harassment. All religions preach domestic harmony. All sects preach peace. While would senators be in favour of promoting sexual violence? But you may tell me that none of them favours the promotion of violence. My question to you is “why are they against a bill that seeks to eliminate violence?”

    “Fourth, the bill that your pseudo progressive senators reject seeks to eliminate inhuman and humiliating treatment of widows. It seeks to give a widow the right to an equitable share in the inheritance of her husband’s property.And to your pseudo progressive senators, this is a mortal sin! A woman spent the whole of her life with a man more or less like a servant, bore his children, satisfied his sexual urge, nursed him when he was sick, provided the needed emotional support for his passion and ambition no matter what they are. In the end, he passed on and the woman is left in limbo. She cannot have access to his property. Relations who hated him and her while he was alive have the right to inheritance. This is the tradition that your pseudo progressive senators admire and voted to continue.

    “Fifth, the gender equality bill seeks to ensure more participation for women in politics and in positions of authority. But your pseudo progressives cannot bring themselves to an understanding of why they must empower women in this way. After all they (women) are supposed to be seen and not heard. The fact that the major prophets have special places for women in their heart doesn’t amount to anything for your reactionaries in progressive garb. Women are about half the population of the nation. But out of over a hundred senators, there are not up to 10 women. It is good reason for shame. But shamelessness is the heritage of pseudo progressives.

    “Sixth, the gender equality bill seeks to make age 18 the minimum age for marriage in the country. Of course, for pseudo progressives this is the height of provocation when they would rather catch them young. So for them it is the last straw. Indeed, I venture to hazard a guess that many of them did not bother to read the entire legislation and when this caught their attention, they just decided there and then that the entire bill must be shredded. Pity!

    “In the end, a chamber with a majority of its members in a political party that campaigned as a change agent and an advocate of commonsense revolution, threw out a progressive bill that seeks to emancipate a large segment of the population from unfair exploitation. How low can a chamber go?”

    Thus sayeth Opalaba. And from me, oro pesi je.

  • Imperative of values

    Imperative of values

    Values are the foundations of social and national life. They make us who we are and determine what we will be. They can be positive or negative. We live by them and by them we thrive or degenerate. A society that derives its being from positive values can expect to thrive and prosper. On the other hand, where negative values are the driver of national wheel, it can expect to slouch toward the Hades of existence. By the same token, when a nation starts on a positive value orientation but goes on to embrace negative values, we may expect it to flounder and fall. This was the fateful course of the empires that were and are no more.

    From whence come our values? Are they natural and immutable or are they conventional and relative? In other words, are our values independent of human making and therefore natural, holding absolutely no matter the circumstance? Or are they dependent on human conventions and therefore relative to time and space? It makes a lot of practical difference how we theoretically answer these questions. It makes a lot of difference across cultures, across religions and across nations.

    For value absolutists, societal values are immutable because they are independent of human conventions and agencies, and are needed for societal survival and progress. Therefore, they cannot be overridden by any social idiosyncrasies or legal manoeuvres.

    But where do they come from and how do we get to know them? The answer varies. For many traditionalists and conservatives, values are divine. We know them through God’s revelation to the devout and wise ones. Recall Moses and the Ten Commandments. Or Prophet Mohammed and the Holy Koran. The prophets don’t lie and therefore society must abide by their mandates. Obviously here, the challenge of consensus strikes us right in the face when there is a conflict of revelations mandating a conflict of values. How do we deal with different revelations concerning child marriage?

    For secularists, the source of our absolute values is nothing but the reason and the conscience with which we are fully and lavishly endowed. To know the values that we must live by, we only need to consult our reason and be guided by its dictates. If we are honest and smart, we would not miss the mark. The problem is that we are not all honest and some are not as smart as others. As a result, we also have here the challenge of consensus when differing value conclusions are drawn from the same set of factual propositions to the detriment of social life. How come different reasoners reach different conclusions about the value implications of the fact of child marriage?

    In the last two paragraphs, I have deliberately framed the question of consensus in simple and direct language. I have avoided the issue of abduction, for instance, simply because it is contestable. Assume, however, that the case of Ese and Yunusa were not that of abduction but simply a case of love between two young fellows. Do we have a consensus of revelation and/or reason about the value of child marriage since it is not denied that Ese is a minor? And on the need for parental consent?

    It follows from the above that value absolutism of religious or rational dimensions has a challenge regarding consensus on values within a social space in which there are contending and competing spiritual forces or rational agencies.

    Value relativism recognises this conundrum but it doesn’t fare better. For value relativism, values are relative to societies and cultures each of which has the right and responsibility to determine what values are best for its survival and progress and therefore values may vary from place to place. While this position makes consensus within particular cultures and religions possible, it fails to take account of the plurality of cultures and religions that make a society. And the major mark of modernity is the plurality of cultures and religions within a social space as in the case of our multi-ethnic and multi-national space.

    Recognising the diversity of our cultural and religious values and the challenge of consensus across the divides that they represent, we opted for a device that should take precedence over all of them and bring us to a consensus on value matters. This is what our grundnorm, the constitution of the country represents or is expected to represent. We do not have a common spiritual or rational agency. But by appeal to our rational self-interests and what is needed to promote them in a multinational environment, we agreed to establish the guiding principles of social and political life which, therefore, supersede any cultural or religious dictates or divisions. Provided we allow the constitution to do its job of promoting our national values, we should be able to ride the storm of ethnic or religious diversity.

    It is to this end that the constitution gives us the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State as the source of our national values and social orientation. It also establishes the rule of law as the basis of our interactions. In each of the dimensions of our economic, political, social and spiritual lives, we have the rule of law to guide our relationship with government and with fellow citizens. The onus is mostly on our governments through our political leaders to enunciate and pursue practical policies aimed at bringing out the best in every citizen. When leaders succeed, the nation and its citizens excel in values orientation. Otherwise, they experience anomie and alienation. Our contemporary experience of value deficit is an eloquent testimony to the failure of leadership.

    If we believe in the doctrine of the natural depravity of humans, then it is human nature to drift toward vice or negative values. Naturally then, we prefer consumerism to productivity. If economic sabotage through hoarding pays, we embrace it. Political violence and election rigging that scuttle democracy may favour a few as long as there is no consequence. Some may find it attractive to denigrate women and see them as sex slaves even when they protect their own daughters from harm. Unbridled materialism and opulence in the midst of mass poverty may not tax the dead conscience of the filthy rich. And prosperity gospellers may have no qualm about milking the poor cattle that they volunteer to herd. If our different cultures and religions pronounce differently on these value choices, the constitution and the statutes that it spawns are clear in their denunciation.

    I am not sure if it is only reassuring or true to suggest that our nation has seen the worst in terms of the negativity of our value system. Twenty years ago, many thought we must have gone through the worst when it was government itself that promoted the most heinous of crimes, including judicial murder of citizens for irrational self-interest. Now we have local and state governments doing just as much and getting away with it. Much more harmful is the collaboration of the judiciary through the bad eggs it harbours to perverse the cause of justice and mock the rule of law.

    Most of the values that the majority of our people live by are egocentric and therefore inimical to the social health of the nation. If everyone were to adopt those values, no one can expect to survive let alone prosper in this nation-space. Those negative values couldn’t have come from any natural or spiritual sources. But with individuals embracing them and political leadership not having enough moral courage and political will to unleash the power of the grundnorm and our statutes to deal decisively with them is not just embarrassing; it is destructive of our common interests. For with these negative values and the weakness of the will on the part of the government, we are creating the veritable means of our national demise. Empires and nations have risen and fallen as a result of the values that they embrace and promote. We have not even risen to the midpoint of our potentials. But we are already prepping hard for the big fall.

  • Devaluation for Dummies

    Devaluation for Dummies

    The naira devaluation debate appears to have been conducted in abstract terms that make it difficult for many folks to participate in it. This shouldn’t be the case. In fact, the economics of devaluation or revaluation appears to be plain and simple, though there are no simple answers to the questions that they raise.

    The debate has highlighted some inconvenient truths about the economy that we have operated since the beginning of the republic. But the inconvenience of these truths does not diminish their status as truths. In the language of popular introductory books, then, I present “Devaluation for Dummies.” I would still be one of the dummies but for my power couple who broke the issues down for me in plain language.

    First, we operate an economy that is fundamentally based on foreign exchange earnings from one product, that is, fossil fuel. The vibrancy or otherwise of the economy is therefore dependent on fluctuations in the oil market. There is no better evidence for this truth than the benchmarking of our annual budget on the price of oil. To allow for the shock of the fluctuation, we use conservative figures so that we may have a pleasant surprise for our Excess Crude Account, an extra constitutional device cleverly designed as buffer for us in the rainy day.

    Second, we do not produce any tangible products for export besides oil and we do not produce most consumer goods. So we are fundamentally a consuming nation. As President Muhammadu Buhari has repeatedly observed, we even import toothpicks.

    Third, from the foregoing, it follows that we need more foreign exchange than we earn from the export of oil, our only commodity, in order to pay for our cravings for imports. If the individual importers of these goods have access to their own foreign exchange earnings, e.g. through their business and professional incomes, they would not need any from the government through the CBN. However, the vast majority, including most businesses, have no independent sources of foreign exchange. Therefore, they rely on government for supply. Additionally, we also now import education for our kids by sending them to foreign institutions for which we have to pay their tuition in foreign currencies.

    Fourth, since we operate a market economy, the market can easily decide the rate at which the naira exchanges for any other currency, including the dollar. It should depend on the law of supply and demand. The currency that we do not need remains weak against our naira while the currency that we need badly remains strong as long as it doesn’t exist in sufficient amount to satisfy our personal and business demands.

    Over the course of 40 years, we have seen a reversal in the rate of exchange between the dollar and the naira. As a graduate student in the United States in the 1970s, I used to receive my allowance in dollars, and I received more dollars in exchange for the naira amount that was remitted to me. That means that the dollar was weaker than the naira at the time. That was also because we earned more foreign exchange from crude oil sales. It was a time we wallowed in oil wealth and didn’t quite know what to do with it. Now the reverse is the case and we are in the grip of an economic malaise.

    Fifth, with supply crunch in the forex market and too much naira chasing too few dollars, it is an inconvenient truth that more naira will have to be dished out to catch just one dollar. It’s the law of demand and supply.

    Sixth, naturally a government likes to protect the value of its currency in the exchange market. There is national pride in the strength of the national currency. Therefore, while the market goes south for the naira, government wants it to stay north. It can only effect this with a strategic intervention that freezes the rate of exchange at a particular level despite what the market determines to be the real rate.

    Seventh, the unintended consequence of such a decision to freeze the rate of exchange in the face of a real shortage is that some businesses and industries are favoured to receive foreign currency at the governmental rate for their external transactions, while others are forced to the parallel market where the law of supply and demand operates. MAN just made a request to the Central Bank for a direct allocation to it as an organization, instead of going through the commercial banks so its members can have access to cheap forex to avoid the closure of businesses and factories.

    Eighth, an alternative policy is to follow market leadership and officially bring the value of the naira to the level that the market determines. That is, government devalues the naira relative to, say, the dollar or pound sterling. Apart from avoiding distortion and unfair favouritism in the forex market, an important advantage of formal devaluation is that it makes the country’s export products cheaper for prospective foreign buyers. Therefore, they buy more and the country is able to earn more foreign exchange, which it can use for its imports.

    So, what could possibly be wrong with the argument for official devaluation especially when, in reality, we have an unofficial devaluation of the naira in the parallel market? And what might be the response of the pro-devaluation lobby?

    The presidency has stuck to its position against devaluation. Both President Buhari and Vice President Osinbajo have argued that the allure of devaluation is the prospect of a country earning more foreign exchange from its exports which become cheaper to importers abroad. However, since we do not produce a lot for the export market, devaluation is not an option for an economy such as ours. Furthermore, devaluation would make imports costlier to us; and so, while we do not earn more from exports, we would have to dish out more for our imports, to the benefit of other countries. This is the heart of the argument against devaluing the naira.

    Another argument against devaluation is that naira speculators are responsible for the run on the dollar in the forex market. Not knowing whether or when the government would officially devalue, panicky buying of the dollar and selling of the naira has apparently distorted the value of both to a large extent. This means that while it is true that there is a shortage of forex, what is going on in terms of the value placed on the dollar vis-à-vis the naira may all be due to those anxiously purchasing the dollar. The way to deal with such a situation is not devaluation but with a combination of fiscal and monetary policies that assure citizens. While it may not do away with all speculation, it may at least reduce it. An example is the announcement that government will not provide forex for tuition for students studying abroad.

    The response of the pro-devaluation lobby is swift. To take the last point first, it is not clear how the decision to withhold forex from students studying abroad will stop speculation. Parents are advised to make their own forex arrangements presumably through the parallel market. This, of course, puts pressure on that market leading to few dollars chased by naira, a perfect condition for speculation, and thus for the further weakening of the naira. And the vicious cycle is unrelenting.

    Furthermore, as the government protects the naira and the market gives it a drubbing, it doesn’t help the policy objective of attracting much needed influx of foreign investment that can stimulate the economy towards the ultimate goal of producing more for export. For instance, if foreign investors are not sure about what the value of the dollar or pound sterling that they plan to bring in tomorrow to start a production chain will be the next day, they are likely to defer the decision to bring it in as long as possible. This further exacerbates the situation by denying the economy another source of much needed foreign exchange. And poor naira continues to be the helpless victim.

  • Remembering Unforgettable AWO

    Remembering Unforgettable AWO

    As I sat down to prepare today’s column for submission, I was also getting ready for my participation in the 2016 Obafemi Awolowo Commemorative Birthday Symposium organised by The Awolowo Foundation, under the adept leadership of Dr. Tokunbo Awolowo Dosumu. I considered it an honour to be a part of the memorialisation of the life and service of an active thinker and a thinking actor that Chief Awolowo was. It is, therefore, my great pleasure to bring to readers today an excerpt from my contribution to the symposium.

    My presentation covered the theme of the symposium, which was “AWO Then and Now: On Politics, Economics and Education. I sought to address our present national malaise in the light of Awolowo’s lifetime struggle of mind and body, including his thoughtful proposals on education, political arrangements and the economy. I concluded that in all these areas, Chief Awolowo gave us access to light in the midst of the darkness that confronted the nation at every point while he was an active player in the intellectual and political terrain of his days. Though he is gone away from us, we still have the tools that he left us, the product of his versatile mind. We will do ourselves a lot of good if we care to use them.

    The excerpt I bring today to readers from my contribution to the symposium is on Awo’s thoughts on the economy.

    In Path to Nigerian Greatness, Chief Awolowo identified the characteristics of an underdeveloped economy deriving from three kinds of underdevelopment:

    1. Underdevelopment of the mind, arising from ignorance, illiteracy, deficiency in technology and in technical and managerial know-how;
    2. Underdevelopment of the body, arising from disease, bad and inadequate food, bad water, bad housing, meagre clothing and filthy environment;
    3. Underdevelopment of agriculture and excessive and widespread underdevelopment of the rural population arising from underdevelopment of the mind and body, and from lack of savings and capital formation. (PNG, p.154)

    He then made three further propositions from which he drew a conclusion:

    1. All men have innate talents or talent ability” and must be given equal opportunity to develop.
    2. When all talents have been developed fully, each must be given equal opportunity to contribute to socio-economic development.
    3. The society as a whole (not just individuals) suffers when all talents in society are not fully developed.
    4. Therefore, the solution to the problem of our country’s economic underdevelopment lies in the “full development and full employment of every Nigerian-man or woman, child or adolescent.” (emphasis in original): “no economic revolution has ever succeeded or will ever succeed, whether green or otherwise, which does not give the prime of place to the full development of man.” p.155

    It is to be expected that when a man of thought deliberates and arrives at a conclusion, the next reasonable step is action on the basis of the thought process, unless there is akrasia or weakness of the will. No one has ever accused Chief Awolowo of having a weak will at the point of putting words to action, no matter what the sacrifice on his part might be. Therefore, it is not a surprise that in 1979, for him and his colleagues in the UPN, the reasoning leads to the four cardinal programmes of the party, namely:

    • Free education at all levels
    • Integrated rural development
    • Free health care
    • Full employment (155-158)

    From the foregoing, it follows that the “full development and full employment of every Nigerian citizen” should be the primary national objective of the nation because A GOOD NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY AND PROGRAMME IS INDISPENSABLE TO A GOOD NATIONAL ECONOMIC ADVANCEMENT.

    What needs to be added is that a good national policy without an equally good action plan for its implementation cannot lead to national economic advancement. There is no better illustration of this observation than our experience in the last 30 years or so. The man who shepherded the economic policy of the country through a major national crisis during the civil war without the nation borrowing from external sources, cannot but be appalled at our peace time heavy borrowing that eventually led to the collapse of the economy in 1982.

    While Chief Awolowo was not silent in the days of the military, he knew that those were abnormal situations and passing phases. He was forceful in condemning those policies of the military, which militated against the welfare of the common run of men and he intervened strategically in a number of economic issues, especially during the Agbekoya crisis in the West. But he expected politicians who presented themselves for positions of leadership to do their homework well with adequate plans in place for the welfare and advancement of the people. When this was not so, he did not hold back even when his criticism and suggestions were mischievously construed as sour-grapism. His 1982 paper on the economy and the NPN London Press Conference on same is a good illustration. The whole point about that debate was on the management of the economy in the light of what was clearly a glut in the oil market.

    Fast forward 33 years later, we have not moved an inch from where he warned the nation against complacency and laziness of mind and therefore we have not prevented the kind of crisis that he had responded to with thoughtful proposals, which included the restructuring of the economy from our focus on oil. Now we have another oil glut. Yet, we are yet to restructure the economy away from mindless dependence on oil even when it was clear that our major export market was developing internal sources of supply, including alternative sources of energy.

    Is there a policy alternative canvassed by politicians and/or economists as a counter to Awolowo’s prescription? None. So, if there is a consensus of expert opinion on what needs done, what prevents those in authority from putting his prescription to work for the country? But that approach would have them include the masses in their reckoning as he did. And for those of them that still consider the masses as expendable, it was a bitter pill they would rather not swallow even if it meant that the county cannot make it developmentally.

    A few weeks after the expiration of the tenure of President Goodluck Jonathan, Premium Times published the result of its investigation into the management of Excess Crude Fund by the Ministry of Finance and came up with a startling revelation that N11.56 trillion of the fund had not been accounted for in eight years from 2007 to 2014. This was at a time when all the major infrastructures were left wasting away with no visible effort to develop them for economic advancement. To the question “where did the funds go?” we are now being treated to some tragic drama with revelations about defence and security funds that ended up in private bank accounts.

    This has been the fate of this nation from the beginning, except that the extractive agents have become bolder and more creative. It will continue unless the masses decide to take their destinies in their hands.

    The Arab Spring and its aftermath clearly remind us that poverty is at the root of citizens’ discontent. The authors of Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty (WNF) discovered this much in their research across the globe. In the particular case of the Arab Spring, they interviewed the Tahir Square protesters in Egypt, one of who reportedly declared in palpable anger: “We are suffering from corruption, oppression and bad education. We are living amid a corrupt system which has to change.” (WNF, 2)

    If you didn’t know the identity and country of origin of that young interviewee among the Egyptian protesters, you could justifiably deduce that she was a Nigerian. I hope we do not get to that stage of generalised despair with its unpredictable outcomes before reason prevails. Or are we there already?

  • Guardians of democracy

    Guardians of democracy

    In the beginning, our republic opted for liberal democracy as the form of government best suited to the advancement of our common political, economic and social objectives. In any case, we had no suitable alternatives in view of the heterogeneous backgrounds of the various groups that were brought together by our colonisers.

    Liberal democracy combines two of the most contested models of governance. While liberalism underscores the importance of the freedom of individuals to pursue their ideals of life without fear of coercion from other individuals or society, democracy highlights the sovereignty of the people. Lincoln’s definition is apt. Democracy is the government of the people by the people and for the people.

    Therefore, the conjunction of liberalism and democracy in liberal democracy makes sense. Individual freedom is maintained as long as the voice of the individual is effectively introduced into and entertained by the process that culminates in law-making and in the governance of the polity.  A true democratic system makes this possible through various processes and institutions: elections, referenda, community organisations, civil societies, political parties, etc. These are the institutions of democracy.

    In an ideal situation, where objective reason regulates individual inclinations and ego is kept in check, the institutions of democracy are sufficiently effective in protecting individuals from abuse and in greasing the wheels of democratic governance. In such a situation, every citizen obeys the rules, serves as his brother’s or sister’s keeper, refrains from corrupting and abusing the system and does his or her part in protecting the system from collapse. Needless to say, however, there has never been such an ideal situation. Humans have always been too human.

    It is with our understanding of the baseness of human nature that we device the means of protecting these institutions of democracy. We set up agencies for promoting law and order and the rule of law. These include the police and the courts. We entrust to them our individual lives and properties and we expect that should there be an unlawful breach by any fellow member of the republic, these agencies as guardians of our democracy will rise to the occasion to protect us not just from bodily harm but also from emotional abuse.

    The confidence that we repose in the guardians of our democracy is the heart and soul of the system. Compare this with a similar interest we have in one of the segments of our lives as citizens. I have in mind the economic system through which we enter into contracts either as buyers and sellers or as creditors and debtors. We cannot trust the fulfilment of such obligations to individual goodness; therefore, we rely on the courts to protect the terms of the contract and are assured that we can seek redress in case of an unlawful breach. If there is a generalised skepticism about the effectiveness of these agencies in protecting contracts, the economic system is bound to breakdown and collapse.

    By the same token, if there is a generalised cynicism about the effectiveness of the guardians of democracy in the discharge of their sacred responsibilities for the protection of the institutions of democracy, it is a short cut to anarchy. For individuals would have no reasonable alternative to self-help in such a situation. There is little or no difference between the state of nature where everyone fends for him or herself, with its attendant uncertainties of life and limb, and a state of society in which one is at the mercy of others who are illegitimately protected by powerful interests at one’s expense.

    Since the pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the election petitions by governorship candidates from various states, there have been comments, some adverse, others favourable on the performance of the court and its eminent jurists. None of the comments can or should be ruled out of court. In a free society, the freedom of opinion and discussion is guaranteed. More importantly, the justices are human and adorning them with the robe of infallibility is dangerous. Indeed, as humans, it cannot also be ruled out that some of them are subject to extra-legal or extra-judicial influence and ideologies. And the fact that there have been individual defences here or elsewhere against such accusations or challenges amount to little. Surely, an accusation that is left unanswered amounts to acquiescence even if the answer doesn’t cut it.

    In the case of the United States Supreme Court, I have always been stunned by the fact that a president nominates a justice ostensibly based on the justice’s knowledge of the law and his or her qualifications for the bench, but in reality based on his or her judicial philosophy, which could be liberal, conservative or moderate. And when senators are called upon to advise and consent, it is the judicial philosophy that dominates their mind. How is it not to be expected that particular judges will decide in particular ways? There is no pretence about it. Hence the conflict between Senate and President whenever there is a vacancy.

    In our case, there is a shameful deception, which was laid bare by no other person than Chief Obafemi Awolowo in a powerful 1980 paper titled: “On Man’s Injustice to Man.” That paper was a response to Chief Graham-Douglass’ paper titled: “Judicial Process Today: Constitutional Interpretation”, which had been read at the Commonwealth Law Conference in Lagos. The Graham-Douglass paper had sought to defend the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Awolowo v. Shagari and others, that is, the election petition of Chief Awolowo against the declaration of Alhaji Shagari as the winner of the 1979 presidential election.

    Chief Graham-Douglass had suggested that “the public interest is a potent –not just potential—factor in the production of judicial decision in cases of constitutional significance and consequence” and that in the case of “Awolowo v. Shagari such was the intensity of public interest generated by the case and such was the extent of the judgment of the Supreme Court that not many Nigerians would have castigated the court for manifestly taking into consideration and predicating its decision inter alia on the repercussions of the decision and the manner in which it would either assuage or frustrate the public interest.”

    Among the factors of public interest that the justices were understood to have considered were the fact that the Head of State had received messages of congratulations from world leaders on the conduct of the election, that market women from Lagos and Southwest Obas had visited the President-elect with solidarity messages, and the outgoing Head of State had completed his handing over notes for the new administration to take over, etc. The argument then was that the Supreme Court had to take all of these into consideration in its decision. Public interest must trump legalism; the argument seems to suggest.

    Of course, Chief Awolowo turned the argument into shreds, debunking all the judicial precedents identified by Chief Graham-Douglass. The interesting point, however, is that while dwelling so much on public policy and public interest as good ground for judicial decision, Chief Graham-Douglass goes on to suggest that in the case of Awolowo v. Shagari and others, the court’s dismissal of Awolowo’s appeal was based on another ground, that is, the “fractionalising of a legal entity” as Chief Awolowo puts it. And because that judgment was not supposed to serve as a precedent, it is clear how much of a moral burden it has proved to be on the Fatayi-Williams Court to this day.

    Based on Justice Fatayi-Williams’ alleged political sympathy for the ruling party in Western Region in 1964 and 1965, Chief Awolowo raised several questions about the manner of the jurist’s appointment as Chief Justice in August 1979 just as Awolowo’s election petition appeal was formally submitted. Other two candidates considered were Justice Udo Udoma and Chief Rotimi Williams.

    The Supreme Court, like any other court, is a human artifice which is not immune to human frailties. Citizens must be on guard to protect the eminent jurists from their humanity.Their Lordships must appreciate this. Besides, it is the duty of citizens to jealously guard their freedom from narcissistic judicial philosophies.