Category: Emeka Omeihe

We are at it once again. The same old songs are at replay. This time, the federal government is poised to remove whatever remains of the so-called fuel subsidy regime.

Already the ground for its removal had been set with the elimination of same from the 2022 national budget. The government is delaying its implementation till early next year apparently to forestall any backlash that may possibly arise from hasty application.

But the demise of the fuel subsidy regime is now certain going by hints from the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning, Zainab Ahmed and the Group Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company NNPC, Mele Kyari. Ahmed had last Tuesday at the launch of the World Bank Nigeria Development Update set mid-2022 as the target date for complete elimination of fuel subsidy.

According to her, the government is working with its development partners on measures to cushion the potential negative effects of the removal of subsidies on the most vulnerable at the bottom of 40 per cent of the population. Hear her: “One of such measures would be to institute a monthly transport subsidy in the form of cash transfer of N5, 000 to between 30-40 million deserving Nigerians”.

She sought to justify the subsidy removal on recent developments in the oil sector such as the Petroleum Industrial Act 2021, envisaged full reactivation of four public refineries and the coming on stream of three private refineries under construction in 2022.

Kyari had also at the same event announced that petrol would sell for between N320-N340 per litre from February next year. That represents more than 100 per cent increase from its current pump price of between N162-N165 per litre. With the two positions, the final elimination of the touted fuel subsidy regime by early next year has become a foregone conclusion.

Nigerians must have to brace up for the hard times ahead given its hyper inflationary propensity with devastating effects on the disposable income of the most vulnerable of the population. It also comes with the risk of social and political backlash if the process is not properly managed.

In the past, such increases had come with skyrocketing of the prices of goods and services available to the poor thus widening the poverty level in the country. The situation is bound to be worse now. For a country rated by the World Poverty clock as the poverty capital of the world, the proposed subsidy removal promises very devastating outcomes. It will push down many more Nigerians to the lowest rungs of the poverty matrix.

Government’s response to this smouldering danger is the proposal to pay a monthly transport stipend of N5, 000 to 40 million vulnerable Nigerians. This proposal comes with serious challenges and limitations. Apart from fears on how to identify the 40 million Nigerian beneficiaries, it comes with some arithmetic incongruities that lend the proposal suspect.

N5, 000 monthly transport palliatives to 40 million Nigerian will translate to about N2.4tn per year even as the current annual subsidy on fuel is put at about N3tn. Given this, the government would only net in about N600billion from its subsidy regime removal.

This makes little sense as the supposed funds that would be freed from subsidy removal will not be substantial to catalyze the touted leap in social infrastructural development. It then remains to be conjectured what the government stands to gain from the subsidy that is said to hold the ace for rapid development of the country’s economy.

Read Also: Ex-presidential aspirant cautions over subsidy removal

It is either the government is not telling us all the truth or the exercise is wrapped in deception. Questions have also been raised on the criterion for identifying the 40 million Nigerians to benefit from the fund and the mode of the proposed disbursement. Matters are not made any easier by disclosures from the senate that no provision was made in the 2022 national budget for the payment of the N5, 000 transport stipends to 40 million Nigerians. The government must come clear on these ambiguities if it has no intention of compounding mistrusts that are usually associated with such bogus promises.

The burden of the confusion on the amount of revenue that will accrue from subsidy removal is made heavier by the scandalous corruption that has been the bane of fuel subsidy regime. Much of the opposition that had trailed the subsidy debate overtime, had centred on the high level corruption that had marred the exercise. Nigerians do not have confidence that funds to be recouped from the subsidy removal will not be frittered away by self-serving buccaneers masquerading as leaders.

That is why feelings are high that subsidy regime remains part of the national cake for the less privileged that should be retained at all cost. This reasoning may seem absurd but it illustrates the mistrust associated with the management of public funds on these shores.

The country’s experience in the management of subsidy funds does not give comfort that things will take a different shape this time around. Not with the thriving corruption in high places despite the fact that the fight against corruption was one of the three campaign promises for which the current government was voted into power.

High level of corruption in the fuel subsidy regime was brought to the public domain by two events during the regime of President Jonathan. The House of Representatives had indicted scores of oil companies for their roles in the fuel subsidy scam and asked them to refunds sums of money to the federal government. About the same time, the government terminated the services of two accounting and auditing firms- Akintola Williams and Company and Adekanola and company.

The two companies, responsible for certifying the documents and claims of marketers before subsidy claims are paid were sanctioned following concerns on the management of the subsidy regime. These are but a tip of the iceberg in the monumental corruption that had messed up the management of the fuel subsidy regime.

There are fears that funds accruing from the N5, 000 transport grant will reach the target population. But if the difference between the total amount to paid out as transport grant to the vulnerable population in one year and what will be saved from the subsidy removal is just about N600billion, Nigerians should be allowed to choose from the two options.

They should be asked to make a choice between the transport grant and fuel subsidy removal. If that choice is thrown open, your guess is as good as mine. They will definitely opt for the retention of the subsidy regime as they may not trust transport grant will get to them. That is how bad the mistrust is. And it is a measure of public perception of such promises.

The federal government is faced with crisis of confidence in this matter. It must clear the air on the country’s annual fuel subsidy standing vis-à-vis the annual financial implications of the proposed transport grant. There is also the need to clearly state the duration for the payment of the grant.

Beyond these however, the fuel subsidy challenge would have been history but for its politicization. The arguments being canvassed now to justify fuel subsidy removal and the measures to cushion its effects are not substantially different from the justification proffered for the same exercise by the Jonathan regime. But the country was shut down by the Occupy Nigeria protests when Jonathan moved in similar direction.

He was not given the chance to carry out the changes he proposed in the oil sector just because some people wanted to get even with him. Today, we are back to square one. The Buhari regime has increased the selling price of fuel from N97 per litre to its current price of N165 per litre. The same government intends to increase the price to N340 per litre. The vehement opposition Jonathan got when he came up with the same measures mirrors vividly the destructive politics that had stood against the development of this country. Or, is it a case of the proverbial tortoise messing up the air and nobody complains?

Who is really afraid of direct primaries’ option for nominating candidates for elective offices? Or what accounts for the differing positions of the governors and members of the National Assembly on the mode for nominating candidates for elective positions?

These are questions thrown up by the controversy trailing the approval by the National Assembly, of direct primaries in the Electoral Act Amendment bill. Section 87(1) of the bill states: “A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this bill shall hold direct primaries for all aspirants to all elective positions”. It also mandates the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC to monitor such primaries

The bill, expected to have been sent to the president for his assent is currently mired in disputation as the major political parties pick holes in it. As things stand, the final amendments to the Electoral Act which had previously suffered delays may not be quick in coming.

The Peoples Democratic Party PDP in a statement faulted the provision on the ground that it would erode all the gains made in the electoral process since 1999. It contended that direct primaries would increase the cost of nomination procedures and surrender the process to huge monetary outlay. It claimed that apart from the government at the centre, hardly will any of the other political parties afford the financial implications of that mode of primaries.

Those who thought the PDP was unnecessarily raising dust must have been stunned by the response of governors of the All Progressives Congress APC. The governors, after a meeting in Abuja vehemently rejected direct primaries. Kebbi State governor and chairman of the APC governors’ forum Atiku Bagudu said the provision was a usurpation of the duties of political parties to determine their flag bearers.

Arguing that the resolution is against the Executive Order signed by President Buhari which prohibits large gatherings in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Bagudu said direct primaries would be cumbersome, unwieldy and bound to overstretch the finances of the INEC which has to monitor the primaries at multiple levels. The Kebbi State governor while hinting of plans by the forum to meet with the leadership of the National Assembly wondered whether they factored in the financial implications of the provision in the bill.

On face value, some of the issues raised by political parties appear unassailable. The issue of cost on the side of the parties and INEC is valid. Direct primaries obviously go with huge financial implications. Managing large crowd in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic is another troubling matter.

But as persuasive as these argument seem, they failed to address the vexatious shortcomings of indirect primaries. They ought to have hit at the very reasons why direct primaries have become an attractive option among their members. Indirect primaries entail the participation of delegates both elected and statutory in nominating candidates who wish to stand for elections. In this, fall categories of party leaders at all levels, former political office holders and others specified by the constitutions of the parties.

In contrast, direct primaries entail all registered card carrying members of the parties actively participating in the nomination of their members wishing to vie for elective positions. The argument for this is that it brings democracy closer to the people by guaranteeing internal democracy. But that is the option that is being opposed by the parties.

Events leading to the last general elections saw the major political parties embroiled in bitter acrimony over the mode of primaries to adopt. At the end of the altercations, the APC settled for both direct and indirect primaries depending on the circumstance of each state. The PDP opted for indirect primaries. But the actual primaries turned out a huge joke as genuine party members were brazenly denied the right to choose their candidates as impositions and all manner of malpractices held sway. It was a charade of sorts as the primaries (direct or indirect) never held in many places. The leaderships of the parties did not help matters. Money changed hands with successful candidates dropped from the list compiled by the party leadership.

Real party members had little or no role to play in those nominations as their civic rights were appropriated by governors and the leadership of the parties through scandalous imposition of candidates. Those seeking elective offices must be in the good books of the governors and influential members or forget their ambition. The option adopted did not make any difference as the most powerful and most influential determined who got what.

Read Also: ‘Why National Assembly is pushing for direct primary’

When Bagudu argued that political parties as voluntary organizations should not be denied the right to decide the option they desire, he failed to address the glaring failings of indirect primaries in effectively reflecting the will of party members in the choice of candidates. So as plausible as the argument of the parties and their governors would seem, they have not come clear on the real issues in contention. They failed to take into account the ruinous culture of imposition that has made a mockery of democracy in this country.

One then wonders what electoral gains the PDP was referring to. What gain can there be in impositions that oust party members their basic rights as the ultimate sovereign? It is inconceivable how impositions can either grow democracy or allow the attendant political culture germinate and flourish. It is nigh impossible to deepen democracy without taking back the party to its real owners-the people.

Cost implications; challenges of large gatherings and the additional burden it imposes on the INEC may be relevant points. But more relevant is how to ensure that the collective will of party members is neither abridged nor subverted during party primaries. It is a challenge of internal democracy; very fundamental.

It bears stating that democracy can still be achieved through both options if free, fair and credible competition is observed to the letter. Before that can happen, political parties will have to amend their constitutions to whittle down the high number of statutory delegates.

Their number is unwieldy and can be manipulated at will by sitting governors to achieve self-serving objectives.  Indirect primaries have been so abused in this country that a majority of party members have lost confidence in the process.  Impositions in the last party primaries were so much so that the wife of the president, Aisha Buhari had to cry out.

Hear what she said of the APC primaries: “It is very disheartening to note that some aspirants used their hard earned money to purchase nomination forms, got screened, cleared and campaigned vigorously; yet found their names omitted on election day.  Many others contested and yet had their results delayed fully knowing that automatic tickets have been given to other people”. Those opposed to direct primaries have to address this.

It can now be understood why members of the National Assembly prefer direct primaries that vest on card-carrying members the inalienable right to nominate their candidates for elective positions. This will enthrone merit by ensuring that popular candidates are thrown up for elective positions. Democracy stands better for it.

Those afraid of direct primaries are beneficiaries of imposition, the governors and the leadership of the political parties at all levels. Since indirect primaries has overtime worked against the will of the owners of the party, why not the direct option? But, the problem is not so much with the option adopted as with the inability of its operators to play by the rules.

Direct primaries could also be encumbered if the players refuse to abide by the rules. Without the political culture that supports the growth and flourishing of democracy, direct or indirect primaries may make no difference.

Anambra State governorship election has come and gone with the emergence of the candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance APGA, Prof. Charles Soludo as governor-elect.

Though its outcome has been largely adjudged free, fair and credible especially given the tensed atmosphere, it nonetheless had a faulty start. Logistic hiccups: late arrival of materials and officials, malfunctioning of the Biometric Voter Accreditation Systems BVAS and security challenges were typical features of the early stages of the election.

The fact that these challenges emerged in a lone election, did not help matters. If the electoral umpire found itself in such a quagmire in a one-off election, what hope is there when we have a general election to contend with, it was further reasoned. But the state Resident Electoral Commissioner, REC had to explain that last minute disappointments by mobilized transporters and ad hoc staff because of security concerns were responsible for some of the unanticipated outcomes.

This is a sharp contrast with his denial a week earlier when the news filtered that some of the ad hoc staff were resigning citing security concerns. But the excuse could still not explain why the BVAS failed to function in so many places with the attendant tension that further heightened security concerns. There is no explanation on why the novel BVAS was not test-run with its operational efficiency confirmed before deployment.

It was not surprising that allegations arose that the machines were pre-configured to produce predictable outcomes. Though the electoral body was able to rectify the situation by bringing in new BVAS, it robbed off negatively on the election time frame warranting extension of the voting period.

All the same, all those who desired to exercise their franchise were given the opportunity to do so. Its final outcome has been largely acknowledged to be in conformity with the dictates of free, fair and credible contest despite the very low voter turnout. Thanks to the patience, maturity and resilience of the Anambra electorate determined to see their collective will triumph at the ballot box.

The final result has attracted considerable interest across party divide. It has also come to denote different things to different people. Why is it so? And has this interest any association with the aphorism that victory has so many friends? Or is it the beginning of a sharp departure from the decadent political culture of refusal to accept defeat and do or die politics? What is special about the Anambra election and Soludo’s victory that some consensus appears to be building around them?

These are some of the posers thrown up by the avalanche of congratulatory messages pouring in from across the political divide including pledges of support and cooperation from political opponents. Perhaps, a few of these messages will throw more light.

President Buhari acknowledged Soludo as a member of the Presidential Economic Advisory Committee and tasked him to tackle the enormous challenges confronting Anambra and the southeast. He looks forward working with him for the peace, security and development of the state and the country.

The candidates of the PDP and the YPP who were top contenders in the election and some others have equally extended their hands of cooperation to the winner in the overall interest of peace, progress and development of the state.

Read Also: Okonkwo congratulates Soludo

Minister of Labour and leader of the APC in the state, Dr Chris Ngige while noting the initial drawbacks of the election, described its outcome as free, fair and credible. For him, its successful outcome is in keeping with President Buhari’s promise to guarantee the electorate their choice of candidate and a demonstration that Buhari ‘is no enemy to Ndigbo’.

Ironically, these are in contrast with the position of the Anambra State wing of the APC which reportedly rejected the outcome of the election describing it in very disparaging terms. It promised to challenge the election up to the Supreme Court. The party was however, quick to deny the views credited to it. That has left its position somewhat confusing.

Its candidate, Andy Uba traded the same confusing path when in a statement by the spokesman of his campaign organization, Jerry Ugokwe, he said the election was a charade that did not reflect the wishes of the people of the state. The statement went at length to list reasons why APGA should not have won the election with threats to constitutionally challenge its outcome. Just as was the case with Anambra APC, there was a counter statement from the deputy director of publicity of Uba’s campaign organization denying the earlier statement.

It is unclear why the Anambra APC and Uba are enmeshed in a game of statements and counter statements. Speculations are that it might not be unconnected wider endorsements of the election verdict from both within and outside the shores of the country. But the fact that the position of the party and Uba on why the poll should be rejected struck a common chord, seem to suggest there is more to the unfolding drama. Except there is pressure from high quarters, it should not be surprising if Uba challenges the election outcome in court.

That brings to mind, a school of thought celebrating the outcome of the election as proof of the political irrelevance and electoral liability to which the chairman of the APC Campaign Council and governor of Imo State, Hope Uzodinma has been dumped. This feeling is evoked and reinforced by a statement credited to Soludo prior to the election to the effect that Anambra is not Imo.

It is not clear why Soludo made that statement. But one thing that remains certain is that it was prompted by the appointment of Uzodinma as the APC campaign chairman for that election. Uzodinma carries a big baggage of having come into office controversially. His declaration by the Supreme Court as governor has remained a mystery and as Justice Centus Nweze said in a minority judgment, it will continue to “haunt Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence for a long time to come”.

So, Uzodinma’s appointment was bound to evoke memories of that controversial ruling. It also raised suspicion that he may have been appointed to re-enact the magic he did in Imo. Soludo may have been passing a clear message that magic or devious electoral strategy cannot alter the collective will of the Anambra people. And he has been proven right.

But it is not yet over as the Imo case has shown. The body language of the Anambra APC and their candidate conveys the unmistakable impression they have something up their sleeves. So it is possible Uba could have learnt from Uzodinma’s school of election petitions. He may soon approach the court clutching a set of documents purporting to be his scores excluded by the INEC despite placing third in the overall outing.

It has worked before. So why can’t it work now? But the message of Justice Nweze should serve as a guide. The justice system is still being haunted by the Imo governorship verdict. It is unlikely the country can again afford that grave travesty of justice. So Anambra cannot be Imo.

Apologists of the government in Imo State have sought to impute derisive connotations to that statement. They have been inventing all manner of reasons to get even with it. But no matter how hard they try, the event that gave rise to it has become a turning point in the country’s electoral jurisprudence. It cannot be forgotten for a long time to come. Imo and the beneficiary of that travesty will continue to bear the burden. The monster we created has turned round to haunt us.

Anambra people have spoken very eloquently and heard loud and clear. Vaulting ambition, ruinous refusal by politicians to accept clear defeat and judicial ambush must not be allowed to stand against this collective statement.

All does not appear well with media reports penultimate Sunday, on the foiling by the army, of an attempted abduction of the Catholic Bishop of Orlu Diocese, Imo State, Most Rev. Augustine Ukwuoma. Emerging events suggest interrogation of claims by security agencies not only in the instant case but in their current campaign against insecurity in the southeast zone.

Director, Army Public Relations, Brigadier-General Onyema Nwachukwu, had in a statement claimed troops conducing Exercise Golden Dawn, in response to a distress call moved swiftly to the diocesan secretariat in Orlu, foiled the attempted abduction of the Bishop, forcing the assailants to run away. Apparently elated by the supposed feat, the army further indicated that troops will continue to “deny freedom of action to members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra/Eastern Security Network, IPOB/ESN and other criminal gangs operating within the sector”.

Two days later, the Orlu Catholic Diocese came up with its own account. In a statement, the diocese said a group of armed robbers broke into the Bishop’s house but were immediately confronted by “a joint team of internal security and local vigilante”. Though nobody was harmed, the robbers made away with some valuables, the statement further indicated.

“After some interval, the army arrived at the scene of the armed robbery and took some photographs…thanks to divine providence and protection, both the Bishop and his household are safe and unharmed”, the diocese stated.

Now the issues! The diocese spoke of armed robbery and the carting away of some valuables by the robbers. The robbers were confronted and repelled by the internal security in the Bishop’s house and local vigilante. The army arrived after the robbers had left with their loot only to take photographs of the scene of the robbery.

Then the questions! How did the army arrive at the story of the attempted abduction of the Bishop? At what point did they foil the attempted abduction- on their way to the scene or at the scene of the robbery? And what evidence did they see at the scene of the robbery to support the abduction theory?

These questions are raised to underscore the mismatch in the accounts of the diocese and that of the army.  Is it a case of St Augustine’s allegory of two cities? Obviously, the army account is utterly at variance with that of the Orlu Catholic Diocese- the victim of the attack. There are divergences in terms of the nature of the security infraction, its purpose and those that foiled it.

So what could have informed the indecent haste the army deployed in exaggerating the incident which apparently compelled the catholic diocese to make these clarifications? That is the subject of this essay. Perhaps, the answer will come obvious from some other instances of conflicting claims between security agencies on the one hand, individuals and groups on the other.

Just very recently, two traditional rulers were killed with others seriously wounded by armed men while in a meeting with the Interim Management Committee, IMC, chairman of Njaba Local Government, Emeka Iheanacho at the council secretariat in Imo State. The police was quick to lay the blame on the shoulders of Iheanacho for not informing security agencies to provide protection to the meeting.

But Iheanacho stunned the public when he came up with his own account. He gave a detailed view of how he invited the leader of the Njaba Operation Search and Flush team to provide security for the meeting. The team promptly arrived. But before the commencement of the meeting, the leader, one Assistant Superintendent of Police, ASP came to his office to inform him that their commander instructed the team to return to Owerri.

Read Also: Terrorists attacked Biafrans in Enugu during Anambra poll – IPOB

He said he objected to the decision but the team insisted and left promising to return. They never returned before a band of masked armed men attacked the meeting killing the royal fathers and inflicting injuries on others. He even named witnesses to the conversation between him and the ASP in his office. The state police command had accused the IPOB/ESN for the attack even when they were neither there nor were arrests made.

Apparently rattled by the disclosures from the IMC chairman, the police then issued another statement in which they claimed that he did not seek for security protection officially and in writing. That at once raises a flurry of questions: on whose authority did the team arrive at the venue in the first instance? Who gave the instruction for its withdrawal? Did he consider its implications for a zone that has been the epicentre of the heightened insecurity in the state harbouring bizarre killings alien to the culture of the people- decapitations and severing of manhood?

These are some of the questions the police command should respond to. Its responses to the Njaba killings left serious gaps that ought to be seriously investigated. The initial denial that Iheaanacho did not seek security protection and the revision that it was not official and in writing do not just add up. It created the unmistakable impression that there is more to the killings than ordinarily meets the eyes. The police have serious questions to answer.

In saner climes, we should have seen a high powered inquisition into the tangle. But not here! Yet, we are regularly regaled with the listing of the royal fathers’ killing as one of the atrocious acts of the IPOB/ESN for which a military engagement is on.

There is also the report of the neutralizing of four IPOB/ESN gunmen by troops of the 82 Division of the Nigerian Army in Ekwulobia, Aguata Local Government Area of Anambra State. The army said the IPOB/ESN gunmen were killed in a fierce encounter along Nnobi junction following their attack on security agencies deployed at Ekwulobia roundabout. Though the IPOB admitted their member was killed at Ekwulobia, they claimed the victim has nothing to do with ESN.

They also claimed that he was killed in his compound by soldiers following a tip off after he returned home to bury his mother. It is not clear whether the victim was among the four killed at Nnobi junction or his case is a different one.

What seemed to have emerged from this is the difference between IPOB members and ESN operators. ESN is the security arm of the IPOB. The group seems to be contending that not everybody that subscribes to the issues to the IPOB agitation is a member of the ESN. That point has to be made especially against the background that security agencies search telephone handsets of people for any incriminating posts. Such profiling could expose innocent people to danger in this era of social media explosion.

Even then, what should be the punishment for membership of the IPOB-extermination or arrest? We ask this given the claim by the IPOB that their member was killed in his house when he returned to bury his mother. There abound several allegations of abuse by sundry security agencies that call to question their observance of the rules of engagement. Many of the trending videos in the media speak of wanton abuses, exaggeration and escalation of minor security infractions.

The authenticity of some of these trending pictures and videos cannot be verified. But the warning by the Chief of Army Staff, Farouk Yahaya to troops against taking pictures and videos while in combat operation seems to suggest some of them should not be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Just last week, a coalition of civil society groups raised an alarm on the deployment of ethno-religious language by some security operatives deployed to the Anambra election to assail the sensibilities of the people.

All these coupled with the indecent haste in attributing any and every criminality to IPOB are beginning to blur the nature and character of the heightened insecurity in the zone. Suspicions are gaining traction that fifth columnists and forces eager to levy war on the zone are behind resurging security infractions, misrepresentations and exaggerated outcomes.

There is palpable apprehension over the fate of the November 6, governorship election in Anambra State. This is sequel to a threat by the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB to order a one week sit-at-home in the southeast if the federal government refuses to release unconditionally, its leader Nnamdi Kanu before Nov. 4.

The public space has since then seen subtle campaigns to dissuade voters from participating in the poll. But the IPOB has denied calling for a boycott of the election. It said what it ordered is a one week sit-at-home in the southeast if the federal government fails to heed to its demand.

If the IPOB makes good its threat for a sit-at-home order, fears are it will adversely affect voter turnout in the Anambra election and possibly compromise its outcome. A sit-at-home from the said date will scare away voters and diminish the universally accepted consensus that democracies perform better when more people vote.

But unconditional release of Kanu before the said date especially given the court charges brought against him by the same government would seem a tall order. Things are not made any easier by his media trial last week during which the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami levied outlandish allegations against him different from the charges already in court. Is it possible the same government will release Kanu unconditionally as demanded?

This poser appears to have in part, been answered by President Buhari’s response to the threat when he ordered the armed forces and other security agencies not to allow anything under any circumstance that will stop the election from taking place successfully. So the security agencies are not leaving anything to chance. They are poised to countermand any action or inaction that could dissuade voters from coming out to cast their votes.

In an apparent response to the president’s order, the Inspector General of Police, Usman Baba is to deploy a total of 34,587 police operatives to the state. This will be composed of two Deputy Inspectors General of Police, five Assistant Inspectors General, 14 commissioners, 31 deputy commissioners and 48 assistant commissioners of police. Three combat helicopters as well as a detachment of Marine Police will also be at hand during the election.

The deployments Baba said were informed by the outcome of election security threat analysis conducted by its intelligence bureau. It would seem the objective is to ‘balance terror’ and ensure mutual deterrence.  Little is known of the number of military personnel and ancillary security agencies deployed for the same purpose.

Before the threat posed by the impending election, the military had been actively conducting some operations in the zone following the upsurge in insecurity. With the order from the president, there is everything to expect that military presence in the state would be further increased and fortified. This has given rise to fears of a militarized election process with deleterious outcomes.

Psychological fear is bound to arise from threat by the IPOB to order a sit-at-home from the eve of the election. It will also get additional impetus from the intimidating presence of security agencies. If the IPOB makes good its threat to order a ghost town, voters would be scared from coming out. This fear is real given the experience of such orders in the past. That will adversely affect voter turnout and the overall credibility of the election.

The calculation within government circles is that heavy deployment of security agencies would ensure adequate protection to prospective voters to come out in their numbers without fear of intimidation and harassment. This is an angle to it. But it does not constitute both the necessary and sufficient condition for large voter turnout.

The presumption that heavy deployment of the police, soldiers and other security agencies is all required to guarantee good voter turn-out is not foolproof. Whereas heavy security presence will scare away those who intend to enforce the order, it is of limited value in compelling ardent loyalists to come out to vote. The IPOB commands considerably loyalty within the zone on accounts of issues to their agitation. Their order will likely affect the election outcome irrespective of the armada of security cordon in the state.

Read Also: Anambra 2021: Who succeeds Obiano as governor?

Militarized security presence could also lead to counterproductive outcomes; intimidating and instilling fear on voters. There are also trust-deficits between the people and security agencies.  Instances in which the security agencies and the IPOB flexed muzzles over ‘ghost towns’ in the past, left the people with sad story to tell. The reality on the ground is that even those that are ready to venture out are scared by their mistrust on the neutrality of security agencies. There are copious reports of some security men conducting themselves in manners that lend their motives suspect.

That is why even after the IPOB had severally said it had cancelled its Monday sit-at-home order, it is still being observed for fear of the unknown. Maybe this case will be slightly different because an election is involved. But that magic is not likely to be procured solely through the intimidating or menacing presence of security operatives.

It calls for confidence-building from security agencies. Interfacing with the political parties, traditional institutions, development groups and town unions on the need to ensure the election is orderly and peacefully conducted promises better outcomes. Southeast leaders should also initiate discussions through any means possible to dissuade the IPOB from carrying out its threat.

The constraint here is the indecent haste with which the government tagged the group a terrorist organization. Ironically the government is still assiduously walking along that path given the disclosure from a media aide to the president. While reacting to the publication by The London Economist, Garba Shehu had said the government was working to get the international community to list IPOB as a terrorist organization.

This disposition has not helped the cause of constructive engagement with the group. If bandits that have shot down a military aircraft and blown up a moving train can be engaged by Sheikh Ahmad Gumi and some governors, what is wrong interfacing with the IPOB? Gumi even went off tangent last week when he threatened Nigeria would disintegrate if bandits are proscribed as a terrorist organization.

This is a group the National Assembly and conference of speakers have asked the president to declare a terrorist organization on account of their lethal antecedents. The same government is reluctant to do that.  Yet, the leadership of this country does not see anything untoward in tagging the IPOB a terrorist organization and working assiduously to have the world accept that narrative. That proscription and efforts to profile self-determination agitators as terrorists is largely responsible for the escalated insecurity in the southeast zone.

That is however, beside the issue. An election is coming up in Anambra State under very tense and uncertain atmosphere. Allegations have been variously traded about plans to rig the election and compromise it outcome. With the conduct of some security operatives in previous elections, fears of possible manipulation to favour preferred candidates have been rife. This should not be dismissed offhandedly.

Security agencies must confine themselves to their duty of guaranteeing order and order to enable the electorate exercise their franchise. On no account should they be found in actions or inactions that lend their impartiality as peace enforcement agents suspect.

But the greatest challenge to the successful conduct of this election rests squarely on the shoulders of the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC. The era of inconclusive elections should be over by now. INEC should deploy technology to ensure that the collective will of the 2.5 million voters in Anambra State is neither abridged nor compromised.  Anything to the contrary will confirm speculations that the chain of events preceding the election was choreographed to produce predictable outcome. We are watching!

By Emeka OMEIHE

Nigeria just marked her 61 years as an independent country. That the country has managed to trudge on these years in spite of debilitating challenges assailing its very foundation is a measure of its resilience in weathering the tempestuous storm.

The ruggedness of the ship of the Nigerian state in staying afloat despite all odds is being taken for granted by those who have had the rare privilege of superintending over the affairs of this multi-religious, multi-ethnic and plural society. Nigeria was so endowed both in material and human capital at independence that all that was required was the right leadership mix to galvanize the citizenry to take full advantage of these hue potentials.

That was the promise for which our nationalists drew huge support from the citizenry. That land which will flow with milk and honey envisioned at independence where citizens would fully actualize the essence of their being, has largely remained a nagging issue. President Mohammed Buhari captured this yearning gap in his 61st independence speech when he said: “I fully understand the anxiety of many Nigerians on the inability of this country to go beyond a never-ending potential for becoming a great nation to an actually great one”.

Additionally, the hope that the foundation of modern Nigerian state would be progressively followed by nation building- the psychological construction of a common sense of identity among the distinct and disparate entities has largely remained a mirage. This is evident from the regular pontification by the leadership on the unity, oneness and indivisibility of the country. That commitment also featured in the last independence speech of the president. The regularity with which commitment to the unity and indivisibility of the country is regurgitated at every independence speech and at other times is a big statement on the level of progress or lack of it at national integration 61years after.

Nothing illustrates crass mismanagement of our diversities at 61 more poignantly than demonstrations by two sets of Nigerian protesters at the last United Nations General Assembly UNGA in the United States of America. One group was carrying placards with various inscriptions rooting for a united Nigeria. The other called for the dismembering of the Nigerian federation as it is no longer working. They also drew world attention to the near state of anarchy in the country and the skewed policies of the current government that have ruffled faith in the capacity of the Nigerian state to do justice to the component units.

The leadership of this country may well play down the weight of that demonstration even as the government has been accused of sponsoring the group that stood for it repudiating accusations of genocide in parts of the country. They could also wish away all these as the mischief of some unpatriotic elements intent on giving the country a bad name. They are equally at liberty to presume these innate psychological grievances would unilaterally peter out with time or bank heavily on the deployment of brute force to hold the country together.

One thing evidently exposed by that demonstration is the inability of the leadership to engage in meaningful dialogue as a veritable route out of its debilitating national questions. That was the clear message irrespective of the allegation that the pro-government protesters were hired for a fee. And if we could go that far in laundering the image of the government, why have all the calls for national dialogue fallen on deaf ears? Or is it a measure of how insignificant the government considers the imperative of national consensus on all issues tearing the country apart?

President Buhari has asked Nigerians to take the opportunity of the anniversary to embrace peace and dialogue irrespective of their grievances. He also expressed the hope that the government will “not fight for peace… as we can always settle our grievances peacefully without spilling any blood”. That is the way to go. But that window for dialogue is yet to be thrown open by his government. Rather, all efforts are being directed towards the repression of dissent. Government’s response to these grievances does not imbue confidence that it considers constructive engagement a clear option.  That is why grievances that should have been easily sorted out at the conference table have now mutated to levels threatening the very foundation of the country.

Foundational questions featured prominently in this discussion to highlight the contradiction that at 61, Nigerian is still contending with the challenge of whether to remain one or fragment into parts. That challenge is real and reinforced by the high momentum of self-determination agitations. Ironically, these are foundational challenges that should have been put behind through political solutions for meaningful development to progress unhindered.

Read Also:2023 President: Ex-minister backs Southeast aspiration

How did we get to this point after the successes made during the long years of military rule that followed the end of a 30-month civil war to keep Nigeria one? Why are fissiparous and separatist tendencies at an all-time high 51 years after that war?  The answer can only be located in the mismanagement of our diversities- the serial inability or refusal by unpatriotic and clannish leaders to build sufficient confidence in the capacity of the Nigerian state to do justice to the constituents.

Faced with sweltering foundational challenges, it is little surprising that all other indices of development took the back seat. Countries that were at par with Nigeria development wise or even less endowed have since left us trailing in the lowest rungs of the development matrix. The schism may not have started today. But clear signals are that they got worse in the last six years of the Buhari regime. The mismanagement of our diversities is evident in the scant regard to all the balancing processes culminating in the domination of the commanding heights of the military, paramilitary and critical institutions by a section of the country.

Yet, President Buhari had the comfort of mind to claim that ‘no government since 1999 has done what we have done in six years to put Nigeria on track’. He is entitled to his opinion. But this claim has to contend with the general feeling that Nigeria has never been as divided and fragmented as we have witnessed since the Buhari regime came into power. The evidence is palpable. It is clear from resurging agitations for self-determination. It can be felt in the bloodletting and mindless killings that continue to question the capacity of the government to maintain law and order. It is evident in the curious and contradictory programs the government has been trying to force down our throats as solutions to the insurgency of the herdsmen against modern practices in animal husbandry.

At 61, Nigeria carries the unenviable record of the poverty capital of the world as citizens live below subsistence. That was its rating in 2019. The situation has been exacerbated by scorching policies of the government that left a vast majority of the people without a means of livelihood. No thanks to the value of the Naira that has fallen to an all-time low. All manner of taxes and levies have become the common fad with burgeoning unemployment compounding the delicate security situation in the country. The debt profile of the country which was drastically reduced by his predecessors has piled up again due to excessive borrowing.

The government promised to fight insecurity, reduce corruption and grow the economy. Rather than abate, insecurity has transmuted to dimensions that have left the government seemingly helpless. It is a measure of the helplessness of the security profile of the country that even a member of his cabinet had to call on Nigerians to defend themselves. He was not alone in this as similar calls have also come from governors and other well placed citizens.

But one dimension that has continued to perplex the citizenry is the attitude of the government to the insurgency of the herdsmen and bandits even as there is no difference between the two. Buhari’s body language to the insurgency of the bandits has become a moot question. Nothing illustrates that contradiction more evidently than recent resolution by both chambers of the National Assembly asking the president to declare the bandits a terrorist organization. This is coming years after Fulani herdsmen had been rated as the fourth deadliest terrorist group in the world terrorism index.

It will require another very committed and evidently broad-minded leader, one that sees Nigeria as his constituency to engage the discontent through policies and programs that give confidence in the capacity of the Nigerian state to do justice to all. The task is monstrous but not entirely insurmountable.

By Emeka Omeihe

It is not too often that we get forthright leaders in this clime; leaders that say things as they are, devoid of sectional or other biases especially on vexatious issues of our federal organization. Rather, much of the complications in constructing a workable federal order had revolved around the quick resort by leaders to denials or obfuscation of subsisting issues affecting the lives of the people.

Faced with this curious reluctance or refusal to admit reality, finding solutions to emerging challenges have, over time, proved very daunting. This should not be surprising given the medical aphorism that the diagnosis of an ailment is half way to its cure. The inability of leaders to admit reality for whatever reasons, has largely accounted for the plethora of nagging challenges that are increasingly tilting the county to the precipice. And this is really unfortunate.

When therefore Governor Aminu Masari of Katsina State spoke with candor on the real identity of the bandits, it struck as a pleasant deviation from the ruinous culture of leaders living in denial of extant realties. Masari spoke as a good leader determined to locate issues central to banditry so that lasting solutions to them can be found. He spoke with uncommon honesty despite the fact that those who revel in papering serious national challenges may not find his courage funny.

Asked about the identity of bandits terrorizing the Northwest in a television interview, the governor said: “They are the same people like me, who speak the same language like me, who profess the same religious belief like me. Majority of those involved in this banditry are Fulani whether it is palatable or not palatable but that is the truth”.

He also disclosed that bandits are not aliens: ‘They are people we know, they are people that have been living with us for 100 of years, and these are people who live in the forest and their main occupation is rearing of cattle’. Though he admitted some infiltrations from West and North African countries, he was quick to add those infiltrators are also of the Fulani extraction.

These disclosures have removed the veil on the profile of the bandits that have levied terror in that part of the country. Before now, their identity had been a subject of intense controversy as varying interpretation was given to it. In the absence of the government coming clear on who the bandits really are, opinions had been divided with some tagging them an extension of the Boko Haram insurgents while for some others, they are the militant wing of the herdsmen.

In this seeming lack of clarity on the real identity of the bandits, I had in this column under the title – “Bandits or herdsmen” interrogated the link between bandits and herdsmen in the raging insecurity across the country. At issue in that inquisition were the close similarities in the occupation, culture, language, mode of habitation and operation of the bandits and the herdsmen

The article was prompted by events from the interface of Islamic cleric, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi with bandits in Zamfara forests and elsewhere and matters arising from those visits. In his brief to Governor Bello Matawalle of Zamfara State after the visit, Gumi had said: “In most of the bandits and Fulani camps we have visited in Zamfara, I came to understand that what is happening in the state is nothing but an Insurgency”.

Buoyed by this, Gumi had asked the federal government to enter into negotiations with the bandits and the Fulani to reintegrate them the same way the Niger Delta militants were handled. What emerged from this brief was absence of a dividing line between the bandits and the Fulani. Gumi visited the camps of the bandits and the Fulani in the forests and found they are all involved in insurgency. That says a lot on the strong affinity both groups share in the forests. He did not make any difference between both insurgents.

The attestations of some of the commanders of the bandits interviewed, further underscored the fact that the bandits and the Fulani that Gumi met in the forests represent two sides of the same coin. One of the commanders was reported to have said there would be no peace until the authorities stopped hunting the Fulani and that the Fulani were tired of living in the forest.  Another leader of the bandits identified as Kachalla Turgi said only reconciliation can stop the killings even as he accused the people of Zamfara of selectively impoverishing and beating the Fulani on the road. Yet, another commander called for the halting of the “killing of our loved ones by security agents…as well as cattle rustling that denied most of us of our legitimate means of livelihood”.

Read Also: Miyetti Allah disowns national scribe’s attack on Katsina governor

As I argued in the earlier article, there are recurring issues from the reports credited to Gumi and bandits’ commanders. Central to them all are the fate of the Fulani in the forests; cattle rustling, alleged beating of the Fulani on the roads by Zamfara people and the convergence of grievances of the bandits and the Fulani. From all indications, they are the same people with cattle rearing as their main occupation.

It may well be there are Fulani herdsmen in the forests not involved in banditry. That is quite a possibility. But the snag is on how to differentiate the innocent ones from the criminal elements involved in armed insurgency. That is however, beside the point.

The identity of the bandits is nothing new even as our leaders have been living in denial of it. Those who read between the lines after Gumi’s interface with the bandits had since come to terms with the reality that there are no differences between the bandits and the herdsmen.  Global terrorism index had long rated Fulani herdsmen as the fourth deadliest terrorist organization in the world despite the duplicity of the leadership of this country in accepting that reality.

It is this curious deceit in calling a spade its rightful name that Masari apparently referred to when he alluded to the fact that his disclosures, though factual, may not be palatable to some people. His fears are quite understood and in them can be located the reasons for the festering insecurity in the country. Why some people will not find facts palatable is the bane of the debilitating insecurity and myriad of national challenges that had stunted the growth and development of this country in spite of its huge human and natural capacities.

Not unexpectedly, Masari’s views have drawn the ire of Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore. Its national secretary Saleh Alhassan launched a smear campaign against the governor for disclosing the identity of the bandits. His grouse is that identifying the Fulani that way, would expose innocent ones to attacks. But that is the reality the situation presents and there can be no other ways of presenting it. Facts are sacred but comments free. He wears the shoes and knows where they pinch most.

The governor had as a solution to banditry in his state, entered into an amnesty program with the bandits and made offers he thought would halt the scourge. But that offer changed nothing. In retrospect, he regrets entering into that peace pact with the bandits apparently on account of their incorrigibility. Masari is speaking from his heart of hearts hoping that enduring solutions can be found to the cascading anarchy in his state; a state where the president of the country comes from.

Masari’s disclosures expose the contradiction in the attitude of the Buhari government to the nagging security challenges posed by bandits and herdsmen.  Katsina State intends to enact a law banning the roaming of cattle. But before that law, provisions would be made for where to keep the animals apparently by way of ranching.

“Herdsmen should stay in one place. Roaming about should not be encouraged. In fact, for us, it is un-Islamic” he said. Masari queried why people should have animals they cannot feed and have to stray to other peoples’ lands and farms. He does not consider that right. I hope some people are listening.

If what the governor said is correct, it remains very surprising the indecent desperation by the Buhari regime to force all manner of contraptions as solutions to the herders’ challenge on other parts of the country. Katsina State is on the right track to addressing the challenge of the herdsmen and the bandits. Masari’s ideas should form the fulcrum for permanently addressing the herders’ challenge.