The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emeka Omeihe

  • Minimum wage debacle

    The kite flown by state governors on their inability to pay the national minimum wage may soon snowball into an unprecedented labour crisis. A fortnight ago, the governors had after their meeting, announced they could no longer pay the N18, 000 minimum wage regime that has been in force since 2011. They called for a downward review or alternatively they will have to reduce their workforce.

    They contended that the poor state of the nation’s economy and the sharp drop in the price of oil from $126 to $41 per barrel had rendered the wage regime unrealistic. Expectedly, the idea attracted a barrage of negative reactions especially from the NLC which blamed the governors for mismanaging the affairs of their states only to turn round and find scapegoat in the suffering workers.

    But a lone voice came from Edo State where, Adams Oshiomhole dissociated himself from the retrogressive proposal by his colleagues. He had argued that the subsisting minimum wage regime was a product of elaborate agreement between labour and the various governments and was not imposed on the governors. In view of this, Oshiomhole said the issue was already time barred.

    Oshiomohle was living up to his bidding as a former president of the NLC. He could not understand why his colleagues should, five years after and in the face of very excruciating economic circumstances, contemplate a downward review of the minimum wage. Given this background, it would have been inconceivable for the Edo State governor not to align on the side of the workers. If his position is prompted by the desire to gain cheap popularity, so be it. Even then, he has support from the Rivers State governor, Nyesom Wike.

    No doubt, the biting living conditions and spiralling inflation have added up to take the shine off the real value of the N18, 000 pay. As the governors spoke, the naira had fallen to an all time low making it nigh impossible for the average worker to eke a living under the subsisting minimum wage regime. A further reduction would have amounted to consigning them to their early grave.

    But as the dust raised by the governors’ ill-advised position is yet to settle, the NLC has come up with a fresh position on the matter. This time, it is seeking an upward review on the grounds that the timeframe for the extant wage regime has elapsed. Its’ president, Ayuba Wabba said a new minimum wage will soon be presented to the government for approval.

    He accused the governors of floating the reduction idea as a deliberate ploy to frustrate the demand for upward review which is now due. But the governors have come out again to insist the wage regime will have to be reduced or they would trim their workforce. Chairman of their forum, Abdulaziz Yari of Zamfara State restated this after a meeting with President Buhari.  As things stand, we may be heading for a standoff with organized labour. The equation is now looking complex given the new angles introduced by the NLC and Yari.

    Both sides are tenaciously holding on to their positions with varying degrees of merit. The NLC cannot be faulted in its strident opposition to either a reduction of the minimum wage or pruning down the workforce. The challenges of survival currently faced by workers coupled with a high unemployment rate make each of those options very scary. This is even aggravated by the fact that our governors are not known to be prudent managers of public funds. Acceding to those options would amount to holding the workers responsible for the inefficiencies of their leaders.

    The governors are also not entirely out of order when they cite the parlous state of the economy following the sharp drop in federal allocations as part of the reasons for their inability to pay. Many of them owe workers arrears of salaries and pensions running into 10 months or more. Of late, the federal government had to bail them out even as the situation has not substantially altered.

    We are here confronted with a challenging decision issue that comes with three options. The first option is to have the minimum wage regime reduced or alternatively lay off workers. The second, as thrown up by the NLC, is to review the wage upwards. There is also a third possibility nay, a compromise position to maintain the status quo.

    Decision theorists are concerned with the rational option presented by the situation given the conflicting positions of the two parties. Of interest is that choice that will best protect the overall interests of workers given the above circumstance. The challenge is to situate the workers within the three game matrixes and determine how best they would fare in each of the situations.

    If salaries are reviewed downwards, they will suffer seriously given that even with the current regime they can hardly meet their basic needs. This option will not help matters. Neither will its concomitant of layoffs in the face of a high unemployment rate. The second option of an upward salary review as canvassed by the NLC also comes with serious problems. For now, the governors are unable to pay the current regime as is evident in the mounting arrears of salaries and pensions. To further increase wages under this situation will amount to adding salt to injury. This presents a remote possibility.

    That is where the third option comes into play. This option instructs that the current wage regime should remain as it is. Its corollary is to bury any idea lay off. That is the most rational thing to do. There is no point increasing salaries when the governors are unable to pay their workers. But they must find ways of not only paying the subsisting salaries but retaining the present workforce. That is the challenge before them. Those who find themselves unable to manage the current situation can as well throw in the towel.

    Given the lifestyles of some of them; their penchant for ostentation and unbridled appetite for material acquisition, there is little doubt they can do better if they exercise more discretion in the management of resources.

    They need to show by example and not precept the reality of the hard economic situation by cutting down on areas of wastage. In some of the states, the embarrassing flamboyance of the governors, the number of cars in their convoy and properties owned by them and members of the families which are of public knowledge, make a mockery of any idea of cutting down what is paid to the worker.

    Last week, Cross River State governor, Ben Ayade announced the appointment of about 28 commissioners. A perusal of the list showed obvious duplication of ministries. At a time the governors are claiming inability to pay the minimum wage, 28 commissioners for a state are rather over bloated.

    There is also the case of Imo State, where the governor has not considered it fit to constitute a cabinet. He prefers running the state through task forces. Yet workers last week grounded activities in the state protesting non-payment of salaries running into several months. These instances underscore the point that other options abound if the governors realistically seek to get out of their seeming financial predicament.

    The minimum wage debacle brings to the fore the imperative of creativity and imagination in exploring alternative revenue sources without overburdening the masses through sundry extortionist task forces. It also reinforces the inevitability of restructuring the over-centralized federal order. Maybe that restructuring will commence with the current dilemma over minimum wage payment by state governments.

  • Buhari’s Teheran sermon

    President Buhari’s recent visit to Iran, in more ways than one, marked a substantial departure from his previous foreign outings. Not only were the issues he raised during the trip very clearly contextualized, they were largely devoid of the usual controversy that dogged his earlier foreign trips.

    Those visits saw his media team sweating profusely to clarify ambiguities or possible sources of misinterpretation of what their principal actually said. His visit to the United States of America shortly after he was sworn in stands out very distinctly in this regard.

    During that visit, Buhari’s response to reporters’ question on how he intended to treat those who did not vote for him, in which he said those who gave him 95 per cent votes cannot in all honesty be treated on the same issues with those that gave him five per cent had generated intense misgivings. So also was his prepared speech at the United States Institute of Peace in which he said “Unwittingly and I dare say, unintentionally the application of the Leahy law amendment by the US government has aided and abetted the Boko Haram terrorist group…”

    He was severely criticized on the first for inappropriateness in admitting at such a gathering he would discriminate against the areas he got little votes. And on the second, he found himself mired in unmitigated conceptual error for stating that the Leahy law was aiding and abetting the Boko Haram insurgency.

    The fact is that the Leahy Law does not in any way aid and abet the Boko Haram insurgency. The effect of the Leahy law in the fight against Boko Haram is only in the form of the constraints it imposes through its stipulations on strict adherence to the rules of engagement. This applies to the fight against terrorism the world over, Nigeria not an exception.

    Things appear to have changed during his visit to Iran. His responses in two key areas gave him out as a leader who not only appreciates extant realities now but one prepared to place credit where it rightly belongs. The way he addressed some of the issues, cuts the image of a leader who appreciates the milieu he now operates and the larger dictates of what Charles Lindblom called incremental change in governance.

    These were evident in his speech to the Nigerian community on the fight against corruption and improvement in power supply in the country. He had said in respect of the fight against corruption that unlike in his first coming as a military head of state when he could arrest and detain alleged corrupt officials to prove their innocence, the dictates of the rule of law and due process cannot permit of such now. He said those accused of corruption would have been prosecuted before now, but for the need to investigate them and gather enough evidence to facilitate prosecution.

    Keen observers of President Buhari’s posturing in the war against corruption since he assumed office, would be quick to admit that this marks a substantial departure from his previous handle and posturing on the matter. About three months back, he had told the nation that those who looted our national treasury will be arraigned in court in a matter of weeks. There have also been further statements raising hope that those who milked the nation dry have been sufficiently identified and will soon pay dearly for it.

    Bogus figures representing monies said to have been stolen have been bandied from sundry sources. Public appetite has since been sufficiently wetted for the eventual onslaught on those who have mismanaged this economy. But not much progress has been made in that direction before Buhari’s admission of the difficulties in fighting corruption in a democratic dispensation.

    Before now also, the envisaged battle against corruption has been canvassed in such a manner that raised eyebrows on the propriety of the adopted strategy. The twin issues of due process and rule of law were seriously canvassed by those who picked holes in the media trial and seeming conviction of people in the court of public opinion even when sufficient evidence of their alleged misdeeds was yet to be gathered.

    Ironically, these reservations were the major concerns of Buhari as he spoke to his Teheran audience. It was the same reasons that were often adduced by the Jonathan regime to defend allegations of tepid approach to the war against corruption. It would appear Buhari is gradually coming to terms with the reality of the war against corruption in a democratic setting and that mob justice or media hysteria will prove inherently deficient in dealing with official thievery. How much constraints the new reality will impose on the campaign against corruption will depend on the amount of credible evidence available to the authorities and the disposition of the judiciary to the fight.

    Only last week Buhari had lamented the level of corruption that has permeated the Nigerian judiciary. He had urged that arm of government to fight against the perception and reality of growing judiciary corruption that imposes serious constraints on efforts to hold public officers accountable to their constituents.

    When we pair both statements, the reality of the current war against corruption begins to dawn on us all. It is increasingly getting clearer that the trial of alleged corrupt public officials and recovering of whatever they might have stolen can only be achieved through the gathering of sufficient evidence that will aid prosecution and conviction in the courts. That is the reality Buhari has just admitted and it holds the prospects for whatever progress that will be recorded in the war. If our experience with such high profile trials is anything to go by, the war should be viewed with subdued optimism.

    Buhari should focus more efforts in building strong institutions so as to make the brazen looting of our collective patrimony by sundry buccaneers nigh impossible. There is a limit beyond which we cannot go when these monies have already been stolen and the tracks of the thieves cleverly covered.

    The other aspect of his speech that deserves mention for its larger heuristic value was that on improvements in power supply. Buhari was honest to admit that he was yet to give any directive on the power sector before the improvements in power supply lately. Hear him, “We have not said anything to them yet. I think they only find it sensible or appropriate for them to try and improve on power supply”

    It is obvious Buhari did not want to appropriate the credit for the improvement in power supply contrary to what some of his supporters would have desired. That is the way to go.  Before now, we have seen overzealous supporters of the regime seeking to downplay some of the achievements of the previous government. The impression often created when a new government takes over is that the previous one achieved little or nothing.

    Ostensibly, this posturing is propelled by the vaulting desire to seek legitimacy. But, it has been the bane of governments on these shores. That has also accounted for the plethora of policy discontinuities that have brought in their wake little or no progress and monumental wastage of public funds. But a government does not operate from a zero point. It operates incrementally in the sense that each policy is only an addition to an existing one.

    Incremental change recognizes that meaningful progress is better made when successive regimes improve on extant policies. That is the issue that was brought to public focus by Buhari and he should seize that momentum to ensure that epileptic power supply is consigned to the dust bin of history during his regime. But then, if he has not given any directive on the power sector and some progress is being recorded, somehow, he shares in the success. That is the lesson from Teheran which all leaders should internalize.

  • Biafra’s shallow grave

    Agitations for the sovereign state of Biafra took a new dimension across the country with the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu, the director of Biafra Radio. Kanu was arrested in October, in connection with his pirate radio that has been championing the Biafra dream.

    At the last count, there have been demonstrations in many South-east and South-south states calling on the authorities to have him released. The agitators said they want to exit from the Nigerian state citing ill treatment, alienation and marginalization. For them, the attraction of Biafra lies in its envisaged capacity to offer them limitless opportunities to realize their potentials to the fullest.

    The development has raised concerns given that Nigeria fought a civil war for three years to quell similar agitations between 1967 and 1970. In that war, an estimated six million people lost their lives. Renewed agitations of the magnitude witnessed in the last couple of weeks are bound to raise serious discomfort especially among those privy to the circumstances of that war.

    Equally of concern is the fact that most of those protesting were born after that war and may not have known much about all the events of that historical episode. But this reality also raises its own puzzle given that the same issues that gave rise to that war are at the root of the current agitations. That the youths, 45 years after, are raising the same grievances that gave rise to the war is something that should give our leaders a food for thought. It is a serious development that calls for new approaches; new thinking and proactive measures rather than the stereotype of yesteryears. It should task our creative energies on what we did wrong within this timeframe with a view to remedying the situation. That is the path of great leaders and great nations.

    For Yakubu Gowon who prosecuted that war as military head of state, “with Biafra, it is finished”. He said it was to sooth frayed nerves and erase bitter feelings that his regime at the end of the war came out with the policy of “No victor, No vanquished”. There was also the reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation slogan of the time aimed at integrating the defeated into the mainstream of the nation’s affairs. We shall return to this shortly.

    On its part, Arewa Consultative Forum ACF also declared that Biafra was settled in 1970. For this northern elite group, the issue of Biafra is as dead as dodo. Yet, some others have sought to find causal explanation for the rising agitations. Here, political motive is being alleged.

    Yes, Biafra may have been finished with in 1970. It may have also died at that time. Forty-five years thereon, it is doubtful whether the issue was very well finished with. It is also not certain whether it was properly buried through the satisfaction of all the rites of passage to enable it rest in perfect peace.

    It is either Biafra did not die properly because its undertakers refused to obey the rules for its final interment or it was buried in a very shallow grave. For any of these possibilities, what we are witnessing today is the rising ghost of a Biafra that was not allowed to rest in peace due to actions or inactions of those who presided over its final funeral rites.

    That was the contradiction thrown up by Gowon when he said with Biafra, it is finished. Those protesting are saying contrary to the promises of no victor and no vanquished, those who fought on the side of Biafra have remained the vanquished. They are saying that the Nigerian state instead of providing equal opportunities for them to realize their full potentials, treats them as second class citizens. They are not alone in this.

    They are increasingly coming to terms with the fallacies of the reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation mantra of the post civil war era. They can see these in the state of infrastructure in their zone; it is palpable from the selective attacks on their lives and property on the guise of religion, it is no less evident in the appointments made since Buhari took over. Of about 39 initial key appointments by Buhari, no south-easterner was deemed fit for any. Yet, people came out to justify them on the spurious and feeble ground that he needed to appoint those he can work with. There is something inherently untidy that a vibrant segment of this population could neither qualify nor trusted to occupy any of such positions.

    Some even rationalized the appointments on the inverted logic that the Igbo had a disproportionate share of such offices during the Jonathan regime and therefore should not complain. But those who canvass this jaundiced and self-serving viewpoint fail to adduce evidence of any geo-political zone that was so excluded during that period. That is not to say that the failure to carry that zone along in those appointments is the mono causal explanation for the agitations.

    The activities MASSOB have been there since our return to democracy. A couple of years back, MASSOB called for a sit-at-home protest to press home its demands. The outcome shocked many as the order was obeyed not only in the south-east but beyond.

    Agitations for restructuring which are seen as the only path to the nation’s stability and development have been a recurring decimal. So also are separatist tendencies among groups in the federation. What is now required are new approaches to those dysfunctions that induce competition for the loyalty of the citizens between the government and the primordial units. Not long ago, two former heads of state Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Babangida issued a joint press statement lamenting that even known patriots are now beginning to question the basis of Nigerian unity.

    But for one or two zones, there is a wide gamut of consensus that restructuring holds the ace to the numerous problems of this country. Despite its allure, some people have sworn not to allow it see the light of the day for some inexplicable reasons. The 2014 National Conference which had copious recommendations on how to build a nation unfettered by sectional prejudices has been trapped in the vortex of high wire politics.

    Situations as this cannot but give rise to frustrations within and among sections whose future are deliberately stunted on account of their membership of the Nigerian state. These are the subsisting realities. Yes, the Igbo may be better with a wider political and geographical space to play with. They may be better playing in the big league which Nigeria provides. But this can only stand when the state provides equal opportunities for all. The Igbo have made enormous sacrifice for this country. They have demonstrated this with their huge investments in parts of the country which will suffer serious reverses if they are confined to the boundaries of their ethnic group.

    They are not unaware but for the informal sector, they may have remained hewers of wood and drawers of water in a land supposedly flowing with milk and honey. They are not oblivious of the mounting constraints and organized conspiracy they face in ascending the commanding heights of the military, bureaucracy and the highest political office in the land-the presidency.

    The rise in Biafra agitations may be a desperate move out of a desperate situation. Those who protest wear the shoes and should know where it pinches most. But the Nigerian state will neither let go nor do the needful to allay their fears and guarantee their future.

    The impression that our leaders attach higher premium to continuously holding this country together through coercive state apparatus than building a consensual order that will imbue patriotism and selfless services in all, is a patently misplaced one. That is the missing link. And in it can be located the reasons for the rising spate of systemic schism.

  • Yakubu’s INEC

    Yakubu’s INEC

    The role of the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC in stabilizing democracy in this country came under focus last week when President Muhammadu Buhari swore in its new chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu and his national commissioners. Apparently drawing from our unsavory electoral experiences, the president had charged the commission to abhor external influences in their duties as they will be held accountable for their actions.

    Buhari who promised not to interfere in the affairs of the commission said the change mantra of the APC will be all embracing in electoral matters such that it will give boost to the conduct of free and fair elections.

    The president’s promises are as heart-warming as they are equally refreshing. No doubt, one of the greatest challenges to the sustenance of enduring democracy within these shores has been the glaring inability of electoral umpires and politicians to abide by the rules of free and fair competition. This has over time resulted in the subversion of the pristine values on which the wheel of democratic governance revolves.

    Before now and especially during the regime of Obasanjo, the management of elections had left so much to be desired. Rigging, falsification, outright writing of election results and all manner of malpractices were the order of the day. The bastardization and corruption of the electoral process came to an all-time high that the electorate began to lose confidence in its capacity to reflect the true will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. The conduct of the two elections that were supervised by that regime shook peoples’ confidence in their capacity to approximate the collective will of the people and cast serious doubt on the underlying philosophy behind representative democracy.

    So much damage was wrought to the electoral process that the future of democracy was put in serious jeopardy. The Yar’Adua administration had to contend with public disenchantment and cynicism on the continued relevance of voting during elections when such votes will count for nothing in determining those to emerge from the exercise. This in turn, threw up a crisis of legitimacy. Yar’Adua fought to contend with the situation as it posed obvious threats to the future conduct of elections. His successor, Goodluck Jonathan was left with no option than to make the conduct of free and fair elections a cardinal goal of his regime apparently to gain legitimacy and restore peoples’ confidence in the electoral process.

    He made considerable progress in that direction as the 2011 elections came out a substantial improvement on the ones before it. Jonathan showed serious commitment to the conduct of free and fair elections as evidenced in the technology-driven innovations of the electoral body to enhance the overall credibility of elections. For the first time in the management of elections in this country, card readers were deployed to stave off the stuffing of ballot boxes by ensuring that only those duly accredited to vote actually voted at those elections.

    The 2015 elections, despite shortcomings arising from the refusal of politicians to play according to rules, was devoid of any grand plan by the government in power to manipulate the process as was previously the case. Perhaps, that in part, accounted for why the Jonathan government lost power to the opposition.

    Even Buhari had admitted Jonathan had an option to manipulate the process but opted out in the overall interest of the country. It was for the same reason he received accolades from the international community as his action brightened the prospects for the deepening of democracy in the country. The outcome of that election was very symbolic given that it represented the first time in our political annals an incumbent will concede power to the opposition at that level.

    As a beneficiary of this goodwill, Buhari does not seem to have an alternative than to improve on the records set by Jonathan in restoring some modicum of credibility to the management of elections. That is why his promises not to interfere in INEC’s affairs and also to reflect the change philosophy of his party in all electoral matters are very timely. We say so because, in a couple of week from now, that commitment will be facing its true test. Elections are at the corner in Kogi and Bayelsa states.

    Their handling will serve as a litmus test to the commitment of the Buhari regime to institutionalizing orderly succession through the reflection of the collective will of the people in the final choice of their representatives. That is the challenge before Buhari and the new INEC. The way it is handled will point the direction to the future of democracy.

    It is true that the management of elections is the sole responsibility of the INEC. But it is no less correct also that the overall success of that electoral body will depend on the support and cooperation it gets from the government. There is therefore a whole world of difference between promises and giving effect to them when the need arises. Buhari should therefore move beyond promises to initiate actions that will imbue confidence in the electorate that INEC will remain an impartial umpire in electoral matters.

    One issue that will continue to create concerns for political observers is the tendency for people to gravitate to the winning party. This has raised genuine fears of a possible slide to a one-party state. These fears cannot be wished away especially given the awesome powers at the disposal of the central government.

    Not surprisingly, governments at the centre had through sundry contrivances encouraged this tendency. That is the danger created when undue emphasis is placed on compensation to those who voted the governments in power especially in a clime the same government controls virtually everything.

    Unfortunately, Buhari was the first to be publicly identified with this centripetal viewpoint which Nasir El-Rufai has also referenced upon in respect of the sharing of the perquisites of office in Kaduna State. Such a disposition has all it takes to increase the slide towards a one-party state that may sound the death knell to democracy. There is no reason for every voter to vote for the same political party. It is not intended to be so and the electorate must not be coerced into it. All parties should be able to win elections in their areas of strength with the right ambience provided by the electoral body. That is the objective our leaders should seek to approximate.

    But the buck for whatever finally transpires during elections will eventually stop at the table of Yakubu and his lieutenants. Buhari has told whoever cares to hear that he will not interfere in the affairs of the commission. He has promised change in its activities. He will be judged by these commitments. The new INEC management must take copious notice of these promises and conduct itself as an impartial referee despite the challenges it will encounter in the hands of government officials.

    But the government still shares vicarious responsibility in the overall management of elections. The role, manner of deployment of security personnel and the ferrying of logistic support during elections are areas government still has much work to do. Before now, allegations have been traded on the use of sundry security personnel to intimidate voters and manipulate the outcome of results. It will be interesting to see what the situation will be under Buhari and the new INEC chief.

  • One crisis to another

    The National Assembly is increasingly acquiring the unenviable image of an institution in a crisis of relevance. That would seem to be the reading of the bitter disagreements that have dogged its affairs since inauguration. Early signs of schism appeared as both chambers prepared to elect their leadership. Attempts by the ruling All Progressives Congress APC to get its members support its preferred candidates as both the president of the Senate and speaker of the House of Representatives met brick walls.

    As events turned out, both Bukola Saraki and Yakubu Dogara who subsequently emerged were not the choices of the party leadership. They emerged contrary to party preferences and permutations. The APC was seriously embarrassed by its inability to rein in its members such that saw to the election of Ike Ekweremadu of the PDP as Deputy Senate President.

    Various meanings have been read into the issue. Even those pencilled down as principal officers did not eventually make it as Saraki defied party directive on that. Dogara, after much hesitation, aligned with his party on the matter. The APC found itself handicapped in wielding the big stick for fear of the likely consequences of the action. It has since come to terms with that reality.

    But trouble is yet to be over in both chambers as another round of crisis is threatening to tear members apart. This followed the sharing of the 96 standing committees by Dogara. In the sharing formula that he unveiled, the APC is heading 48 committees as against 46 by the PDP. Also both the Social Democratic Party and APGA were assigned one slot each.

    Saraki has on the side of the Senate, unveiled 65 standing committees with APC getting 41 slots while the rival PDP had 24. Whereas the sharing formula in the Senate has yet to attract adverse reactions, the House of Representatives has been very volatile. Saraki may have learnt from the criticisms that trailed the sharing by Dogara. With the bitter criticisms Dogara has faced since that exercise, he may have opted to play safe given his utter disregard for his party’s preferences in the appointment of the principal officers of the party.

    At the last count, two APC members have rejected the chairmanship and deputy chairmanship positions respectively assigned them by Dogara citing sundry reasons. There are speculations that more will follow suit as pressure mounts on the speaker to reconstitute the committees.

    Those who have expressed views on the matter are piqued that the APC has no clear edge as a majority party over the PDP. They reason that the sharing formula runs contrary to extant practices in the sharing of committee positions between the majority party and the opposition. They want the committees reconstituted to reflect the majority/minority status in the house.

    There are others not happy that all top and juicy committee positions were given to the PDP. They accused Dogara of compensating the PDP members for supporting his election into the speaker-ship position. Yet, there are some others who contend that the committees assigned to the PDP were very critical to driving the change philosophy of the APC.

    For now, it is not clear what Dogara intends to do about the welter of protests that have trailed his sharing of committee positions. But if his immediate replacement of Garba Datti who rejected his chairmanship of the House Committee on Solid Minerals Development is anything to go by, the matter seems foreclosed. How this will affect the smooth running of the house in the days ahead is a matter for the future.

    No doubt, the APC members are within their right to seek a clear edge in the composition of the committees given their status as the majority party. That is politics. This is more so when the current composition of the committees in the house appears out of tune with the ratio that had previously guided sharing between the majority and minority parties. If that is the grouse of the lawmakers, it is difficult to fault them. From the list released by Saraki, the APC commands a preponderance of the committees. For now, it is very unlikely that APC senators are going to react the same way house members did.

    However, some of the issues that have been canvassed to support the raging anger over the sharing of house committee positions do not seem to derive from altruism among members. The immediate impression one gets especially when such terms as juicy and key committees are applied is that the bickering is all about who gets what.

    Though overt references have not been made to this for very obvious reasons, but the body language of those who have complained so far, indicate that their grouse is more with what they intend to get from heading the committee rather than the altruistic motives under which they have sought to hide. That is the interpretation of their contention that Dogara, through the sharing of the committee positions, has compensated those who helped him emerge as speaker.

    The word compensation, immediately connotes the impression that those so appointed, stand to gain material benefits from the positions they have been assigned. This inference is clearly not in doubt. And that is where the main reason for the agitations is exposed. If the PDP house members stand to benefit through their headship of key committees, there is nothing to suggest that their APC colleagues given the same opportunity will not avail themselves of the perquisites which those offices offer.

    That seems to be the major issue to the disagreement rather than the selfless promptings that have been copiously canvassed. It is not surprising some have hidden under the cover of the argument that the headship of key committees by PDP members will stall the driving of the change mantra of the APC. It is curious how that will happen.

    If previous handling of oversight functions is anything to reference upon, they have largely served the selfish interests of our legislators rather than those they act on their behalf. It has been an avenue to fleece the nation. There is no guarantee that the situation will be different irrespective of the party that controls a preponderance of the committee slots. What will make the difference is the credibility and integrity of their headship. That seems a better approach to the argument.

    More seriously, we must tread very cautiously the way opposition is perceived in the current dispensation. The festering feeling of total exclusion for those who did not vote for the government in power will serve no useful end. It may turn out polarizing the polity as those excluded invent other ways to vent their grievances and frustrations. Once a government has come to power, it should take every section as its constituency. That is why statements from key leaders of this regime which show disdain for those perceived not to have voted for them must be totally discouraged.

    Above all, our legislators must come to terms with the fact that the business of lawmaking has suffered seriously since their inauguration on account of avoidable disagreements. They must now settle down work as a team and confront the daunting challenges of the ordinary people irrespective of party affiliations. We have had enough of this fretting over who occupies what position. Our common problems know no party boundaries.

  • Re: Deji, Afenifere and Ndigbo Akure

    My last week’s article which came under the above title attracted a deluge of reactions. Issues raised have been diverse. But one thing that stands out from these views is that, all the facts to the Akure controversy have not been availed to the public. I said that much in the article under reference and my views have been reinforced by some of the contributions. Perhaps, lack of full disclosure accounted for the prominence which disrespect to the culture and tradition of the Akure people assumed on the matter.

    It is neither my intention to re-open issues nor to answer some of the questions that have been posed. But suffice it to say that at the centre of disagreement seems to be leadership and sundry fees at the Mojere market. The alleged disrespect is a fall-out of this misunderstanding. I have devoted this column today for some of the views of my readers. Please read on!

    You are entitled to your opinion. Have you forgotten the era of Jonathan when it was said that Lagos is no man’s land during the election period. Then, the Oba of Lagos was provoked. Which other tribe can try that in Igbo states? Ndigbo must stop it now. Nobody has monopoly of rascality. Don’t take Yoruba for a ride again. It will be resisted at all costs. 08094763002.

    I am surprised that you did not add in your write-up that Akure and indeed Ondo is no man’s land, the traditional refrain of the Igbo with which they insult their host communities wherever they go. But I want to remind you that other tribes in Nigeria live in Ondo peacefully without rancour. Why can’t the Igbo call themselves to order? Instead you are helping them to stoke the embers of disharmony to further provoke hostility with your pedestrian narrative. Very disappointing of you as a platform writer! From Dele Ogundele –Lagos

    You confirmed you do not have the details of the genesis of the disagreement between the Igbo and Deji, yet you went ahead to insinuate unfair treatment of the Igbo. The fact is that no one can expel any one from anywhere but everyone should conform to the rules and regulations of where one finds himself. If Eze Ndigbo is unable to control his people, he should be removed and replaced. 08033001942.

    In as much as your write-up is close to being objective, what the Igbo are doing in other clime can never be tolerated in Igbo land. The title of Eze Ndigbo outside Igbo land is an aberration. It should be dropped and condemned by all right thinking individuals devoid of ethnic consideration. 09036991185.

    There is nothing absolutely wrong with the Igbo having Eze outside Igbo land. The Igbo people should have (Ezes) outside Igbo land. Why should one million Igbo outside Igbo land not have an Eze? Who mandated the sending of the 10-man committee to Lagos? Were the Igbo asked about it? If those Eze at home really care about Igbo people, they would not have engaged in the dance of shame. From Reginald Ekeanyanwu.

    The last sentence of the second to-the-last paragraph cannot be right. We still read about persons in the Igbo speaking states who were banished from their own villages/communities for running foul of their culture and tradition. The Yoruba revere their Oba. Yes you are free to live anywhere in Nigeria. However, it behoves on us to recognize the original settlers/indigenes of those areas-their culture and tradition so as to promote peaceful co-existence. As visitors and migrants, we should not ride roughshod over issues people hold dear. Nation building and integration have remained a mirage if not, why do we take our notable dead back home for burial? 08034726625.

    What is your take on the Eze Ndigbo title holder telling the Deji that he cannot prostrate to greet him because he too is a king? He disrespected our king. From Seyi A. 08106140234.

    Your write-up is punchy, direct and well balanced. May this country never know civil war again! From Charles Emmanuel, Lagos.

    The simple answer to your argument is to ask you to name any Yoruba crown Oba in the eastern or northern part of this country. All you can get is the chairman/president of Yoruba residing in those places. It is an indisputable fact that out of the three major tribes in the so-called unity in diversity, the Yoruba is the most liberal and accommodating and this is the cause of her ordeal in the hands of others. If it is true that we are one entity, let us all imbibe the principle of do unto others as you would expect others to do unto you. From B I. Aguda Iloro-Ekiti.

    Good article but wrong conclusion. Why is it that the Igbo are the only people in Nigeria who feel that they are foreigners in their own country? Nigeria has been more than fair to the Igbo. Igbo should learn how to show respect to their hosts. Igbo should learn how to respect our culture in Yoruba land. They should learn to behave like Romans when they are in Rome. From Tola Mayomi.

    I think you got it all wrong. He issue is about culture and not that of indigene/foreigner. I lived in the East for 18 years and as a Yoruba man I dared not break kola nut while in the midst of Igbo elders even though I am an elder. It is the culture of the people and I respected that. The Igbo do not have a culture of kingship, we Yoruba people do. Why then should they come to Yoruba land with a strong kinship? What an insult and what an abomination? That is the issue. 07036869868.

    Check and cross check your facts before publication. There was never a time we were threatened with expulsion from Akure. Can a Sarikin Hause in Onitsha, Enugu or Umuahia put on beaded crown in any of those towns? Please advise the so-called Eze Ndigbo to adhere to the directive of the Ohaneze by adopting the title of Onyendu Ndigbo. In any case, the various president generals of Ndigbo in the various states outside Igbo land are enough as paramount Igbo leaders. From Dike

    I would start by commending your attempt at disabusing the minds of the people on the baseless allegation of disrespect and insubordination to the Deji of Akure land by the Eze Ndigbo, Gregory Iloehika and the abuse of Yoruba culture and tradition by the Igbo in Akure. I marvel at your sense of judgment because even though you did not and still do not have detailed facts on what actually happened, you have been able to at least, use your common sense in arriving at your opinion on the issue. If I may ask, how do we justify the decision of the Deji that only Akure indigenes will occupy the post of chairman in the Mojere spare parts market irrespective of the preferences of the traders? How does the rejection by the Igbo traders of the demand for the payment of N50,000 fee for any new apprentice mean disrespect to the tradition and culture of the Akure people? From Secretary Igbo community.

    The new Oba should not hide under other excuses to show his hatred for the Igbo. What offence did the Igbo commit for their leaders to be beaten up and disgraced in his palace under his eyes? The Ezeigbo was crowned in the same palace for the Igbo by the former Deji of Akure. Why the actions of the new Deji if not personal hatred for the Igbo?  Please let us call him to order. From Engr. Maduka, Igbo Political Union, Warri. .

    You are as guilty as the Deji. Which resources do you have in Igbo land that is not in Akure? 08033227983.

  • Deji, Afenifere and Ndigbo Akure

    Igbo traders in Akure, Ondo State capital shut their shops a couple of days ago to protest alleged moves by the Deji of Akure, Oba Aladetoyinbo Aladelusi to dethrone the Eze Ndigbo of Akure, Sir Gregory Iloehika.  They were also piqued by alleged threats from the Oba to expel them from the ancient city.

    Reports had it that Iloehika had gone to the Oba’s palace with some of his chiefs to honour his (Oba’s invitation) only to be attacked on arrival by some youths who removed his crown, tore his dress and were about to manhandle him further but for the intervention of policemen.

    Initial reports were hazy on the cause of the disagreement. But there were insinuations that the Oba had accused the Eze Ndigbo of insubordination and disrespect to the tradition and culture of the land.

    However, the Oba came out days later through the Asamo of Akure land, Rotimi Olusanya to provide some insight into the episode. He accused the Igbo of violating the tradition and culture of the land; insubordination and disrespect to him.

    He further alleged that Igbo traders at the Moferere market recently contravened the rules guiding the market and that the Eze Ndigbo refused to carry out his order to eject illegal traders from the market. He equally made reference to the embarrassment the Eze Ndigbo caused him and his cabinet during his last visit.  But the clarification did not provide the needed evidence of what constituted the acts of embarrassment by his invitees especially given their allegation that their leader was attacked and disgraced at the palace.

    We needed to know what really happened when the Eze Ndigbo and some of his chiefs arrived at the palace. Given the issues that have been canvassed, the Oba ought to have come public with details of aspects of their conduct that constituted disrespect and insubordination to his throne? The inability to give a comprehensive account of all there is to the issue did not help matters especially in view of its sensitivity.

    For now, it is difficult to fathom any concrete evidence of insubordination and disrespect for the culture and tradition of the Akure people as alleged. The only discernable clue may be found in the refusal of the Eze Ndigbo to expel illegal traders (whatever that means) from the Moferere market. How that would warrant all the incendiary allegations, threat to dethrone and sack Igbo residents in Akure remains largely curious.

    It would appear the controversy is an administrative matter undeserving of the threats and bad blood it has generated. It concerns the source of livelihood of some people. Even as the details of the alleged illegality of the traders remain cloudy, its handling would ordinarily require some caution. It is an issue all those concerned should sit down and trash out taking into account the peculiarity of the situation.

    The Igbo people in Akure have said they respect the culture and tradition of their hosts and there is for now, no evidence to controvert that. There is also no reason why they should not obey the culture and tradition of their hosts. Neither the alleged existence of illegal traders at the Moferere market nor the refusal or inability of the Eze Ndigbo to eject them would suffice as blatant evidence of insubordination and disrespect for the culture and tradition of the Akure people.

    Again, even if there were actions or lack of it on the part of Iloehika that offended the Oba, it was unfair to lump all Igbo residents together and accuse them of blanket malfeasance with threats of expulsion. Good a thing, Ondo State Governor, Dr. Olusegun Mimiko has waded into the matter with a view to resolving it amicably.

    But the intervention of Mimiko and a statement from the Afenifere Renewal Group seem to have opened the lid to the crux of the disagreement. The conditions given by the Oba for the resolution of the matter which required Iloehika to drop the title of Eze Ndigbo in addition to not wearing the crown appear to be the main issue.

    The Afenifere corroborated this when it denounced what it called an “unrelenting desecration of Yoruba culture by Igbo communities’ obsession with having a crown king in Yoruba domain”. They consider it an expansionist agenda that connotes territorial influence and ownership. The group alleged that in Akure, the Eze Ndigbo believes that he has powers to invest people with chieftaincy titles that are traditional to Yoruba kingship system.

    Perhaps, these are some of the issues that have not gone down well with the Oba. If that is the connotation the Eze Ndigbo title conveys within Yoruba land, their worries can be understood. But such conclusion is faulted by the position of the South-East Council of Traditional Rulers on the matter.

    Not long ago, a 10-man delegation of the council led by its chairman, Eze Cletus Ilomuanya visited Oba Rilwan Akiolu of Lagos and urged him and the state government to disregard those who parade themselves as Eze Ndigbo because it is an abuse of the culture and tradition of the Igbo people. They made it clear that the “Eze Ndigbo title was a corruption of the Eze-ship system in Igboland” and those parading themselves as so outside Igboland are “unknown by the Igbo in the locality they reside and not chosen and recognized by anybody”.

    Given the above, Afenifere’s interpretation of the import and connotation of the Eze Ndigbo title was highly exaggerated and therefore guilty of the fallacy of hasty generalization. Those so addressed were at no time enthroned by an assemblage of the Igbo in the localities they reside. So the issue of territorial expansionism and ownership do not have any foundation. Not even when the council of traditional rulers has been having a running battle with those who parade such titles.

    Those that accord them recognition for some expediency should share vicarious responsibility in the matter. Igbo people know their leaders outside their ancestral homes. And such leaders have nothing to do with the Eze Ndigbo title. It is therefore wrong to conclude that those who go by that title do so at the behest of the Igbo for influence and expansion. Ironically, such warped profiling accounts for the quick resort to hold all Igbo residents liable for errors of omission or commission by the so-called Eze Ndigbo title holders.

    The Akure incident brings to the fore all that is wrong with the Nigerian state. Threats to expels non-indigenes at every slight disagreement, is at the root of the subsisting difficulties in nation-building. The impression that those living outside their ancestral homes are being done a favour by their hosts is a patently misplaced one. They live there as a matter of right and not at the whims and caprices of the natives. They are bona fide members of this unity in diversity that appropriates resources from one part of the country to develop others.

    If those from whose backyard much of the resources for the development of the less advantaged parts of the country are fetched, have not claimed exclusive rights, why should the rights of citizens to reside in any part of the country be an issue? It is wrong to seek to abridge or threaten that right under any guise including such issues as disobedience to culture, tradition and insubordination.

    Of course, there are laws, rules and regulations guiding organized conduct to which all are expected to abide. But recurring reminders to citizens that they are foreigners in their own country, will for a long time continue to impair efforts at nation-building and integration. It may turn out the greatest undoing of this country.

  • And the nurse died!

    I was in the office of one of the mobile telephone providers last Tuesday to recharge my modem when the phone of the officer attending to me rang. When she picked the call, I noticed a quick change in her countenance. Then I heard her exclaim – Fourth Avenue and bank robbery. From her responses, it became obvious that something sinister had happened. I then began to figure out which part of Lagos is numbered in the form of second, third and fourth avenues etc. Before I could reach a conclusion, she had ended the conversation.

    Then looking at those seated before her, she said a very serious robbery involving two banks had just taken place within the FESTAC area. Surprisingly, the customer seated next to me corroborated the story with his own chilling account of the escapades of the daring armed robbers.  He said scores of heavily armed robbers dressed in both military and police uniforms invaded the banks and were about to attack the third one when they aborted the plan apparently after receiving some signals.

    He said the robbers shot sporadically in all directions and operated for more than one hour without challenge from the law enforcement agencies. But he was quick to add that there was not much the police could do in the circumstance given the numerical strength of the robbers and their sophistication in arms. To this, one then quipped that there are other strategies open to the law enforcement agencies if they discovered they could not confront the robbers head on for one reason or the other. All seemed to have agreed on this point. We shall return to it shortly.

    When we enquired whether there were casualties, the responses we got were not certain. However, before we left that office, there seemed to have been a consensus that these dare-devil robberies are getting out of control and something urgent and radical has to be done before they reduce Lagos to the Hobbesian state of nature- where life will at once become nasty, short and brutish.

    Throughout the rest of the day, there were varying accounts of the incident with much of the blame heaped at the doorsteps of the police for their seeming helplessness while the attack lasted. But full details of the encounter which were carried by the media did not differ substantially. Part of those details was the killing of a nurse Mrs. Jane Ndirika, and her 14-month old daughter, Mmesoma.

    Reports had it that Jane and her daughter were in their apartment in an adjoining building when bullets fired by the bandits in a staccato fashion hit them. The woman was said to have taken cover in her apartment when the shooting became very unbearable but had to rise on her feet when her daughter in the room began to wail apparently because of the menacing sounds of the robbers’ gun power.

    As she collected her daughter and made for the parlour, she was hit by bullets which eventually killed both of them. There were other unconfirmed reports of casualties but the brutal murder of the Ndirika’s right inside their house was the most chilling and devastating. Their situation was worsened when help did not come on time. Those who dared to venture, kept off for fear of being killed by the robbers who were in action for a very long time. By the time they concluded their evil mission, the woman had lost so much blood and died before help could come. What a pity!

    We have since learnt from the police that they confronted the bandits and recovered N27 million which the robbers abandoned while fleeing. The police said without their intervention, the casualty figure would have been higher, apparently to correct the impression that they did nothing while the broad day robbery lasted. They have also promised to adopt eclectic strategies to apprehend the bandits.

    There are other constructs by the police as to their efforts to confront the robbers. We have heard that they contacted both the Air Force and the Navy without getting assistance for one excuse or the other. Neither of the two agencies has joined issues with the police.

    They are entitled to their views. But the value of their intervention was mortally diminished by the long period the bandits operated without any visible challenge. It raises issues as to the options they should have availed while the operation lasted irrespective of the numerical strength and sophistication in armament of the robbers.

    One had thought the first response of the police would have been to cordon off all escape routes and wait to confront the bandits after the operation. Nothing of sort appeared to have happened. The fact that they came through a canal does not reduce the potency of this strategy. Even then, it speaks a lot to the intelligence gathering capacity of our security architecture that as much as 40 people dressed in both police and military uniforms could alight from the canal on boats in broad daylight, without information filtering to the relevant law enforcement operatives.

    No doubt, our law enforcement agencies must have been rattled by the relative ease and impunity with which the robbers operated leaving in their trail, the snuffing out prematurely, of the lives of Nurse Ndirika and her daughter. They have promised to fish the criminals out. We have heard of forensic and other approaches to apprehend the robbers. These could as well be.

    But as we await the outcome of these promises, it may be pertinent to ask why the police never deemed it expedient to activate its helicopters in serious emergencies as this. What of the armoured personnel carriers that are stationed in strategic locations within the city? Why was no effort made to call them into action in a very critical moment the attack represented? This is more so given the emerging trend in armed robbery operations in the city in the last couple of months.

    Before the latest incident, there have been three instances of robbers and kidnappers attacking their victims and escaping through the canals. In three of these instances, banks were their victims. It happened in Lekki, Ikorodu and now FESTAC. Before the latest incident, a senior editor’s home was attacked and his wife abducted by the criminals within the Amuwo-Odofin area. The bandits also came from the canal and when it pleased them to release their captive they dropped her off through the same channel.

    There is therefore an emerging trend in armed robbery in Lagos which our law enforcement agencies must urgently study and evolve counter strategies for. Robbers’ preference for canals or waterways may be an indication of the level of success reached in crime-fighting by our law enforcement agencies on land.

    But a very effective and proactive force would have by now, taken copious notice of the shift in strategy after the three other incidents. This did not seem to have happened as events in the latest robbery clearly indicate. It is not just enough for the police to promise that the culprits will be captured. Since they have admitted that the last attack bore the imprints of similar ones before it, they should put on their thinking caps and evolve counter strategies to make future attacks a very risky enterprise.

    They could as well anticipate and prepare for air confrontation as the robbers may take resort to the air when their success ratio through canals and waterways would have been considerably diminished. In all, we must prepare for the rising sophistication in violent crimes in this country. This way, innocent citizens will be saved the unfortunate fate of Jane and her daughter. May their souls rest in peace!

  • Ministerial screening

    With the unveiling of the first batch of ministerial nominees by the Senate, speculations on those who made the list have been laid to rest. Discussions now centre round the suitability of some of the prospective ministers; the rationale for the long period it took to put the team together and the inability of President Buhari to submit a full list despite promises to keep to the September deadline he had set.

    A perusal of the list shows some well known names such as former governors, politicians, other former public office holders and some relatively new entrants. Not unexpectedly, issues have been raised on the justification for the long period it took the president to compile the list given that a good number of the names had at one time or the other been in government or its related agencies.

    Even then, the list fell short of the constitutional requirement that a minister should come from each state including the Federal Capital Territory. The fact of this coupled with its submission on the last day of September seemed to tally with earlier fears that the president was not really certain of his direction in those appointments. Or is to be presumed that the rigour that went into the screening exercise was responsible for the delay? That could as well be.  But many of those listed have been around and information on them should not have taken that long.

    The excuse then was that the president needed time to determine those to work with given his commitment to the war against corruption. The delay it was further argued was for him to set his priorities and then determine those whose conduct, temperament and professional competence tally with that needed to deliver on the change he had promised the nation.

    But some of the names in the list, the manner in which it was delivered to beat set deadline and the incompleteness of that assignment, have raised further questions on the admissibility of these excuses. It would seem there is not much in the list to justify the long delay especially given the adverse toll it has taken in the effective functioning of the government. The expectation was that those who make the list would be a sharp departure from the recycling of the past; people who have no allegations or controversies hanging around their necks and whose professional competences are not in doubt. We were desirous of seeing a new corps of leaders, a new direction; a new roadmap for the war against corruption. One is afraid the list of nominees fell short of that. What is palpable is an attempt to compensate and reward politicians and others in the fringes that helped the party to victory.

    Ordinarily, there would have been nothing wrong with this as those who worked very hard for the party are expected to share in its spoils. But this is a government that told whoever cares to hear that it is on a rescue mission to put right all the wrongs of the past. It is a government that promised to reinvent Nigeria by killing corruption and building strong institutions. Such a government must be seen to be departing sharply from the old ways of statecraft. The scriptures captured this sentiment very succinctly when it said you cannot put an old wineskin into a new wineskin and expect a good outcome. That is the uncanny dialectics at play.

    That is the problem we run into when leaders set very high moral standards of conduct without taking into serious account, other systemic variables at play. This is by no means a vote of no confidence on all those that have been short listed. It is still possible that some of the nominees deemed unfit for the prosecution of the corruption war, can still turn a new leaf. Such born again former public office holders may turn out the armour bearers of the war against corruption with a leadership of example and direction in place. But they must be seen to have purged themselves of their old ways.

    More than anything, the situation has highlighted the reality that in whatever changes we intend to make, we still have to rely on Nigerians to see them through. If we are all corrupt, it is either there is a new resolve for everybody to fight and kill corruption or corruption will kill us all. We cannot go to the moon to import people to effect that change. We will still have to rely on what we have.  What is important is to build very strong institutions; set the ground norms to decisively discourage corruption and corrupt practices in all their ramifications. There is hardly any former public office holder in this clime that we cannot discover one form of misdemeanour or the other when properly subjected to public scrutiny. It is even safer to conclude that a public officer in this country will steal public funds than the other way round.

    That is the point against the undue focus in recovering monies stolen by former public office holders. Prosecuting and recovering looting monies, as desirable as they are, do not have all it takes to stamp out corruption. The reason is that it focuses on symptoms rather than the real cause of the ailment. It focuses on people when they have already committed the offence rather than building the appropriate institutional framework to stop them from committing the act. The latter is what is direly required now.

    Beyond these however, are issues of serious repercussions for our democracy the handling of the ministerial nominee is bound to throw up. The list is now with the Senate. Its president, Bukola Saraki has promised screening next week. But, feelers show the screening exercise will no longer be business as usual. Indications are of plans to involve some anti-graft agencies in the screening exercise. As one senator succinctly put it: “the days of take-a- bow are over”. They have promised to stick to the rules and the constitution in carrying out the exercise.

    Ostensibly, this is to further the momentum for the war against corruption. If these are anything to repose hope on, then nominees are going to face difficult hurdles before confirmation. We should also expect delays in the confirmation and Buhari may still have to work for some time without ministers.  There are insinuations that the Senate may be rooting to get even with President Buhari given the arraignment of Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) which he is alleged to have influenced.

    Saraki had said before the tribunal and the senate that he is on trial because he is the Senate President. He may therefore in concert with his colleagues who have passed a vote of confidence in him not spare any nominee with any skeleton to hide to prove the point that the graft war should go round.

    Just as justice should run its full course in the case of the trial of Saraki, the Senate would be on its right to insist that only people of integrity and impeccable character are confirmed as ministers. It cannot do any less. For, to ignore this issue will amount to lending credence to accusations that the chamber is a sore finger in the war against corruption. It could well be that the overall intention is to settle scores. That would be neither here nor there.

    The senate will not be expected to approve nominees who have serious cases of corruption allegation standing against them. They ought to clear themselves. That way, we would be discouraging the looting of public funds by rampaging public office holders. So it is still in the overall interest of this country that the senate fully sticks to the rules guiding the approval of ministerial nominees.

    The issue is not whether there are some ulterior motives for sticking to rules and due process. Rules are made and standards set to promote public good. That such rules have been observed in their breach may account for why little or no progress has been made in this country. It is good a thing both the executive and the legislature appear to be singing the same tune in the fight against sleaze. The heuristic value of such a synergy holds very promising prospects for the country.

  • On Boko Haram sponsors

    Those awaiting the conclusion of the war against Boko Haram insurgency by the end of this year, have cause to be apprehensive of the reality of that deadline. Two events within the last one week have added up to dim the prospects of that date which President Buhari handed down to the military.

    With barely two months to go and despite copious assurances by the military on their successful efforts to weaken the fighting capacity of the insurgents, there are emerging signals that Boko Haram is not about to peter out very shortly. Not with its coordinated and successful attack on a detention camp of the Directorate of Security Services DSS in Lokoja, Kogi State. In that surprising and largely successful attack, about 30 detainees were freed even as it left in its trail four people dead, one of them a policeman. The heavily armed insurgents who overpowered operatives of the DSS were only subdued after a combined team of soldiers and policemen were drafted to scene.

    Within the same week also, the Nigerian Army seemed to have erased whatever remained of this optimism when it alerted that certain individuals were working to reverse the gains made and scuttle efforts at achieving the presidential directive to defeat Boko Haram terrorists within three months. Acting Director, Army Public Relations, Col. Sani Usman in a statement sent “a very strong and serious final warning to some prominent individuals and political groups who hail from Borno State in particular and north-east generally, that there is information of plans by some highly placed individuals and political groups to undermine and scuttle the fight against terrorism and insurgency in this country”.

    A common string holds the two incidents together. Both are united in casting a slur on the prospects of a quick conclusion of the war on terrorism. Before now, we have been fed with sundry accounts of the escapades of the military in freeing people kidnapped by the sect, the capturing of arms and ammunitions; general disenchantment within the rank and file of the insurgents resulting in low morale and cases of surrender. All these had raised hopes that the insurgents are living on borrowed time as the presidential deadline approached.  But this optimism pales into insignificance in the face of the successful attack on the DSS detention facility in Kogi State and the shocking alarm from the army. There are now genuine fears that if the insurgents could still muster such a sophistication that saw to the assault on the DSS facility, then much has not really changed.

    Especially at a time the current regime has indicated interest to negotiate with the sect. If the insurgents are interested in such negotiations or those being talked to are their real leaders, they would not have been in a hurry to launch attacks to free their detained members. The fact of this goes to reinforce the reservations of those opposed to negotiations with the group. It also raises questions on the propriety of the high number of terrorists that have been released from custody in the last two or three months.

    This reservation is further reinforced by revelation from the presidency that one of the conditions given by the terrorists for the release of the Chibok girls was the freeing of one of their detained members who specialized in making improvised explosives. They could not have been demanding for his release if they had no immediate need for his services. Of course, that demand was rebuffed.

    The planning, execution and eventual success of the attack have also brought to the public domain the vulnerability of detaining terrorism suspects in facilities that are not well fortified. If they could overpower a DSS facility located in a state capital, it remains to be imagined what could have been the situation if the suspects were held in prisons located in the hinterlands. That was the point that was stridently canvassed when Boko Haram suspects were brought to a rural prison in Ekwulobia,  Aguata local government area of Anambra State.

    But by far of greater consequence to the conclusion of the war was the alarm by the army of plans by some prominent politicians and groups in Borno State and the north-east to sabotage the efforts of the military. This matter is as instructive as it is serious and weighty. And in it we may locate factors that have been responsible for the festering insurgency.

    Before now, the sponsorship of the Boko Haram insurgency has been a subject of serious debate, buck-passing and acrimony. In the build up to the last elections, key political parties made strident efforts to accuse opponents of culpability in giving behind-the-scene support to the festering malaise. Attempts were made to establish a linkage between the unfolding political competition and the rising tempo of the insurgency onslaught. Boko Haram was seen in some circles as bottled up political anger seeking expression through a religious garb.

    It cannot be forgotten in a hurry the acerbic and outlandish allegations by then governor of Adamawa State, Muritala Nyako. He had in a letter to the northern governors at the heat of the ravaging insurgency titled “on-going full scale genocide in northern Nigeria,” accused the federal government of killing the citizens and attributing the killings to “the so-called Boko Haram”. The thematic essence of his allegation was that Boko Haram was a contrivance of the Jonathan regime to depopulate the north.

    He was not alone in this line of thought. Before his letter, the Northern Elders Forum had in a statement alleged that most of the “conflicts in the north are being engineered to weaken the north both economically and politically by interests who are intent to exploit such weaknesses for political advantage”. These two instances are instructive given the alarm by the army that key politicians and influential groups in Borno State and the northeast are sabotaging the efforts to end the war on insurgency. What is evident from this is that northerners may after all, be the greatest enemies to themselves in the matter of Boko Haram insurgency.

    There is no reason to disbelieve the army. If they have no idea of who the culprits are, they would not have confined their identified sponsors within the north-east zone and Borno State in particular. By that, they have narrowed the confines of those who aid and abet the Boko Haram insurgency. We cannot afford to gloss over the wider dimensions of this.

    More fundamentally, the revelation has put to task the claims of the likes of Nyako and the Northern Elders Forum. They should now begin to reconcile their earlier allegations with the alarm by the army. They should be made to tell the nation the sponsors of the continuing “genocide” aimed at depopulating the north.

    This point has to be made given that such sweeping allegations did incurable damage to the morale of the fighting soldiers and may have been largely responsible for the indiscipline that was then rampant.

    At that time, it was convenient to sell such a damaging dummy because there was “a common enemy”. Now that enemy is no longer in sight, the game is up. There is no further deceit or primordial sentiment to play up.  We should place the blame squarely at the door steps of those who by acts of omission or commission have encouraged this war.

    The army should therefore, deploy the facts at their disposal to apprehend all sponsors and collaborators of the insurgency sect who hide under the cover of the nation’s fault lines to levy war on us all.