The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emeka Omeihe

Obasanjo’s double speak

When former President Olusegun Obasanjo speaks, we are wont to take him very seriously. Apart from having presided over the affairs of this country at three different times, he is very highly respected at home and also by the international community having been engaged in peace negotiations and sundry activities in and around the globe. He has also been actively involved in shaping the content and direction of this country right from the civil war days till date.

Whatever opinion such a personage volunteers on the affairs of this country, is bound to have profound influence on the thinking and direction of its people. Not a few Nigerians were therefore taken aback last week when he spoke to the CNN on how best to handle the Boko Haram menace in the country.

Apparently unmindful of his previous views on the matter, Obasanjo had criticized the handling of the Boko Haram insurgency by the Jonathan administration on the grounds that it did not apply the ‘carrot and stick’ in fighting the scourge.

Hear him, “to deal with a group like that you need the carrot and stick. The carrot is finding out how to reach them. When you try to reach out to them and they are not amenable to being reached out to you have to use the stick”

He said Jonathan is just using the stick.

The purport of Obasanjo’s contention is that Jonathan is only applying maximum force to the Boko Haram menace without engaging them in some form of dialogue. For him, this approach cannot effectively address the potent danger posed by that sect. That is Obasanjo’s opinion and he is entitled to it.

A couple of weeks back, the same Obasanjo had berated the same administration for its slow action in fighting the scourge. He had then drawn parallels between his deployment of soldiers to Odi and Zaki Biam in Bayelsa and Benue states respectively and the Boko Haram challenge arguing that the menace could have been nipped in the bud if the government had acted fast as he did in these two states.

But Jonathan sharply rebuffed that assertion arguing that the deployment of troops in Odi was a colossal disaster as it did not solve the problem of militancy in the Niger Delta region. He said the invasion only succeeded in the killing of innocent children, old men and women without hurting a single militant.

Apparently sensing the dangers in his recommendation, Obasanjo through his former spokesman Femi Fani-Kayode attempted to reverse himself arguing that he never recommended the Odi approach to be applied to the Boko Haram menace. He said what he meant was that a solution ought to have been found or some sort of action ought to have been taken rather than allow the matter to fester overtime like a bad wound and get worse. Not many believed in this revisionism then.

If Obasanjo had no intention of recommending the Odi strategy to the Boko Haram menace why compare the two? Why talk of quick action and the nipping of the matter in the bud if those references are not to the quick use of force? Was it possible to nip the Boko Haram insurgency in the bud then through negotiations whose duration Obasanjo himself could not predict?

Thus, despite Obasanjo’s attempt to clarify his position on the matter, he left no one in doubt on his preference of brute force in handling Boko Haram.

It is therefore very astonishing for the same character to now pontificate on the so-called carrot and stick approach as the best solution to the menace. If he was aware of such a strategy, why the copious references to the brute show of military force in Odi and Zaki Biam? Again, why did he not apply the carrot in those instances only for his predecessor Yar’Adua to give meaning to it?

Today, the relative peace in the Niger Delta region owes its success to the late president. Yet Obasanjo was there for eight years and only found the stick the most appropriate option to militancy. May be then, he had not been sufficiently schooled in the carrot dimension to problem solving and can be excused on that ground.

But this later day convert of the carrot approach has so contradicted himself that it is now difficult to understand where he stands on the matter. In one breadth he accuses Jonathan of being tepid and not acting fast and decisive. In another, he carpets him for solely relying on force rather than reaching out to the insurgents. These are contradictory positions with little value for our understanding of his real stand on the matter.

In the face of this double speak, one is left with the inevitable impression that Obasanjo is being less than honest in the matter and should not be taken seriously. It seems his anecdotal positions are designed more to get even with Jonathan for whatever reasons.

More fundamentally, the allegation that the carrot is not being applied in the instant case, contradicts the more. It was the same Obasanjo who sometime ago, reached out to the loyalists of the late leader of the original Boko Haram Mohammed Yusuf in a peace effort brokered by Mallam Shehu Sani in Maiduguri. Was the man who hosted him at that event not killed shortly after for daring to receive him? There was also the peace effort brokered by Dr. Datti Ahmed which failed mid-way due to mistrust among the parties. There have been other offers that failed to take off the ground due to suspicion on the quarters from which they were emanating. Even then, the federal government has said time without number that it is not averse to a peaceful end to the crises.

All these go to underscore the point that Obasanjo’s carrot approach has been part of the calculations in ending the menace. He may quarrel with the progress in this direction. But he must admit that at no time was that possibility foreclosed.

The point of divergence has been the insistence of the federal government that it cannot negotiate with ghosts. It wants the leaders of the group to come out, table their grievances and commence the negotiations. But because of the atrocities committed by the group, nobody would dare come out to be identified as their leader for fear of reprisals. That has been the main issue even as there is a welter of public opinion against negotiating with such a criminal and murderous group.

Obasanjo cannot claim ignorance of the fact that Boko Haram in its present form is nothing but political grievances masquerading under a religious garb. It has its root in the way the last presidential primaries of the PDP were conducted and he was a prime actor in the events that brought about that pass. That party should hold itself accountable for the orgy of violence unleashed on this country by Boko Haram. The simmering bad blood between Obasanjo and Jonathan is an admission of failure by the PDP led government. At the root of it all, is the touted ambition of Jonathan in 2015. Maybe Obasanjo wants to recompense for his sins in the mortal mistake of scuttling the zoning arrangement of his party. That could be the potent handle to Boko Haram insurgency.

January 14, 2013
A New Nigerian nation

President Goodluck Jonathan has in the last two weeks, been speaking on his vision for Nigeria this year. Apart from making lofty promises on development projects that will usher in employment and create wealth, he also touched on other non-tangible variables upon which real progress of this country will ultimately predicate.

This was encapsulated in his new vision of Nigeria where everybody will be involved in the task of nation building. For him, Nigerians should brace up for the task of nation-building as the task of developing the country should not be left to the government alone. He would want us to celebrate the New Year with higher emphasis on national unity, peace, stability and progress above other considerations.

Though this exhortation is not entirely new, it touched on some of the irreducible decimals for our continued survival as a nation. We can therefore ignore the central thesis of this presentation at a great peril. This is especially so at this stage of our national life where fissiparous and centrifugal tendencies have increasingly posed the greatest obstacles to development.

There is a consensus that we must vigorously address the debilitating challenges of our national development for us to survive as a people. The fact that we have continued to trail on the ladder of development indicators despite the enormous resources at our disposal suggests that there are certain issues of our national existence we are yet to get right. And until we meaningfully and realistically identify and address them, this country will continue to falter.

It is not enough to be a naturally endowed country. It is also not sufficient that we are an oil producing country reaping bountifully from its competitive price in the international market. These are not sufficient to launch us into the orbit of greatness. After all, there are countries doing pretty well in terms of development even without such a comparative advantage.

That seems to be the central issue thrown up by Jonathan when he urged every Nigerian to be involved in the task of nation building and not to leave it for the government alone. It must be stated that nation building and national development do not essentially connote the same meanings. Whereas national development is a more embracing terminology that even encapsulates nation building, the latter involves the psychological reorientation of the citizens to inculcate in them, a sense of common national identity. It seeks to construct a common sense of belonging, cohesion and identity from the disparate, centrifugal and plural interests that compete for the loyalty of the citizens. In our case, it seeks to build a Nigerian out of the various ethnic and religious groups that have been the greatest sources of national disloyalty. When we achieve that, we will no longer see ourselves as Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba or Ijaw. We will begin to identify ourselves as Nigerians; the same way an American sees himself as an America wherever he finds himself.

It is our inability to forge this common sense of national identity that has in the main, been the greatest obstacle to our national growth and development. Jonathan’s call on all to be involved in the daunting task of nation building is an admission of the inherent difficulty in achieving national development without forging a common sense of national unity and identity. That has been the greatest undoing of this country and its manifestations are palpable in all aspects of our national life. That is why successes in great national endeavors are usually appraised along the confines of how best they satisfied primordial and sectional predilections.

That is why today, ethnic and religious cleavages rather than waning have further reinforced with greater ferocity, posing the greatest threat to the very foundation of this country. It is the same reason that has been largely responsible for the bitter competition for political power at the center. Today, politics is all about what accrues to the various ethnic groups through their elected members. Religion and ethnicity are in constant struggle with the state for the loyalty of the citizens.

There is no way meaningful development can be achieved with such disorientation among the citizenry. That is why some sections of the country are talking of regional development and integration. The propelling force of this thinking is rooted in the loss of faith in the capacity of the Nigerian state as presently constituted, to fast-track even and balanced development of the constituent units.

Incidentally, certain policies of our federal order such as skewed federal structure and residency factor have not helped matters. They have variously worked in the direction of alienating the people from that common sense of national identity direly needed for national progress. Curiously, the elite are the greatest purveyors of these destabilizing tendencies. Tribalism or ethnicity manifest as soon as there are spoils of our common patrimony to be shared. It is an elite commodity that most often does not tally with the feelings of the common people at the grassroots. But the elite take quick resort to it in their quest to gain undue advantage over others. Any genuine effort at nation building must start by whittling down the overbearing influence of ethnicity and religion in the nation’s body politic.

It is the same trend that accounts for the devious successes the Boko Haram religious sect has been recording in its self-assigned militant agenda. It is difficult to talk of nation building in the face of the obstacle to it which that sect represents. Jonathan was right in arguing that nation building should involve all Nigerians.

But there are structural changes that must be effected for quick progress to be recorded in this direction. Our defective federal structure is one. Residency factor is another. A situation the federal government literally controls life and death in this country through the excessive powers at its disposal is an obvious obstacle to nation building. Devolution will go a long way in reducing the acrimony that go with power struggles at the centre. With it, the constituent units will be more creative and focus more of their creative talents on how to elevate the living standards of their people through harnessing resources of comparative advantage.

It is also a discredit to nation building that we are yet to settle the controversy surrounding the residency factor. A country that discriminates in employment matters and the enjoyments of the rights that go with citizenship because of state of origin cannot hope to forge a common sense of identity from it. Today many states prefer to employ foreigners instead of skilled Nigerians from other states. In some others those that were employed several years back have been sacked for no justifiable reason than they hailed from other states. And we want to build a nation out of this ruinous practice.

These and other inequities of our federal structure are matters to be addressed for Jonathan to approximate nation building of his dream. Good enough some of the identified challenges are currently before the national assembly for possible amendment. Jonathan should identify with such amendments if he is serious on the matter.

January 7, 2013
Jonathan’s New Year resolution

When President Jonathan spoke last week on the goodies awaiting Nigerians in the New Year, it must have been to allay their frustrations in the inability of his regime to deliver since it came on stream. He had told his audience in Kaduna not to lose hope as the New Year will be better in all aspects of their lives. He said things will be better in 2013 and he will perform better in the New Year.

Hear him, “the New Year shall be better in terms of job creation, wealth creation and security”. For a people who have been living in utter despair on account of the daunting challenges facing the country, these new year promises must have come as a very pleasant surprise.

Coming on the eye of the New Year, these promises might as well pass as Jonathan’s New Year resolutions. It is very common in our clime for people to make resolutions on what they intend to do or not do in the New Year as part of the pact they have with their God.

Most often, these resolutions come in form of a promise to turn a new leaf in the New Year as a way of atoning for the mistakes and human failings of the past. The practice draws a lot of support from religious tenets which encourage repentance with a firm promise not to fall back to ones decadent life style. If it is this religious zeal that is behind the high hopes the president reposes in the New Year, there is cause to give him the benefit of doubt. It is to be expected that since the promises are measurable, there must be concrete issues on the ground that may not be palpable to the people that give him such hopes. We do not seem to have an alternative than to believe him and then wait for those good things to come especially as the New Year is here.

But the experiences we have had on this clime have been the relative ease with which New Year resolutions are kept in the breach. That is why that practice seems to be on the decline today. Most of those who have been involved in such promises will confess their inability to keep faith with them. We do not expect Jonathan’s will be one of those fading New Year resolutions. And since hope plays a very vital role in sustaining life, we must not be seen to be losing hope in the prospects of the future. The future or the social dynamics of history has a way of resolving nature’s numerous problems. So we must be prospective as a people.

There is therefore very good reason for us to believe our president. Admitting that the changes might be coming slowly, he was optimistic that soon they will manifest in terms of better well-being of the people. Jonathan further cited the slight improvements in electricity supplies, as evidence of the good things to come if Nigerians exercise some patience.

It would appear that we have no alternative than to take the president the way he has presented himself to us. After all, we have managed to live with these problems. Now we have been told that some respite is underway, we should have cause to heave a sigh of relief.

The issues Jonathan touched on hinge on the survival of this country and its people. Unemployment is so grave today that something urgent has to be done to remedy the situation. It is a matter of grave concern that with the astronomical increase in the number of universities, not much has been done to create jobs for the products of those institutions.

This is so despite the huge resources which mother nature has bountifully endowed this nation. In the face of this, much of our resources are filtered away in bogus projects that have little impact on the lives of the people. Added to this is the embarrassing corruption in official quarters. Despite all the grandstanding on the fight against corruption, the facts on the ground indicate that not much progress has been recorded in this direction.

It will be difficult to create wealth in the face of the unbridled corruption in this country. Today, many families find it extremely difficult to eat one square meal a day. Yet they are daily treated with the embarrassing affluence of those who have had the opportunity to hold positions in government. Nobody cares to ask the source of this overnight wealth. But the many scandals involving politicians, sundry businessmen and critical institutions of government have tended to give out the sources of the questionable wealth. We have heard of the payment of billions of dollars to phoney companies as fuel subsidy without a litre of the commodity brought into our shores. It is good a thing that efforts are being made to put a stop to that scandal. Such efforts should be sustained to free the nation’s resources from the stronghold of sundry buccaneers masquerading as politicians and businessmen. Without confronting corruption in high places it will be neigh impossible to create wealth for a broad segment of the population. It is sad that recent ratings of the nation in the corruption index have made a mess of all the pontifications on the fight against the malaise. Today, politics has become the most profitable business drawing into its fold all manner of characters and charlatans. The lure of politics stems from the fact that it has become the quickest source of easy wealth.

So it is not enough to raise the expectations of the people on the good things that will come their way this year. By this time last year Nigerians were treated with fuel price increase that precipitated riots in many parts of the country. Since after those protests, it has now dawned on our people that fuel subsidy payments have turned out the biggest scandal of our time. Yet we are being told at the slightest opportunity that the only solution to the abuse of the subsidy regime is its complete removal. The purport of this constant reminder is that we should be prepared for another round of fuel price increase. That is why the government has failed to implement those palliatives which it promised would come with the increase.

It is therefore important that the current prosecution of those implicated in the malfeasance should be dutifully pursued. We are desirous in seeing the successful prosecution and conviction of some of the accused as evidence that government is seriously committed to the mater. The cases of former governors standing trial for corruption do not give hope that there is no official plan to cover up these cases through poor prosecution.

Perhaps, the greatest challenge which Jonathan should convince our people that he has a handle to is the issue of insecurity. Even as he was promising that we should hope for the better in that direction, the killing of several people inside a church by religious fundamentalists on the eve of Christmas casts a serious slur on the promise. Insecurity, the type posed by the Boko Haram threat is one challenge that can undo this country. Yet we want to share in the president’s optimism of a brighter and more prospective New Year. As humans we must be optimistic that the New Year will put smiles on the faces of Nigerians. After all, Jonathan is not one of the new generation prophets that win coverts by giving them false hopes.

December 31, 2012
Suswam: Yakowa and Suntai

Obviously, this country is in very perilous times. Events since the death of former Kaduna State governor, Patrick Yakowa and former National Security Adviser, Andrew Azazi and others, in the Navy helicopter crash, have again strongly reinforced this ominous tendency. In these and subsequent reactions can be gleaned all the trappings of a nation in dire stress. It is not hard to observe the perceptible discomfort in peoples’ reactions more so given the way the plane crashed, killing all the occupants barely three minutes after take-off.

Both the presidency and the military echelon have shown visible signs of surprise at the incident. The Navy, while setting up an investigative panel to unravel the circumstances behind the crash, betrayed the same uncomfortable emotions. In a press conference, they not only gave a clean bill of health to the plane but strongly vouched for the competence of their pilots. Even as they would not want to pre-empt the investigations of the panel, it was discernable from their responses that there must be more to the crash than ordinarily meets the eyes.

The same mood was also palpable in the quick deployment of soldiers to the streets of Kaduna, possibly to stave off any breakdown of law and order. The anticipation of a possibility of lawlessness following the crash meant that the people of the state may not see the crash purely as an accident.

This may not be entirely surprising given the security challenges this country has had to contend with for quite sometime now. Kaduna has been a veritable theatre for pre-meditated violence. Much has happened to give room for suspicion and distrust in that state especially given the way the Boko Haram insurgents have carried out their activities. Their devious escapades have been such that deaths in some unclear circumstances are often screened for any links with the group.

Matters have not been helped by the recurring orgy of sectarian crises following bomb attacks on churches by the same Boko Haram religious insurgents.

The state has in the last one year or so, witnessed reprisal attacks between Christians and Muslims each time a place of worship came under attack. The situation has since remained tense but Yakowa managed to maintain some peace albeit; graveyard peace. Yakowa, the first Christian to occupy the number one seat in that former capital of northern Nigeria did not find it easy maintaining the balance. There were also feelings that his emergence as governor following the appointment of Namadi Sambo as aVice President may not have gone down well with some vested interests in that part of the country. And this will not surprise anyone.

It was therefore to be expected that his sudden death could arouse sufficient suspicion and possible violence. Before now, we have been told by no less a person than President Jonathan that some of his cabinet members are also members of the Boko Haram sect. If they could infiltrate his cabinet, there is no gamut of our national engagement that should be possibly considered safe. If any ulterior motive is being ascribed to the crash, it is not out of place. That could explain the deployment of soldiers to the streets as the news of his death filtered.

If that action was not enough to rope in the religious angle to the various possibilities regarding the cause of the accident, the lamentations of Benue State governor, Gabriel Suswam has brought the matter to a level where it can no longer be ignored. Suswam, citing security reports, was said to have told journalists that his life and that of his family were under threat by Boko Haram. He had lamented the fate of the four Christian governors in the north with the death of Yakowa and the fatal air crash involving the Taraba State governor Danbaba Suntai.

Though an aspect of that report has been refuted by his media aide, the issue raised may not get out of public scrutiny in a hurry. Not with the zeal with which Boko Haram has been pursuing its agenda of driving Christians out of the north. Not with the constant targeting of Christian places of worship, killing and maiming of innocent souls. So what is there really to deny by Suswam on the possibility of his family being attacked by the group? It is a trite possibility that if the group has a way of attacking Suswam or his family or any other key government functionary, they will definitely do so. And they have never hidden their intention for mischief. For a group that successfully bombed a Church right inside Jaji and followed it up by subduing the SARS headquarters in Abuja, a governor or his family is definitely a very high impact target. After all, part of the original target of Boko Haram was public institutions and persons before that goal was displaced and they resorted to attacking defenseless and innocent people. But for this goal displacement, public institutions, public personages and their families symbolize that evil which western education represents and constitute the real enemy of the Boko Haram sect. So it will be in line with the propelling motivation of the sect if people in very high places are attacked and possibly decimated.

Perhaps, the aspect of the report Suswam may have found uncomfortable was what was credited to him regarding the fate of Christian governors in the north following the air crashes involving Yakowa and Suntai. Coming from such a high profile person, there is no doubt that it will attract considerable public attention. For a nation that has been fighting hard to avert a religious war on account of the excesses of Boko Haram, his statement could in a way, be considered provocative even as many would prefer that lead to be fully explored. It is a coincidence so curious that it cannot be ignored. Even at that, the reaction of the governors’ forum by insisting on appointing their independent consultant to observe the investigations has with it every element of suspicion and mistrust in the manner these accidents have occurred.

No less a person than Gen. Yakubu Gowon had to cautioned the people of the state to take the matter purely as an accident and not to attach motives to it. Relieving at Kafanchan how he escaped boarding the helicopter that fateful day, he had said “it was an accident. Don’t attach meaning to it. Don’t say it was planned to get rid of some people”. His choice of Kafanchan for these explanations and exhortations is quite instructive.

What these go to underscore is that the crash is not just seen as a mere happenstance. That is why so many groups have shown keen interest in the investigations. And that also accounts for why efforts are being made to calm the people. The Minister of Information Labaran Maku equally spoke along the same line when he recounted just like Gowon that he would have boarded the flight but for destiny.

These may as well be. But there are lessons to learn from the mood and thinking of the people irrespective of the way the investigations go. If any thing, they have aroused our consciousness to the mortal danger Boko Haram has become in our march to nationhood. If people now begin to impute sectional, ethnic or religious meanings to any and every event in this country, it is indicative of the level of drawback the Boko Haram menace has thrown this country into.

It is time to stem this mortal danger else the prediction that Nigeria may turn out a failed state by 2015 may become a self-fulfilling prophesy. May God save us the possibility of such a foreboding cataclysm!

December 24, 2012
Media and sustainable democracy

The oldest definition of democracy is one in which it is conceptualized as, government of the people by the people and for the people.

In ancient Greek city states, it was possible for the people to gather in a square and directly take decisions on issues affecting their common wellbeing.

Overtime, the concept of representative democracy evolved in the fashion of the Kuhnian revolution to supplant direct democracy.

Central to this concept is that government is a social contract between the people and the rulers and the people as the ultimate sovereign, exercise the right of control on their elected representatives.

Periodic elections and separation of powers are necessary conditions for democracy. It is through periodic elections and the checks and balances attendant to separation of powers that democracy derives its greatest attraction over other governance forms. Through periodic elections, the people keep a check on leaders’ activities ensuring that the bad ones among them are voted out at the next round.

Almond and Verba in their classification of political socialization identified three variants of political culture: parochial, subject and participant. For them, the political culture of democracy-civic culture is a combination of the three with the participant variant being the most dominant. By way of contrast, the subject political culture in which the individual makes no input into the system but enjoys the benefit of its output is more easily located in totalitarian states. In the participant variant, the individual has some idea of what the political system is and very well disposed to it. He makes inputs into it and enjoys the benefits from it.

One point that has been bought to the fore is that there are ordered attitudes, orientations, dispositions and roles that must be played by the people for democracy to survive. And in these, the media have an indispensable role to play.

The 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in chapter (1) 4(1and 2) vested the legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the National Assembly which shall have the powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the federation or any part thereof.

Section 14 (2a) stated that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this constitution derives its powers and authority; while (2c) guarantees the participation by the people in their government.

It went further in section 22 to state that the press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people.

One recurring issue so far is that government is an institution of the people and exists in the main, for their collective good. An essential element of representative government is the legislature through which elected leaders make laws for the general wellbeing of the people.

Through periodic elections, the people constantly ensure that those who exercise mandate on their behalf use them for public good. This entails regular monitoring of the activities of elected representatives through reports, write-ups and analysis in the media. Monitoring could also be direct or through other informal means. And in this monitoring and keeping a tab on their activities, the media have a very indispensable role to play. Through the media, the people get to know what their representatives do in the national Assembly; their contributions to debate and how reflective of their wishes and aspirations they are. Through the media also, they are able to articulate their preferences on the conduct of legislative activities thereby contributing to the law making process. Misuse of power is expected to attract reprisals- rejection of that representative at the next round of elections. There is also the power of recall of errant lawmakers which is vested on the people of the constituency. These key powers of the people act as a check against the excesses of law makers and work in the direction of responsible conduct which in turn, strengthens democratic practices. For these to happen, there must be free and unhindered flow of information. That is where the freedom of information Act cues in. For the media to play this role very effectively, it must be driven by public interest. The media could also become an impediment to this role especially if money and muscle power get control over it to the point of becoming an economic exercise rather than driven by public good. It is in this regard that some authorities have come up with the term Media Democracy. The driving idea here is that the media must be independent, plural and democratic in its ownership and role perception for it to effectively discharge these functions without which democracy cannot survive.

Information being the basis for decision-making, there is no doubt that the amount of it available to the people bears direct correlation to their ability to influence legislative outcome. It is a three directional thing involving input, output and feedback. The media convey relevant information on the feelings of the people to the legislature. It also conveys to the general public happenings at the legislature thus increasing their awareness on such events. These in turn, influence action and elicit response from the public which is conveyed back to elected leaders through a feedback system.

Access to information is essential to the health of democracy for at least two basic reasons. First, it ensures that people make responsible, informed decisions rather than act in ignorance or misinformation.

Second, information serves as “checking function” by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oath of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them.

In some societies, an antagonistic relationship between the media and the government represents a vital and healthy element of full functioning democracy.

The national assembly through its oversight functions interfaces with other critical institutions of government.

Through it, elected leaders ensure that public institutions are run in the overall public good. Since the new dispensation, we have seen such probe committees as the ones on fuel subsidy scandal and the capital market as well as those on constitutional amendment.

These are responses to concerns by the people on the fraudulent manner fuel subsidy payments and the Capital Market have been managed in this country. The constitutional amendment process is responding to public agitations for a constitution that represents their wishes and aspirations. Most of the issues slated for discussion: state creation, residency clause, State police, local government autonomy and immunity clause have been in the public domain for sometime now.

The essence of the public hearings is to give the people a say in the amendment process given that the 1999 constitution being a product of the military did not have inputs from the people.

In this desire to give the people a say in the constitutional amendment process, the media have a pivotal role in providing the necessary information and education that will aid decision.

But the media must be credible, objective, independent and responsible for it to positively influence public perception and action.

Excerpts from a paper at a UNDP capacity workshop for the press corps of the Senate held in Makurdi, Benue State.

December 17, 2012
Media and terrorism

What should be the role of the media in the fight against terrorism in this country, has of recent been a matter for public scrutiny. In the last couple of days, this relationship has been the major concern of security agencies, the government and the discerning public.

The spokesman of the Joint Taskforce on Terrorism JTF, Col. Sagir Musa was the first to fire the salvo. In a well presented and very engaging article widely published in the media, he made spirited efforts to draw attention to the nexus between regular reportage of acts of terrorism in the media (albeit through sensationalism) and the festering of the malaise.

He contended that publicity is the oxygen of terrorism and that modern terrorists employ media terrorism to oil their dastardly acts. Musa further argued that terrorism makes sense only when it is conspicuous in that targets are selected for maximum propaganda and publicity value.

Also at a security training programme for the media, the Director-General of the State Security Services SSS, Ekpenyong Ita, arguing along the same line said terrorists craved for media attention. Hear him, “when they carry out attacks, they want as much publicity as possible and when the media sensationalize such an attack, the terror groups have achieved their objectives of getting wide publicity which is aimed at intimidating and instilling fear in the people”

The presidency through Doyin Okupe also spoke in a similar vein while reacting to a media report to the effect that nowhere is safe in Nigeria.

The issues raised above would appear novel given our recent experience with the scourge of terrorism. Because we are experiencing it for the first time, there is the temptation to view these concerns as a challenge peculiar to Nigeria. And given the way things are handled in this country, it may not take long before the media are made to take vicarious responsibility for the ravaging insecurity accentuated by the activities of the dreaded Boko Haram sect.

There is a sense in which these arguments could be pursued and the inevitable impression created that the media have become the greatest impediment to the fight against terrorism. This is more so with spirited efforts to construct a link between terrorism and the media seen by our security experts as the oxygen without which the former cannot survive. But this claim cannot find support for the very simple fact that one precedes the other. Terrorism takes place before the media record accounts of its deadly and devastating consequences. There is therefore a limit beyond which we cannot hold the media liable for the festering acts of terrorism. Moreover, it has neither been established nor can it be established that publicity is the driving force for terrorism undertakings. From what we know all over the world, acts of terrorism are largely driven by such societal malaise as injustice, religious fundamentalism, poverty and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, class or religion.

Terrorism is propelled and sustained by perceived grievances. And in all instances of terrorism, these grievances are articulated by its promoters and not difficult to locate. The Boko Haram sect has been very unambiguous in its demands from the Nigerian state. It is opposed to western education and committed to imposing an Islamic state in the country. These are some of their known demands and grouses. It was therefore not surprising that as soon as the government made clear it was not interested in negotiations with them and proceeded to place ransom on the heads of their leaders, they selected targets for maximum impact to demonstrate their capacity for evil. And they succeeded in doing just that.

The bombing of a church right inside Jaji and the assault at the SARS headquarters in Abuja soon after that pronouncement, illustrate this point most poignantly. If the media proceeds to document these occurrences in the interest of the reading public, they are only acting within the confines of their profession calling. It will therefore be incorrect to convey the impression that the media provides the necessary and sufficient conditions for terrorism to thrive as our security chiefs have sought to do.

Even then, the media have not equally fared well in the hands of terrorists. Terrorists have variously targeted and levied maximum harm on media organizations and practitioners. They have been accused of bias in reporting and documenting the activities and views of the terrorists. The bombing of some media houses in Abuja and Kano by terrorists not long ago, was on account of perceived bias on the part of the media against them. They specifically accused the Thisday Newspaper of distorting reports by not publishing some press statements emanating from them.

What this underscores is that the media are at the receiving end both from the point of view of the government and the terrorists. The government would want the media to thread softly in the manner they disseminate information on terrorist activities given that their aim in selecting targets for maximum impact is to get maximum publicity and instill fear in the public. This could as well be. But it is also the responsibility of the same government with the benefit of this strategy at its disposal, to make it impossible for them to reach such sensitive and high impact targets that will make for ‘sensational’ news for the media. If the military authorities and the police echelon could not adequately secure Jaji and SARS headquarters resulting to that unmitigated assault, they should squarely take the blame. If they cannot through surveillance and intelligence gathering nip these tendencies in the bud, they could be the real source of that oxygen for terrorist action. Moreover, the media have a social responsibility in regularly drawing attention to these terrorist acts. They draw the attention of the government to the festering phenomenon with a call for more action and alert the public to the dangers they poses to their lives. If the government wants less of these reports, it must do more to tame the mortal danger terrorism has become on these shores.

Admittedly, there are bound to be some excesses in the manner some sections of the media handle some reports especially given the advent of what is now known as the social media. Their largely unstructured nature gives ample room for abuse. But this affects all spheres of the society and not limited to terrorism. The issues raised by our security chiefs are not entirely novel.

Before now, the role of the media in the fight against terrorism had engaged global attention. P. Wilkinson sees a symbiotic relationship between terrorism and the media.

But the dilemma in this relationship was succinctly captured by C.A Damm when he contended that terrorists are dependent on the publicity they receive and the media acquire from the terrorists that staple in news reporting: an event newsworthy, unexpected and violent which the public is drawn attention to hear. This appears a more apt way of representing the predicament of the media in the reportage terrorism in a country like ours.

December 10, 2012
South-East discord

If you ask the average Nigerian the likely reaction of people of the south-east to any political issue that concerns their common destiny, his most probable answer would be disagreement. In line with this perception, the zone has been constantly portrayed as incapable of reaching consensus on issues affecting them. And sometimes, this contrived dissonance has proved a very convenient excuse to deny them their rights within the larger federal set up.

Not unexpectedly, the actions or inactions of some of those who have been thrown up as their leaders in the last 42 years or so have not helped matters in sustaining this negative ascription to once a very organized and very cohesive group. In the competition among the dominant groups for the spoils of our common being, no body has cared whether this malignant culture is real or imaginary; imposed or part of the social formation of the people of the area.

As the so-called inability or incapacity of people of the south-east to speak with one voice is being elevated beyond reasonable proportions, nobody has given a thought to why this has been so. No body seemed to have realized that it was the same group, armed with bare hands and crude implements that waged a 30-month war against the rest of the federation. If they were such a culturally disorganized group; if they had no leaders and respect for leadership; if dissension is part of their political culture, could they have carried out that feat as a people?

This poser takes us closer to the main thesis of our presentation and it is that the Igbo are not a culturally disorganized or disoriented group as they are being portrayed. They are also not incapable of reaching consensus on issues of their common existence. It will be helpful to locate the source of this conduct and subsequent stigmatization. Put in another way, we need to locate at what point in the relationship between the people of the zone and others this schism set in. Without fear of contradiction, it would appear to me that this stigmatization is of a very recent history; and it is largely an imposition from the outside. It derives it force from events since after the civil war and was deliberately created by Nigerian leaders so that no strong voice could ever rise up again from that zone. It was in the interest and part of the strategy of the Nigerian government to ensure that the people do not easily reach common grounds for fear that cohesion could lend itself to actions supposedly against national unity. This assertion might sound controversial or even absurd or both but it finds ample justification from events since after that civil war.

It started with the appointment of marginal Igbo people into key federal slots meant for the zone during the years the military held sway. These yes members ensured they did the bidding of those who appointed them. They were neither answerable to their people nor did they have compelling reasons to identify with their genuine wishes and aspirations. They were constantly under the prying eyes of their masters who ensured they did their bidding. Any attempt to identify with their people is viewed from the prism of trying to resurrect the memories of the civil war. It became very fashionable for such appointees to take pride in not identifying with their people. In some instances, they openly stood against the collective interests of their people. And who are you to query them?

With the departure of the military, we had thought that such impositions had gone for good. But we were wrong. Obasanjo who became the president in 1999 took serious steps to ensure that this culture of imposition of sundry characters as Igbo leaders continued. Events in Anambra state then were ample testimony to this conclusion. Even though there was a governor elected by the people, Obasanjo raised surrogates who never allowed the governor to rest.

Those thrown up and who overnight became the conscience of the people in a state that had people like Alex Ekwueme, became a source of immense consternation to many.

This charade continued even when Chris Ngige emerged the governor after his predecessor Chinwoke Mbadinuju was refused the ticket of his party by the same powers that be. We cannot forget in a hurry the abduction of Ngige and the unsuccessful attempt to depose him by a band of faceless people. We cannot also forget the criminal assault on the government house Awka and the destructions that followed. Till date, nothing has come out of it and no body to the best of my knowledge has been held culpable for that show of shame and an unmitigated assault on democracy.

But somebody somewhere was stoking that assault and division in that state. Is it not surprising that that act of criminality was very conveniently covered up as if nothing went wrong? Those who traduce the people of the south-east for failing to reach consensus on issues affecting them will soon turn around and cite these sponsored official malfeasance as evidence of their claim. But as proposed earlier, the Anambra case demonstrates very poignantly that these divisions are largely inflamed from outside.

As soon as this institutional interest in keeping the people permanently divided wanes, we will come to realize that the Igbo are not that a disorganized, fragmented and non consensual group. But for the same conspiracy, Ekwueme was sure to emerge as the civilian president in 1999 after he worked tirelessly to build the People’s Democratic Party PDP. Was it the much orchestrated lack of consensus among his people that denied him the fruits of his hard labor? Was he not sidelined and relegated to the background even as some charlatans from his state were constantly beamed to us as genuine leaders of the party? And you want consensus to come out of that madness? That is the real source of the problem and we need to admit it.

The point being raised here is that the much touted discord is a direct consequence of the policies of the federal government of Nigeria towards that zone since after the civil war. It will therefore not be out of place if this policy has some influence on the people on whom it has been applied over these years. Expectedly, sundry characters basking on the enormous influence of outside sponsors have gotten swollen headed; not amenable to group influence and discipline. But that cannot represent the conduct of the majority who are intricately linked to their zone through their various unions and associations.

It will be grossly unfair to stick to this transitory discord as an excuse for constantly denying the zone its due within the larger federation.

Two key issues the zone yearns for among others are: a shot at the presidency and the additional consensual state. No matter how cohesive the zone can be on these issues, they cannot possibly go it alone. They need the cooperation and goodwill of all other groups in the federation to realize them.

Lack of cooperation from other zones rather than the envisaged discord from the south-east is going to be the greatest impediment to the realization of these genuine aspirations. We need to prove this conclusion wrong by appreciating the merits of the demands and giving effect to them rather than focusing on observed shortcomings of the zone.

December 3, 2012
Jonathan, Obasanjo and terrorism

President Goodluck Jonathan and former President Olusegun Obasanjo have been embroiled in some controversy over the appropriate strategy to tame the scourge of terrorism in this country. Obasanjo believes Jonathan’s response to the Boko Haram menace has been rather slow. For him, Boko Haram would have been nipped in the bud if the government had been fast, as according to him, he did in Odi in 1999 when he deployed troops there. But Jonathan disagreed, contending that the deployment of troops in Odi did not solve the problem of militancy in the Niger Delta region. Rather, that exercise resulted in the premature termination of the lives of mainly old men, women and children. He was also very emphatic that none of those militants was killed in that invasion even as it did not succeed in stopping militancy. To him therefore, that exercise did not achieve the desired objective and to that extent was a failure.

Apparently piqued by these assertions, Obasanjo, through his former spokesman Femi Fani-Kayode has come out strongly to justify his invasion of Odi in Bayelsa and Zaki Biam in Benue states arguing that the objective of both operations was to uproot terrorists and discourage their resort to the killing of law enforcement agents. For him, after both exercises, the killing of soldiers and police men diminished in those areas.

But Obasanjo seemed to have contradicted himself when he sought to argue that he never recommended the “Odi treatment” to be adopted to quell the Boko Haram onslaught. He claimed that what he meant was that “a solution ought to have been found or some sort of action ought to have been taken sooner rather than allow the problem fester overtime like a bad wound and get worse”

If that is the new argument, what was the purpose in drawing parallels between his handling of the Odi killings and Jonathan’s handling of the security challenge posed by the Boko Haram insurgency? Why did he not go ahead to say what he had in mind rather than engage in comparisons that have tended to convey the impression that he is recommending the Odi approach to the festering Boko Haram challenge? It would appear to any discerning mind that the latest attempt by Obasanjo to clarify what he had in mind by comparing his approach to the Odi affair with the current handling of the Boko Haram insurgency cannot tie up. It looks more like an attempt to revise himself apparently having realized the incongruity in any attempt to equate one to the other.

The truth of the matter is that the security challenge posed by the killing of policemen and soldiers by the militants is substantially different from the current terrorism levied on the nation by the Boko Haram menace. While the militants were demanding greater share in the resources which nature benevolently bestowed at their backyards and compensation from years of exploitation through pollution, the propelling imperative of Boko Haram is substantially different. Its grouse is with western education even as it intends to impose an Islamic state in this country. In terms of venting their grievances, the approaches of the two are also very different. The militants largely targeted oil installations, facilities and their personnel especially foreigners whom they kidnapped, extracted ransom from and subsequently released. Some of their captives were unlucky as they did not come out alive.

But Boko Haram is a different thing altogether. It is a classic case of a well organized terrorist and fundamentalist religious group pursuing some weird ideology. Its original claim to be pursuing an anti- western agenda has been contradicted by the senseless killing of innocent people through its suicide bomb attacks targeted at churches. Apart from its initial attack on the United Nations building in Abuja which wreaked immense havoc on lives and property, the churches and their worshippers have been the greatest victims of these senseless attacks. This gives the impression that the ultimate agenda of the sect is to impose Islamic religion in this multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious country.

Besides, militancy was largely limited to the creeks in some areas of the Niger Delta region but Boko Haram has its operational base in the northern part of the country even as its activities are more felt in some states than others. I am not well groomed either in military science or military theories. So what can be considered eclectic in handling the challenges posed by the Odi matter and the Boko Haram onslaught is better left to military experts.

But one thing that seems to stand out very distinctly is that the two cannot be handled in a similar fashion as Obsanjo’s comparison would lead us to believe.

Before now, we have been told that one of the factors that fuelled the Boko Haram insurgency was the brutal manner their leader Muhammed Yusuf and his followers were killed in Maiduguri some years back. It was for the same reason that the same Obasanjo had to meet with some leaders of the Yusuf group in a peace deal brokered by the leader of the northern civil society coalition, Mallam Shehu Sani. If the Maiduguri operation which can in some way be compared to the Odi invasion became the leitmotif for the upsurge of the sect’s insurgency, it stands to reason that that strategy proved counterproductive in the circumstance. Instead of stopping the group, it rather reinforced their determination to wage an all out war against the government. It is doubtful given its spread and operational mode, Boko Haram can be wiped out through the type of operation Obasanjo conducted in Odi. But then, that operation as we have been told by Jonathan did not even succeed in uprooting militancy.

Even then, some northern leaders have been crying out against the activities of the Joint Military Taskforce JTF in areas suspected of harboring the insurgents. There have been allegations that each time there is a bomb explosion or an attack on the JTF in an area, their response will be to cordon off that area and raze it down. In such operations, innocent souls suffer immeasurably, they seem to be arguing. The point being canvassed here is that the Odi approach is in a way also playing out in the handling of the Boko Haram sect. The whole idea of razing down hamlets where some insurgents are suspected to be residing is guilty of punishing the innocent for crimes they know nothing about. So if this is the approach Obasanjo had in mind, it is in some sense being applied in the war against Boko Haram. But as events have shown, it has proved unsuccessful in taming the monster.

Moreover, we have also been told that Boko Haram has serious foreign backing as our porous northern boarders have been exploited to their devious benefit. It is therefore very unlikely that given the spread in its activities; agenda, lethal sophistication and doctrinaire motivation, Boko Haram can lend itself to the Odi handle. It possibly cannot.

Again, the fight against terrorism is now a global affair. It may be an exercise in wishful thinking to suggest that an all out war can be a solution to it. And since ours is a very recent development, we need to get at those political, social and developmental issues that are at the root of this insurgency. We also need to get at the root of those sponsoring it for us to overcome the menace. Rather than military action, what has failed us most in this matter has been either the dearth of intelligence information or lack of the political will to confront the little information at our disposal.

November 26, 2012
Buhari in Boko Haram’s matrix

Keen observers of events will have little difficulty in accepting that the recent peace offer by a group purporting as the dreaded Boko Haram religious sect was destined to die prematurely. For one, the person who announced the supposed deal (one Abdulazeez),the conditions attached to it and the names of those to intercede on behalf of the sect, were issues that at once, cast doubt in the minds of discerning public.

Matters were not equally helped by the inclusion of Gen. Muhammed Buhari, a key opponent of the present regime of Jonathan as the coordinator of the supposed peace talk. His nomination meant so many things to different people. Predictably, Nigerians were torn between those urging Buhari to accept the offer albeit in the overall interest of peace and those who viewed the issue from a contrary perspective.

Buhari was therefore left with two difficult choices: to accept the offer or refuse it. He opted for the latter. Decision theorists are interested in whether the preferred choice of Buhari was the best for him in the circumstance. In other words, was his choice rational; capable of minimizing his losses in the event of the worst outcome? And what were the possible consequences or stakes in reacting either way? We shall return to this later.

Before now, we have been made to believe by key personages in the north that there are at least three faces of the Boko Haram insurgency. By their logic, there is the original Boko Haram which has axe to grind with the government for killing its leader Mohammed Yusuf and several of his followers. This represents the authentic Boko Haram that is intent in installing an Islamic state in the country and doing away with anything western. As at today, the acclaimed leader of that group is one Sheikh Shekau.

There is also the criminal Boko Haram that manifests in the robbing and killing of innocent souls. The fact of this group which has no identified leader is given credence by repeated disclaimers from the Shekau group denouncing some criminal activities undertaken in its name.

The third is a simulated group suspected to be part of the strategy of the government to break the ranks of the real Boko Haram. No less a person than Mallam Shehu Sani, leader of the Northern Civil Society Coalition shares this view. He had in a recent interview, claimed that some of these scams called peace initiatives were “perpetrated by people at the highest levels of government and security” He cited the peace deal which the Minister of Information and the President’s spokesman affirmed to have been held sometime ago in Saudi Arabia but which Shekau denounced as one of such scams in high quarters.

Given the above scenario, what were the options really available to Buhari when one Abdulazeez, purporting to be deputy leader of the sect named him as the coordinator of the supposed peace negotiations? His immediate reaction would be that of suspicion. Suspicion because the name Abdulazeez was for the first time being sold to the public as an authentic representative of the real Boko Haram even when the acclaimed leader Shekau, has not said anything.

Above all, the speed with which the federal government accepted the offer together with the list of all those named to represent the sect were enough to fuel another round of suspicion.

Predictably, Buhari rejected the offer out rightly. He based his reasons on the existence of three shades of Boko Haram. For him, there is the Boko Haram represented by the slain Muhammed Yusuf protesting injustice by the Nigerian state. There is equally a band of criminals cashing in on the insecurity in that part of the country to rob, maim and kill innocent people in its name. Jonathan presidency which has displayed crass inability to tame the monster is seen by Buhari as another manifestation of Boko Haram.

For these, he seemed to be contending that it will be an exercise in self-destruction to accept an offer coming from a very questionable quarter. And he is absolutely right. This is more so when Shekau, the authentic leader of the Muhammed Yusuf group is not known to be in the picture of the latest peace deal.

That apart, accepting such an offer could lend itself to misinterpretation given his position as a key opposition leader in this country. His detractors could capitalize on it as evidence that he has links with a sect that has levied war on the country, killing thousands of innocent citizens, destroying churches and private buildings of inestimable value. For someone who still nurses presidential ambition, that would amount to political suicide on his own part. His political party the CPC rose to this trap when it accused the PDP of contriving to smear Buhari by linking him to the dangerous sect.

It would appear therefore that the most rational choice open to Buhari given the circumstance was to reject the offer emanating from very questionable quarters. Neither the arguments bordering on the imperative of ensuring peace nor the dictates of the roles envisaged of a supposed statesman are enough to mitigate the personal risks which acceptance could expose him to. He had to bow to the logic of self preservation. That is rational calculation; rational choice.

But the federal government did not help matters by aiding this suspicion through its hurried acceptance of the contentious deal. The indecent haste with which it accepted the offer; all those nominated by the group and Saudi Arabia as the venue, will remain largely foggy. This is more so when it is realized that the initial peace negotiations which the same government was said to have held in that same country sometime ago, were roundly spurned by Shekau. And till date, nothing has come out of it. Was that not enough for the government to have smelt a rat if it had no hand in the events that produced this supposed new deal?

We are yet to be told who brokered that botched peace deal in Saudi Arabia and how much of our national funds were put into it. Sani feels that deal was a scam and he may be right. He also thinks the latest one may follow the pattern of the one before it because those purporting to be speaking for the authentic sect are not known to be the real leaders of the group. As someone who has made some attempt to get the matter resolved and who maintains some link with the group, we have no reason not to take Sani seriously.

It is curious why the government would prefer to deal with the Abdulazeez group when the real promoters of the violence that has held this nation prostrate are not part of the calculation. At the point we are, nothing seems to be happening and the supposed peace deal has hit the rocks.

Perhaps, the objective of these spurious peace deals is to give the impression that the government is interested in negotiating with the group. This view further contends that the objective is to stave off accusations that it prefers force to dialogue as a way out of the security challenge. Jonathan has also been accused of not applying the same measure the late Yar’Adua adopted that saw the end to the Niger Delta militancy. All these could be said. But Boko Haram must show it is genuinely desirous of dialogue. For now, there is no serious indication from the Shekau group that they are seriously committed to ending the mass murder that has trailed their activities. And that is the unfortunate thing about these peace talks.

November 19, 2012
Jombo-Ofo: Matters arising

Every stunning scenario played out in Abuja last week at the inauguration of the newly appointed Justices of the Court of Appeal. Following the release of a list of 12 Justices for the ceremony, prospective beneficiaries had come to the venue full of expectations. But the unexpected happened. One of those listed, Justice Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo was not that lucky.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Mukhtar refused to swear her in ostensibly on account of petitions alleging that the state she represents (Abia) is not her state of origin. Justice Jombo-Ofo had served Abia state for many years following her marriage to Mr. Jombo-Ofo, an indigene of the state. But she originally hailed from Anambra state.

Apparently sensing danger, Abia state governor, Theodore Orji was at hand to make a special case for Justice Jombo-Ofo. But all his entreaties came to naught. He was also said to have written to the CJN affirming that Abia state actually nominated Justice Jombo-Ofo and that she is from the state.

Perhaps, unknown to him, the CJN was relying on a subsisting, nay obnoxious policy in the judiciary that prevents married women from reaching the peak of their career in their husbands’ state irrespective of their qualifications and suitability for the post. Curiously, it was the same office that cleared her for the swearing in. For that, the hopes of this eminently qualified and promising Justice were dashed and she had to go home with her admirers and well wishers utterly disappointed.

The fate of Justice Jombo-Ofo has once again highlighted the inadequacies of some of the policies in the nation’s statute books. And in spite of the reasons that originally informed their formulation, some of them have consistently proved counterproductive in elevating our collective aspirations as a people. Instead of merit they have tended to promote mediocrity by placing very qualified candidates into serious disadvantage on account of their state of origin. We are thus faced with irreconcilable contradictions in barring married justices from ascending the peak of their career solely on account of having hailed from a different state before their marriage. Not only is such a policy discriminatory and stale, it is difficult to fathom the purpose it is meant to serve or how it can elevate the job of the judiciary. By preventing married women from reaching the topmost echelons of their professions, the policy no doubt, sacrifices merit for political expediency. Such a policy will be inherently deficient in promoting the cause of an efficient and virile judicial system. What sense is there in discouraging and disqualifying merit on the spurious ground that the woman did not originally hail from that state even when she had been married there for so many years? It is akin to denying married women employment in their husbands’ states because they happened to come from other states. It remains to be seen the type of values we seek to promote by insisting on that obviously very retrogressive policy. Regrettably, such an anachronistic and unprogressive policy has been allowed to stay in our statute books even as it has outlived its usefulness.

One also finds it an uncanny twist of fate that governor Theodore Orji was the person who fought this discriminatory policy without success. His state not long ago, sacked workers in its employ for the simple reason that they are non indigenes. Despite all appeals, he did not budge. He can now appreciate the feelings of those workers he sacked for the very spurious reason that they hailed from other states.

Jombo-Ofo is just one out of the several justices that have suffered incalculably on account of this useless policy. It may have been designed to ensure that top judicial offices meant for states go to their indigenes. That could as well be. But there is everything wrong in the thinking that a woman married in a particular state cannot be regarded as an indigene of that state even as her children are accorded the full rights and privileges of that state. This does not make any sense. It is even more confounding to require such women to get their nominations from their original states. It cannot work that way. What the policy has succeeded in achieving is to place a permanent hurdle on the career prospects of women married in states other than the one they originally hailed from.

Such a policy is out of tune with the realities of the time and ought to be expunged from our statute books without further delay. It is a matter of regret that female judicial officers have had to live with this retrogressive policy for years without drawing public attention to it. They should therefore share in the blame for keeping quiet in the face of a discriminatory and strangulating policy. Above all, the policy has once again drawn attention to such contentious and unresolved issues of our federal structure as residency factor and indigeneship.

It is at this point that the recent intervention of a retired justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Olufunlola Adekeye cues in very appropriately.

In a speech to mark her retirement from the Supreme Court, she had implored the CJN, the Chief Judges of states, the Judicial Service Commission and the National Judicial Council to review the policy barring married women from reaching the peak of their career in their husbands’ states. She noted that complaints of this nature are increasingly rampant in the judiciary and that since married women transfer their services to their husbands’ state, it is logical and in compliance with the tenets of marriage that the two become one. This goes without saying.

The retired Justice further contended that it is “unconstitutional as well as discriminatory to deprive her of her promotion in her acquired state as a citizen of Nigeria by virtue section 42 of 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”

Justice Adekeye has said it all. She has not only exposed the contradictions in the policy but gone a step further to show how that policy is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution. However, it still remains puzzling why key functionaries as well as the regulating authorities in the judicial system allowed it to hold sway in spite of its negative effects on the moral and career progression of married women. Perhaps, if the women had spoken out before now, the embarrassment suffered by Jombo-Ofo and others before her would have been averted.

Good a thing, the attention of the National Assembly has been drawn to this embarrassing regulation. Obviously piqued by that show of shame, the senate had in a motion voted against the policy and directed the CJN to swear in Jumbo-Ofo without further delay. That is the right thing to do.

Now that the national assembly is in the process of constitutional amendment, it must work to identify all laws and policies that promote discrimination based on sex, marriage, religion or state of origin and expunge them from the ground norms of this country. We need policies that can tap from the best brains in the country irrespective of mundane considerations. We need laws that can pool the creative resources and energies of our various peoples for collective national progress. It is time to discard worn-out and rusty laws and policies from our statute books for those that conform to global best practices.

November 12, 2012