Category: Femi Macaulay

By Femi Macaulay

Developing Nigeria requires developing and maintaining its infrastructure. Minister of Works and Housing Babatunde Fashola has a significant role in the infrastructure renewal, expansion and development programme of the President Muhammadu Buhari administration.

It is a responsibility that demands, in Fashola’s words, “an expansion mentality.” His work and the passion he brings to it highlight the connection between infrastructure development and economic development.

When Fashola visited Lagos last week to inspect federal bridges in the state, he was reported saying more than 50 bridges were undergoing repairs and renovation across the country in line with the Federal Government’s national asset maintenance programme.  The ongoing bridge maintenance and rehabilitation programme in Lagos is part of the big picture.

It is noteworthy that there are 524 ongoing road projects across the country. Each state has at least three ongoing road projects, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja. At least 80 of the 524 projects are scheduled for completion in 2020/2021.

Fashola was quoted as saying when he updated the Federal Executive Council (FEC) on the ongoing road and bridge construction/ rehabilitation nationwide: “The projects on completion will bring about reduced travel time, lower vehicle operating costs and improve the comfort of road users as well as improve the ease of doing business in the country and ultimately boost the Nigerian economy.”

The roads include Lagos-Ibadan-Ilorin-Jebba-Kotangora-Jega-Sokoto-Niger Border; Warri-Benin-Lokoja-Abuja-Kaduna-Kano-Daura-Niger Border; Port Harcourt-Aba-Umuahia-Okigwe-Oturkpo-Makurdi-Akwanga-Jos-Bauchi-Maiduguri-Gamboru; and Calabar-Ikom-Ogoja-Katsina Ala-Jalingo-Yola-Bama-Maiduguri.

Others are the Lagos-Otta-Abeokuta-Ibadan; Onitsha-Ihiala-Owerri—A.3 Junction at Umu Uyo; Chikanda, Kosubosu-Kaiama-Kishi-Ilorin; Mayo Belwa-Ganye-Serti-Mayo Selbe-Gembu; and Jibiya-Katsina-Kano.

These federal roads connect states, including the FCT, link cities with high economic activities and carry the majority of heavy vehicular traffic en-route to different parts of the country.

Roads with heavy traffic, roads leading to ports, roads sponsored by counterpart funding, roads that connect border communities, roads leading to agricultural areas and roads within tertiary educational institutions are considered first in deciding on road projects to execute.

Under roads leading to ports, there is the construction of Agaie-Katcha-Barro Road in Niger State and the construction of Baro Port to Gulu Town in Niger State.

Road intervention projects within tertiary educational institutions show that Fashola’s roadworks are not limited to inter-state and inter-city roads.  At University of Benin, work is ongoing on the rehabilitation and asphalt overlay/construction of Reinforced Concrete Drains and Kerbs and Asphaltic Surfacing of three Car parks of 1.1KM Internal Road.

Also, there is rehabilitation and asphalting at Bayero University, Kano; Federal University, Oye Ekiti, Ekiti State; University of Maiduguri, Borno State; Federal University, Lokoja; Federal College of Education, Katsina; Federal University of Technology, Owerri and the University College Hospital, Ibadan.

Others include Kaduna Polytechnic; Federal University, Gashua internal roads, Yobe State and rehabilitation and asphalt overlay of 2.3 km internal road at Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State.

Bridges are important too.  Four bridges are listed under priority projects: the construction of Ibi Bridge across River Benue connecting Taraba and Plateau states, completion of construction of Chanchangi Bridge along Takum-Wukari Road in Taraba State, construction of Ikom Bridge in Cross River State and emergency rehabilitation/maintenance of Third Mainland Bridge in Lagos.

“The Second Niger Bridge is at about 46 percent completion. We hope to commission the project before the end of our tenure in 2023,” President Buhari said when he presented the 2021 Federal Budget Proposals to the Joint Session of the National Assembly. This bridge connecting Asaba in Delta State and Onitsha in Anambra State is perhaps the biggest ongoing bridge project in the country.  The project is progressing under Fashola’s supervision.

Buhari presented road plans, saying his administration has “awarded several contracts to rehabilitate, reconstruct and construct major arterial roads, in order to reduce the hardship to commuters and increase economic activity.”

It is significant that Fashola will oversee the execution of these road projects. His record of performance is reassuring.  The projects are in good hands.  He will be aided by the Buhari administration’s “innovative financing strategies to pull-in private sector investment.”  The president recently approved an Infrastructure Company, an “infrastructure development vehicle, wholly focused on making critical infrastructural investments in Nigeria.”

This Infrastructure Company, according to Buhari, “will raise funding from the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority, the Africa Finance Corporation, pension funds as well as local and foreign private sector development financiers.”

Fashola’s work will also get a boost from the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme. Under this scheme, the federal government is “undertaking the construction and rehabilitation of over 780km of roads and bridges, nationwide, to be financed by the grant of tax credits to investing business.”

Ongoing projects under this scheme include: Construction and Rehabilitation of Lokoja-Obajana-Kabba-Ilorin Road Section II (Obajana-Kabba) in Kogi and Kwara states;  Construction of Apapa-Oworonshoki-Ojota Expressway in Lagos State; and Construction of Bodo-Bonny road with a Bridge across the Opobo Channel in Rivers State.

I saw Fashola at work in January during his two-day tour of Niger State to inspect federal highway and housing projects.  It was serious business carried out in a business-like way. He had emphasised the concept of “road economy” or “the economy of road construction,” pointing out how the road projects have a ripple effect economically.

It’s one thing to develop infrastructure, it’s another thing to maintain infrastructure.  Lack of maintenance is at the core of the country’s infrastructure problem. Fashola had told four journalists who travelled with him about his ministry’s approach regarding the issue of maintenance.  “In each state, every two weeks, a controller must tour all federal roads under their control to detect failures and take action,” he said.

It is clear, as Fashola observed, that an improved road network will improve interconnectivity and boost economic activities. Throughout the tour, he emphasised the importance of infrastructure as “the key driver” of development. “A nation’s wealth is also measured by the quality of its infrastructure,” he stressed. He spoke with conviction, and it was obvious he was driven by conviction.

Developing and maintaining infrastructure requires effort and takes some time. There is no doubt that Fashola is making progress progressively. His roadworks are testimony to his concentration on his responsibility.

Femi Macaulay

 

 

Two recent convictions and sentences for blasphemy in Nigeria attracted public attention and public outrage.  They illustrate the clash between Islamic law, also known as Sharia, and secular law; and show why the supremacy of the country’s secular constitution should be sacrosanct.

An Upper Sharia Court in Kano State, on August 10, found Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, 22, guilty of “insulting religious creed” based on a song he circulated via WhatsApp in March. The Islamic musician’s song was said to have elevated Senegalese Sheikh Ibrahim Niass of the Tijaniyyah Muslim sect above Prophet Muhammad.

The singer had gone into hiding, and protesters had burnt down his family house. The corps commander-general of the state Hisbah board, which is charged with the responsibility of enforcing Sharia, Dr  Sani Ibn-Sina, said the organisation had stopped protesters that gathered at its headquarters from taking the law into their own hands.

Judge Khadi Aliyu Muhammad Kani, who sentenced the singer to death by hanging, said he could appeal against the verdict, which was based on Section 382 (6) of Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law 2000.

On the same day, in the same court, the same judge also sentenced 13-year-old Omar Farouq to 10 years in prison with hard labour for blasphemy. The boy was accused of making derogatory statements about Allah in a public argument. He was tried as an adult because he had attained puberty and had full responsibility under Islamic law. His mother was said to have fled from their home following a mob attack after his arrest.

After his conviction, Sharif-Aminu had 30 days to appeal against the death sentence but Sharia court officials were reported to have unjustifiably denied him access to his lawyers, and also unreasonably delayed in providing copies of the judgement needed to file an appeal.

Indeed, it was only on September 3, six days before September 9 when the period allowed for appeal would lapse, that media reports said he had been able to file a notice of appeal through his lawyer.

Importantly, Sharif-Aminu stated that his trial, conviction, and sentencing “were unconstitutional, null, void having grossly violated and conflicted with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended and having violated the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, respectively.”

Similarly, Farouq’s appeal was filed very close to the end of the period allowed for appeal, on September 7.  The Foundation for Religious Freedom, which filed the appeal on his behalf, observed that the state government “failed, neglected and refused to provide him legal representation despite the existing framework for legal aid in Kano State.”

His appeal also raised the issue of constitutional conflict and rights violation highlighted in the singer’s appeal. UNICEF representative in Nigeria Peter Hawkins said the boy’s case “negates all core underlying principles of child rights and child justice that Nigeria – and by implication, Kano State – has signed on to.”

In both cases, though the convicts were allowed to appeal, they were not encouraged to do so. This means that they were expected to accept their convictions as flawless based on Islamic law. However, the convictions are flawed because they were based on Islamic law in a secular context.  In other words, the Sharia-based convictions are questionable because they are inconsistent with Nigeria’s secularism.

It is disturbing that Kano State Governor Abdullahi Ganduje is enthusiastic about signing Sharif-Aminu’s death warrant, unconcerned about whether the convicted singer got a fair trial. Unmoved by the opposition to the controversial verdict in some quarters, and dismissive of the criticism that execution is an extreme penalty in the circumstances, Ganduje was quoted as saying, “What the court did is absolutely right.”

During a meeting with clerics at the government house in Kano, the governor declared self-righteously: “I will not waste time in signing the warrant for the execution of the man who blasphemed our holy prophet of Islam.”

The governor’s faith-based standpoint is out of place. His position demands more than robotic conformity. He is the governor of a secular state in a secular country. His enthusiasm about signing the Sharia-based death warrant calls into question his understanding of his position as a secular governor.

Ganduje, though a Muslim, is nevertheless expected to rise above religion in this matter, considering the country’s overriding secularism and constitutional provisions protecting rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression.

This death sentence yet again raises fundamental issues about the operation of Sharia in a multi-religious but secular country such as Nigeria where the Islamic system of justice operates in 12 Muslim-majority states in the northern part of the country alongside a secular justice system.

Sharia has been controversial since its introduction in 1999. In 2002, for instance, Amina Lawal was sentenced to death by stoning under Sharia in Katsina State for conceiving a child out of wedlock. The conviction, condemned worldwide, was overturned by the Sharia Court of Appeal in 2004.

Also, one Abdulazeez Inyass, sentenced to death in Kano, in 2016, for blaspheming against Islam, is still on death row because executing a death penalty in Nigeria requires the approval of the state governor. It is curious that Governor Ganduje is eager to approve Sharif-Aminu’s execution but has not approved the death sentence in another case of blasphemy.  In both cases, the death penalty is unacceptable.

It is noteworthy that the first execution under Sharia happened in Katsina State in 2002 when a man was hanged after pleading guilty to murdering a woman and her two children. It is significant that this was a murder case in which the accused accepted guilt.

Blasphemy is another matter entirely.  Death sentence is an extreme penalty in such a case. Amnesty International observed that the death penalty for blasphemy under Sharia “violates Nigeria’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which restricts the use of the death penalty to the ‘most serious crimes’; which according to international law are crimes that involve intentional killing.”

The Kano authorities should not give the impression that Sharif-Aminu’s death sentence cannot be reviewed, or that it is irreversible. The same reasoning applies to Farouq. Imprisoning a 13-year-old boy for a decade with hard labour for blasphemy is an extreme punishment.  Their convictions should not only be reviewed; their sentences should be reversed.

The Sharia question is unavoidable, and must be addressed. There should be no question about the country’s adherence to the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions, and the elevation of sectarianism above secularism should be discouraged.

Although federalism accommodates the distribution of power between a central authority and the constituent units, such an arrangement in Nigeria must not be at the expense of the country’s pivotal secularism.

Applying Sharia in a secular country demands that those responsible for applying it should be conscious of, and be guided by, the country’s overriding secularism.

Femi Macaulay

It takes a sense of honour to decide to leave a high public position simply because it is the honourable thing to do. Dr Wale Babalakin (SAN) demonstrated a sense of principle and a sense of honour by resigning as Pro-Chancellor of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) following his objection to the operation of the seven-member special visitation panel set up by the Federal Government to review the actions of the governing council under him.

The governing council had announced the removal of the vice chancellor, Prof. Oluwatoyin  Ogundipe, “based on investigation of serious acts of wrongdoing, gross misconduct, financial recklessness and abuse of office, ” and named Prof. Theophilus Omololu Soyombo  as acting vice chancellor.

These actions were undone by the Federal Government in a statement on August 21 directing Babalakin and Ogundipe to “recuse themselves from official duties” pending the outcome of the panel’s probe.

The panel was to review the report of the council sub-committee on review of expenditure of the university since May 2017 and make appropriate recommendations after affording all those indicted an opportunity to defend themselves;   examine the steps taken by the council leading to the removal of Ogundipe, and ascertain whether due process was followed as stipulated in the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 2003, and the principle of fair hearing adhered to; and determine whether the process (if any) leading to the appointment of Soyombo  was consistent with the provisions of the enabling Act.

Also, it was to make appropriate recommendations including sanctions for all those found culpable by the special visitation team on the allegations contained in the report as well as other subsequent actions arising therefrom; and make any other recommendations that will assist the government to take decisions that will ensure peaceful, stable and effective administration of the university.

Babalakin’s letter of resignation to the Minister of Education, Mallam Adamu Adamu, dated September 15, was made public shortly after the visitation panel submitted its report to the minister on September 17. Adamu had said  that the visitor of the university, President Muhammadu Buhari,  “after due consideration of the report will take a decision on the matter as appropriate in order to restore peace and conducive learning atmosphere in the University of Lagos and the university system as a whole.”

It is food for thought that Babalakin did not wait for the visitor’s decision on the matter, saying in his resignation letter that he considered the panel “inappropriate for the assignment,” and had appeared before it “in protest” and only out of respect for the minister. According to him, the terms of reference of the visitation panel “clearly indicated to any discerning person” that it was “empanelled to exonerate the Vice-Chancellor and implicate the Pro-Chancellor.”

Importantly, Babalakin faulted the directive that he should recuse himself, and argued that asking Ogundipe also to recuse himself implied that he was still in office despite his removal by the governing council.

He listed the major reasons for Ogundipe’s removal: Corruption and financial recklessness; Forgery;  Complicity in the collapse of the university library and planned cover up;  Deliberate policy of wrongfully concealing information; Depriving the Faculties in the university of funds; Concealing and distorting finances of the Internally Generating Units of the university; Undermining the academic process and seeking to appoint a professor by fiat;  Siphoning of the university’s funds through dubious contract awards; Undermining the office of the Registrar; Failure to follow due process in organising the university’s convocation ceremony; and Sponsoring or acquiescing in the unconstitutional actions of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), University of Lagos chapter.

Apart from resigning as pro-chancellor of the university, a position he had occupied since May 2017, Babalakin also resigned as Chairman of the Federal Government Negotiation Team on the Agreement reached with university unions in 2009, a position he had occupied since January 2017.

Considering that his position as head of the negotiating team, which preceded his role as pro-chancellor, was not threatened, it is a reflection of his sense of honour that he chose to leave that position as well.

It is a testimony to his reputation for performance that he was considered suitable for these positions connected with the university system in Nigeria: Pro-Chancellor, University of Maiduguri (2009 – 2013); Chairman, Council of Pro-Chancellors of all Federal Universities (2009 – 2013); Chairman, Federal Government Implementation Team of the 2009 Agreement (2009 – 2013); Chairman, Federal Government Negotiation Team of the 2009 Agreement (from 2017); Pro-Chancellor, University of Lagos (from 2017).

Before the visitor’s intervention, and the investigation by the visitation panel, Babalakin had argued that, under the relevant Universities Act, the visitor had no role in the removal of vice chancellors, which he said was within the powers of the governing council.

Indeed, this is the crux of the matter. Ogundipe’s removal and Soyombo’s appointment, which the panel was set up to probe, “deal with the interpretation of the laws of the land,” Babalakin said in his resignation letter. “The appropriate forum to determine the laws of the land is a court of law or a judicial tribunal. It cannot be determined by academics of a different discipline no matter how distinguished. These terms of reference are ultra-vires the visitation panel as constituted,” he added.

This means that the panel’s report concerning the removal and appointment should not be expected to provide an authoritative guide on the interpretation of the relevant Act because it cannot do so. It also means that there is a need for an authoritative interpretation.

Initially, Ogundipe had gone to court to challenge his removal by the governing council, but later withdrew the case. A judicial interpretation may well be necessary to clarify the relevant Act.

It is thought-provoking that there is a disagreement on the interpretation of the Act on which the governing council under Babalakin based its removal of Ogundipe.  Since there is such a fundamental disagreement, it is not enough to leave the interpretation of the Act to the visitation panel as constituted.  Babalakin’s resignation highlighted the need for judicial clarification.

The point is that if there is no clarity regarding the powers of the governing council, the kind of crisis that necessitated this special visitation panel at UNILAG could recur in other federal universities.

The authorities should give serious consideration to Babalakin’s argument for a judicial tribunal to authoritatively interpret the Act and clarify the powers of the governing council.  It is noteworthy that the Chancellor of the university, Alhaji Abubakar Ibn Umar Garbai Al Amin El-Kanemi, was quoted as saying in a letter addressed to the minister, that there were “too many vested interests in this matter, who are not approaching the issues objectively.”

Babalakin has chosen to “stand by principle” and “bow out in honour.” Should he have waited for President Buhari’s decision on the matter based on the visitation panel’s report?   From the time the panel was set up, he has consistently maintained that it could not determine the questions of law and interpretation central to the matter. His resignation reflects his consistency, which should prompt a different approach to resolving the crisis.

By Femi Macaulay

It takes a revolution to reverse a revolution.  When then Governor Rauf Aregbesola revolutionised the education system in Osun State by introducing a 4-5-3-4 education policy not in line with the national education policy based on  a 6-3-3-4 structure, it was a revolutionary move by a governor who wanted to project the image of an exceptional  progressive.

Aregbesola introduced single school uniform, reclassified public schools, and abolished single-sex schools in 2013 following an educational summit organised by his administration in 2011.  Under his administration, the primary, junior secondary and senior secondary categorisation was changed to elementary, middle school and high school.

It was a controversial restructuring. Less than two years after Aregbesola left office in November 2018, after two four-year terms, his successor, Governor Adegboyega Oyetola, set up a panel  to review the education policies of the previous administration. Oyetola said that the clamour for change by educationists, school administrators, missionaries and school owners necessitated the review.

The result of the review showed that Aregbesola had carried out an unpopular revolution. In March, the Governor Oyetola administration adopted the report of the review committee and reversed Aregbesola’s revolution.

The reversal affected school mergers, single uniform, name change and the mixture of male and female in single-sex schools. Schools whose names were changed should revert to their old names, and single-sex schools changed to mixed-sex schools should revert to their original status, the government agreed with the committee.

The government cancelled the policy of “merging primary 5 and 6 with a junior secondary school to form middle schools,” saying “it is not in conformity with the national policy on education,” and reverted to the 6-3-3-4 structure as against the 4-5-3-4 arrangement.

It also cancelled the policy of “common uniform for all schools in Osun contrary to the practice of each school having its own unique identity of separate uniforms as we used to have it.”

The Oyetola administration has taken steps towards implementing these changes when schools resume in the state this month after COVID-19-related closure.

It is interesting that the Aregbesola administration was controlled by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Oyetola administration is controlled by the same party.  The divergence on education policies reflects a divergence in their approach to governance, and possibly a divergence in their understanding of progressivism.

There was a revolt against Aregbesola’s revolution, but he was unmoved. He could have reviewed the revolution but he didn’t. If it was a popular revolution, the reversal would probably not have happened. Indeed, the reversal calls into question the educational summit that led to the revolution.

It is commendable that the Oyetola administration initiated the review based on popular revolt. It demonstrates the importance of a government that listens.

It is noteworthy that the review committee recommended, and the government accepted, that Opon Imo ”should be reintroduced after improving on its lapses.” There is “a need to have teachers copy,” and involve parents and other stakeholders “to make sure it is not only available but effective,” the government said.

Opon Imo (Tablet of Knowledge) is a revolutionary project, which says a lot about Aregbesola’s revolutionary exertions. Designed in the form of a mini iPad, it is an e-learning device, the first of its kind in Nigeria, introduced by the Aregbesola administration to be distributed free to Senior Secondary School students. It comes with pre-loaded applications for WAEC and JAMB approved textbooks.

By retaining Opon Imo, which received a UN-World Summit Award for innovation and was endorsed by UNESCO and the West African Examinations Council, the Oyetola administration demonstrated that its review of Aregbesola’s education policies was done with a sense of responsibility.

However, there is another matter that the Oyetola administration should look at. Aregbesola’s revolutionary exertions also introduced a construction that has been rubbished by two law courts within three years.  ”State of Osun,” an Aregbesola creation, does not mean Osun State, according to the courts, and the constructions should not be used interchangeably.

On June 3, Justice Mathias Agboola of the Osun State High Court, Osogbo, declared that, legally and constitutionally, “State of Osun” did not exist. He also declared that, under the Nigerian constitution, only Osun State could be said to exist.

Justice Agboola, in his judgement in a case brought before the court by a lawyer, Mr Kanmi Ajibola, against the state government over a personal tax of N5.3m that the state Internal Revenue Service had asked him to pay, said it amounted to “artistic colouration” when Osun State is referred to as “State of Osun.”

Ajibola had asked the court to declare the law upon which the tax was based as illegal since it was a law made by “The House of Assembly of State of Osun,” a body unknown to the constitution. “The issue of Osun State and the ‘State of Osun’ is a loud one,” the judge had observed.

Before this, in December 2017, Justice Yinka Afolabi of the Osun State High Court, Ilesha, had taken the same position on the issue. Justice Afolabi’s words: “The executive governor of the state changed the name in 2011. The renaming of a state goes further and deeper for anyone to single-handedly do. To re-order the name of Osun State as ‘State of Osun’ is hereby declared as illegal, null and void.”

The same Ajibola had instituted a case challenging the legality of the “State of Osun Land Use Charge Law.’’ He asked the court to declare that the “State of Osun Land Use Charge Law 2016,” having been enacted by a legislative body that is not known to the constitution and the state not known to the 1999 constitution, was illegal and unconstitutional.

The judge had ruled in his favour. After the verdict, Ajibola had said jubilantly: “The judgement has pronounced ‘State of Osun’ dead and so be it. For now, the judgement subsists except there is any other contrary opinion by the higher court.”

Importantly, the judgement invalidating the construction has not been overturned by a higher court. But officials of the state, according to reports, are still using “State of Osun” in their official engagements and communications.  This amounts to disregarding the law.  The Oyetola administration should address this matter with seriousness as it addressed Aregbesola’s unpopular education policies.

By Femi Macaulay

After the event, it is necessary to revisit the controversy that characterised the event. At the heart of the controversy are issues that need to be clarified. The character at the centre of the controversy should not act as if such clarifications are unnecessary.

It is impossible that Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai is unaware of the  damaging allegations against him, in a petition by a group of lawyers known as Open Law Initiative, which possibly informed the decision of the  Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to disinvite him from its 2020Annual  General Conference which took place from August 26 to 29.

El-Rufai had been invited by NBA’s Technical Committee on Conference Planning (TCCP)  to be a keynote speaker at the milestone 60th anniversary annual general conference. It was a historic event, the NBA’s first virtual annual general conference.

The petition against El-Rufai, addressed to the chair of TCCP, NBA, requested that the organisers should “withdraw the offer of platform” to him. The reasons given for this request remain important, even after the event.

The petitioners had said: “As you may know, on 9 December 2019, Quartz Africa named Governor El-Rufai at the head of a ‘powerful’ group of Nigerian state governors who ‘now regularly use security agents to arrest and intimidate journalists and activists who dare to question their actions or attempt to hold them accountable.’

“One of the most prominent victims of this is University lecturer, Abubakar Idris, better known as Dadiyata, who was abducted from the gate of his house in Barnawa, Kaduna, on 1 August 2019 and has not been seen since then.

“At 10:16 Hours on 23 December 2019, one of Governor El-Rufai’s sons, Bashir, issued a tweet gloating over the disappearance of Dadiyata, in which he signed off with the line ‘Dangerous lines in the public space have consequences.’ The Kaduna State government has not much acted as if the disappearance of Dadiyata is of much concern to it.”

According to the petition, “Many other critics of Governor El-Rufai have been luckier, but only because they ended up in prison or detention. These include university lecturer Dr. John Danfulani. Digital activist, Stephen Kefason, was abducted from his home in Rivers State on the orders of Governor El-Rufai and detained for over five months.

“Luka Biniyat, journalist with Vanguard Newspaper, was also detained and, at the instance of Governor El-Rufai, fired from his job for writing a report the Governor didn’t like. The same thing happened to Segun Onibiyo, another journalist with the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria, FRCN.”

The petitioners also said: “A major focus of the intolerance of Mallam El-Rufai has been lawyers and the legal profession. In 2016, when he was visited by the then President of the Nigerian Bar, A.B. Mahmoud, SAN, Governor El-Rufai threatened to the NBA President to abduct Kaduna lawyer, Ms. Gloria Ballason, because she had criticized him in a news article, a perfectly lawful act of exercising constitutionally protected speech.

“Ms. Ballason sued to protect her rights and in May 2017, secured a judgment of the High Court of Kaduna State, which found that the Governor had indeed violated her rights. The High Court awarded also damages against the Governor. He refused to pay up. Instead, he instigated another round of violations of the rights of Ms. Ballason, instructing the Kaduna State Police Command to blockade her law office in Kaduna at the end of 2019.

“In July 2020, the High Court of Kaduna State presided over by Honorable Justice Hannatu Balogun again found Governor El-Rufai and the Police in Kaduna State under his direction, in violation of the right of Ms. Ballason to practice her vocation as a lawyer. The High Court specifically found that they had violated the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.”

They added:  “As the proceedings were pending in February 2017 in Ms. Ballason’s case, Governor El-Rufai arranged to abduct one of her clients, Audu Maikori, from Lagos. Mr. Maikori, himself a lawyer of some distinction, was transported to Kaduna on the orders of Mallam El-Rufai, where he was detained and tortured, first at the police before being sent into detention.

“Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have found that the conduct of the Governor constituted egregious violations of the laws and the constitution. There is presently pending an award of N10.5 million against the Governor for the violations inflicted on Audu Maikori. Governor El-Rufai will not comply or pay up.”

Furthermore, the petitioners said: “On the eve of the presidential elections in February 2019, Mallam El-Rufai took to the television to announce on 15 February 2019, that ‘66 Fulanis’ had been massacred in an Adara settlement in Kajuru Local Government Area in Southern Kaduna. The Police as well as the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) denied that any such incident happened.

“When Dr. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, one of our leading members and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, challenged Mallam El-Rufai to provide proof of his claims, the governor sought to procure his abduction with an order in a case that did not have a suit number.”

Are these claims true?  “We have set these out factually because we do not wish to be presumptuous,” the petitioners said. They mentioned insecurity in the state and El-Rufai’s alleged unresponsiveness. “As at today, Southern Kaduna is the most active site of massacres and mass atrocities in Nigeria,” they said.

El-Rufai has a lot of explaining to do in the circumstances. Perhaps he would have had an opportunity to address the issues on the NBA platform if he had not been disinvited. But it is not too late to do so after the event. Indeed, it can never be too late to respond to such issues which, according to the petitioners, indicate that “As Governor, Mallam El-Rufai has shown no regard for the rule of law, for human rights or for human beings.”

El-Rufai should respond to the issues raised by the petitioners, which call into question his approach to governance.

Femi Macaulay

A crisis that needs a critical intervention also calls for a crucial comprehension.  The seven-member special visitation panel set up by President Muhammadu Buhari to look into the crisis at University of Lagos (UNILAG) will have to comprehend the crisis before intervening in it.

A statement, on August 21, by the Director, Press and Public Relations, in the Federal Ministry of Education, Ben Bem Goong, targeted the central characters in the drama. The statement was entitled: “FG directs Pro-Chancellor/Chairman of Governing Council of the University of Lagos, Dr B. O. Babalakin and the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Oluwatoyin T. O. Ogundipe to recuse themselves from official duties, pending the outcome of the Special Visitation Panel set up by the President.”

UNILAG Governing Council had in a statement by its Registrar and Secretary, Oladejo Azeez, announced the removal of Ogundipe “based on investigation of serious acts of wrongdoing, gross misconduct, financial recklessness and abuse of office.” Prof. Theophilus Omololu Soyombo was announced as the acting vice chancellor of UNILAG. These actions have been undone by the Federal Government’s move.

Ogundipe had asked the public to disregard “the mischievous disinformation,” arguing that “the extant provisions of the law have not been complied with.”

The panel, which will be inaugurated this week and has two weeks to submit its report, is expected “to determine whether the process (if any) leading to the appointment of the Acting Vice-Chancellor of the university was consistent with the provisions of the enabling Act,” and make recommendations, including sanctions, for all those found culpable.

The statement also directed the Senate of the university to “nominate an acting vice-chancellor from amongst its members for confirmation by the Governing Council.”

The heart of the matter is whether Ogundipe’s removal was lawfully done. There are members of the public who answer this question in the negative, based on their interpretation of what the law says. Those who take this position do not take into consideration the fact that Babalakin, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria(SAN), is an experienced pro-chancellor, having occupied the same position at the University of Maiduguri (UNIMAID) between 2009 and 2013.

Babalakin is not new to university administration. As Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council of UNIMAID, he was also Chairman of the Committee of Pro-Chancellors of Federal Universities in Nigeria. His tenures at these levels of administration were widely acclaimed as exemplary. “In my near four years in Maiduguri, there has never been any issue, no dispute, no quarrel…” he said of his years at UNIMAID.

Those who think that a man with such background and experience would self-servingly misinterpret the law concerning the removal of a vice chancellor fail to give credit where credit is due.  Would he consciously make himself open to public attack and discredit by acting unlawfully to remove Ogundipe?  That would be absurd.  ”I’m a lawyer. I’m not given to making loose statements. Whatever I say I must be able to back it up,” Babalakin said in an interview on the matter.

It is noteworthy that Babalakin was appointed Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council of UNILAG in April 2017,  after his appointment in January 2017 as Chairman of the 16-member Federal Government Committee to Renegotiate the 2009 Agreement the government signed with the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU), National Association of Academic Technologists (NAAT) and Non-Academic Staff Union of Associated and Allied Institutions (NASU).

A report said: “The Minister of Education, Mallam Adamu Adamu, in a statement then had said Babalakin merited the chairmanship of the committee because he was adjudged as the best Pro-Chancellor at the time of the negotiations in 2009 and headed the Agreement Implementation Committee.”

It is also noteworthy that Babalakin has been appointed pro-chancellor of two different federal universities under two different administrations run by two different political parties. This says a lot about his reputation for good performance.

It is food for thought that, contrary to the claim in some quarters that Ogundipe‘s removal was unlawful, Babalakin was quoted as saying: “If you read the Universities Miscellaneous Act, the visitor has no role in the removal of vice chancellors. It’s a decision of the council and if the vice chancellor believes that he hasn’t been removed properly, the appropriate thing to do is, as stated in the law, for him to write an appeal to the visitor.”

It is interesting that the visitor, President Buhari, did not wait to receive such a letter before his intervention.  It is also interesting that Ogundipe had initially gone to court, but later withdrew the case, which suggests that he was unfamiliar with the law concerning his office.

”Prof. Ogundipe was accused of financial recklessness and I can boldly say that you cannot find any action of Ogundipe that followed the proper process,” Babalakin explained.

“Prof. Ogundipe spent N49 million renovating his residence… without mentioning it to anybody. Without even mentioning it, not to talk of approval.

”It was a committee of the university that discovered it. Prof. Ogundipe in a very complicit manner gave N41 million to the bursar to renovate his premises. The bursar’s house can be built from scratch with N41 million. We struggled to have Prof. Ogundipe’s management to give us a proper account.”

Describing Ogundipe, who he also accused of forgery, as “a serial offender,” Babalakin said that some university stakeholders had approached him in certain instances to overlook Ogundipe’s improprieties.  His reaction: “What are you telling me? I should compromise forgery? I should compromise stealing? I should camouflage breach of process? What if there’s a visitation tomorrow?” Now there is a special visitation.

It is curious that Ogundipe has not publicly responded to the damaging stories against him. His silence is not golden.

Babalakin gave an account of the process that led to Ogundipe’s removal, describing the claim that the council did not give him a fair hearing as “a false narrative.” He said: “A full committee of council discovered that Ogundipe was conducting the affairs of the university in a reckless manner unbecoming of any public officer. The full committee of the council then mandated a sub-committee to look into it. The sub-committee came back with a plethora of wrongdoing by Ogundipe. This committee’s report was forwarded to Ogundipe for his comment. Ogundipe wrote his defence in writing and he sent it to the council.

“He then stood up in council for one hour to defend himself. So, anybody saying he wasn’t given a fair hearing doesn’t even know the facts. I’m hoping that this will bring out a lot of facts so that Nigerians don’t react to issues when they’ve not read documents.”

It remains to be seen how the special visitation panel will end the crisis.

By Femi Macaulay

In a way, my pilgrimage to the sacred Osun-Osogbo Grove in Osogbo, Osun State, to see the grand finale of the famous Osun-Osogbo Festival three years ago prepared me for the oddity of this year’s celebration.

Ahead of the climax of the festival on August 14, the Osun State government issued a statement “informing the general public that this year’s celebration of Osun-Osogbo Festival will be symbolic, as only the worshippers that will perform ritual activities will be allowed into the grove. These worshippers must, however, comply with the state government’s COVID-19 protocols.”

This statement prompted a recollection. The day after the grand finale of the 2017 Osun-Osogbo Festival in the Osun-Osogbo Grove, a small group of foreign tourists stood at the riverside in the sacred grove with a local female guide who enthusiastically told the story of Osun, the water goddess represented by an attention-grabbing statue at the edge of the mystical Osun River.  One of the fascinated visitors asked the guide a fascinating question I overheard. “What will happen if they don’t do the festival?” It was a striking question.

As I walked out of the sacred space, that question would not leave me alone. Indeed, the question followed me to my base in Lagos. The Osun-Osogbo Grove is the site of Nigeria’s star tourist attraction and the country’s pre-eminent traditional religious festival, which draws a large number of domestic and foreign tourists.  The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) listed the sacred grove as a World Heritage Site in 2005.

The Osun-Osogbo Grove, listed for natural and cultural reasons, is the second of two UNESCO-branded sites in Nigeria, coming after the Sukur Cultural Landscape in Adamawa State, which attained the distinction in 1999.

The festival happened this year but not as usual. “There was strict compliance with COVID-19 safety protocols at the grove,” according to a report. At the grove, Governor Adegboyega Oyetola,   represented by Commissioner for Culture and Tourism Obawale Adebisi, was quoted as saying: “I want to appreciate the monarch and the worshipers of Osun-Osogbo for their cooperation with the state government. The purpose of the restriction is not punitive but to ensure safety of the entire state.

“People should know how fast COVID-19 is spreading, particularly in our state… Osun-Osogbo is strategic to the state because it is an international festival and our plan was that people from outside should join the festival, but because of the COVID-19, we could not do that… by next year we will bring many people, as many as possible, to celebrate…”

There was a possibility that the festival could be marred following an Osun State High Court order that one Adigun Olayiwola and Adesiyan Olayiwola should not be removed from their positions as priest and priestess in charge of Osun-Osogbo Festival. Justice A.O. Ayoola said Ataoja, Oba Jimoh Olanipekun, should not prevent them from performing their duties during the Osun-Osogbo Festival.  The duo had been removed in August 2019. They went to court.

A report said: “Justice Ayoola noted that both Adigun and Adesiyan had performed the duties of Osun priest and priestess since the days of the immediate past Ataoja, Oba Oyewale Matanmi.

“Justice Ayoola added that even after the passage of Oba Oyewale, the plaintiff/applicants still played the role of Osun priest and priestess.

“She maintained that the loss and damage that stopping the two officers from performing their roles during Osun Festival would cause them would be impossible to calculate.

“The judge subsequently ordered that the defendants/respondents should not restrict the applicants from entering the Osun temple located within the Ataoja palace or stop them from participating in any activities relating to the celebration of Osun-Osogbo Festival.”

It is unclear why Oba Olanipekun has not reinstated the removed priest and priestess based on the court order. The Ataoja should respect the court order just as he respected the state government’s restriction order concerning the celebration of  this year’s Osun-Osogbo Festival.

Interestingly, as the country struggles to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, the Osun-Osogbo Grove may well be relevant to the search for a possible herbal remedy.  “The dense forest of the Osun Sacred Grove, on the outskirts of the city of Osogbo, is one of the last remnants of primary high forest in southern Nigeria,” according to UNESCO, adding that it is “probably the last sacred grove in Yoruba culture.”

This explains why, in 2016, Fountain University, Osogbo, Osun State, described as “a privately owned Islamic faith-based university,” signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) towards research in the Osun-Osogbo Grove, which is a significant ritual ground of Yoruba indigenous religion. It is a thought-provoking agreement.

According to a report, “The MOU which was signed at the grove was to enable the university to conduct researches to establish some of the medicinal benefits that can be derived from certain plants and organisms that have been preserved in the sacred grove over the years.”  It quoted the then Vice Chancellor of the university, Prof. Bashir Ademola Raji, as saying that a researcher at the university, Dr Afolabi Nusra Balogun, had made certain discoveries in the Osun-Osogbo water and some plants in the grove which would contribute to health care delivery when fully developed.

It is interesting that Fountain University was interested in the grove’s resources. The university was established by the Nasrul-Lahi-li Fatih Society of Nigeria (NAFSAT) in 2007.  In 2014, its Vice Chancellor told journalists: “We are exploring the United Nations Heritage Site, the Osun grove, as a potential source of novel pharmaceutical compounds in Nigeria.”

It is a testimony to Susanne Wenger’s work that the forest is “a protected area,” a national monument established by Decree 77 of 1979, and a World Heritage Site. The phenomenal Austrian artist, who became an unapologetic populariser of Yoruba traditional religion and attracted global attention to Osogbo, lived in Nigeria for nearly 60 years, and died in country on January 12, 2009, at the age of 93.

At the “Susanne Wenger’s Sacred Colloquium 2015” held at the King’s palace in Osogbo,   the then Director General of NCMM, Yusuf Abdallahi Usman,  presented a paper titled “Late Madam Susanne Wenger and National Commission for Museums and Monuments as Springboards to the Development of Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove and Enlistment as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.”  He said: “She championed the beautification, preservation, adoration, conservation and unification of nature and culture in the Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove.” The event marked Wenger’s 100th birth anniversary and the grove’s 10th anniversary as a World Heritage Site.

I had planned to make yet another pilgrimage to the grove this year to see the festival. But the prevailing pandemic and the connected restrictions made it impossible. Hopefully, the pilgrim will perform the pilgrimage again.

Femi Macaulay

It is unclear how and when President Muhammadu Buhari would redesign the country’s problematic security architecture, but his publicised intention to do so draws attention to his role as Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces.

National Security Adviser Babagana Monguno told journalists on August 4 that the president was concerned about the performance of the service chiefs: “The president is angry over the declining security situation…What he said today is virtually a reaffirmation of what he said the first time. Yes Mr President said you are doing your best, as far as I’m concerned, but there’s still a lot more to be done. I’m more concerned about the promise we made to the larger Nigerian society and I am ordering an immediate re-engineering of the entire security apparatus.”

The service chiefs, appointed in July 2015 by the president, have been targets of criticism following escalating insecurity in the country. The targets are Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Abayomi Olonisakin; Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai; Chief of Naval Staff Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas and Chief of Air Staff Air Marshal Sadique Abubakar.

A report by SBM Intelligence said an estimated 2,732 people were killed in Nigeria between April and June 2020. An earlier report said nearly 1,000 people were killed in the country between January and March 2020. According to the latest report, ‘Media reported killings in Nigeria Q2 2020,’ 221 security personnel including 173 soldiers, 39 police officers, three civil defence officers, and six vigilantes were killed in the three months.

The jolting attack on the convoy of Borno State Governor Babagana Zulum on July 29 highlighted the magnitude of the security crisis. The governor was on his way to Monguno and Baga towns to distribute food to internally displaced persons (IDPs).

“You have been here for over one year now, there are 1,181 soldiers here.  If you cannot take over Baga which is less than 5km from your base, then we should forget about Baga.” Zulum was quoted as saying to the army’s commanding officer in Mile 4 after the attack.

Significantly, the governor later described the attack as “a complete sabotage, adding, “As far as I am concerned, there was no Boko Haram… It was a serious shooting by the Nigerian armed forces while ‘residing’ in Baga. The situation is very embarrassing.” The army said it was investigating the attack.

In reaction to the disturbing incident, the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) observed:  “This is one unwarranted attack too many. It epitomises our collective vulnerability and the fragility of the country’s security architecture.” It condemned “the worsening security situation in the country generally, in spite of all the efforts of the government to end it” and the “worrisome and rapidly degenerating situation.”

It is noteworthy that, about a week before the Borno incident, the Senate had asked the country’s military chiefs to ‘step aside’ so that new leaders could bring new ideas to tackle insecurity across the country. This was, according to a report, “barely 48 hours after an ambush by suspected bandits in Katsina State left at least 16 soldiers and officers dead and 28 others wounded.”

In January, federal lawmakers had asked President Buhari to sack the service chiefs and appoint new ones “after a four-hour deliberation on a motion on national security challenges and the need to restructure the nation’s security architecture.”

President Buhari appointed the service chiefs, and he can fire them. But he has been unwilling to relieve them of their positions. It is puzzling that he claims to want to minimise insecurity but also wants to keep service chiefs who have been unable to minimise insecurity.

However, beyond the president’s inconsistency on this issue, there is the critical question of whether the service chiefs are occupying their positions lawfully.  “The tenures of the defence and service chiefs, according to the Armed Forces Terms and Conditions of Service, expired on July 13, 2017,” a report said, citing Section 8 of the public service rules which stipulates that the compulsory retirement age for all grades in the service shall be 60 years or 35 years of pensionable service, whichever is earlier.

Also, the report cited Section 4 of the harmonised terms and conditions of service officers (2017) which states that military service of an officer is a period of unbroken service in the armed forces of Nigeria from the date of commission to the date of retirement from service.

“This covers the date of enlistment into service as soldiers or ratings or airmen for regular commission, short service commission, direct short service commission, direct regular commission, executive commission officers, including other commissions.

“Each of the service chiefs has, however, spent above the stipulated service years. Olonisakin, 57, has spent 38 years in service. Buratai and Ibas, both 59, have been in service for 36 years. Abubakar, 59, has spent 40 years in service.”  The report was published on February 10, 2020.

Interestingly, a former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Alani Akinrinade (retd.) was quoted as saying recently, “A service chief can resign but sacking them is at the discretion of the President. When you get to that position, you are serving at the discretion of the President.”

He argued against the application of the cited rule concerning this context, saying “The civil service rule which has been extended to the forces now; that if you have served for 35 years, you should leave. I don’t particularly think this is a good idea because somebody can serve for 35 years and he or she is only 56 years old, has such a person reached the climax of their productive life?

“If the person is doing well, are we going to just kick out such a person because they have served for 35 years?  These are matters which we have installed in our system but which are not necessarily productive at some points.” There is no clarity, and the situation needs to be officially clarified.

There is no guarantee that new service chiefs will improve the security situation, but there is also no guarantee that the current ones can do better than they have done.  The point is that the fight against insecurity needs new ideas, and changing the service chiefs should reinvigorate the fight against insecurity.

Fundamentally, the presidency also needs new ideas to tackle the socio-economic conditions that fuel insecurity.

By Femi Macaulay

Standards are significant and sacrosanct.  The role of the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) is noteworthy as the coronavirus continues its worldwide attack.

In June, as efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic continued across the world, SON announced that it was harmonising the production of ventilators across the country to ensure that they conform to international standards.

SON Director-General Osita Aboloma said, following the unveiling of a locally manufactured ventilator by Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro, Ogun State:  “In our efforts to address the ongoing pandemic, we have diligently assigned officers to inspect the ventilators and alcohol-based hand sanitisers under production.

“We have one common standard for each product. We want to ensure that what we are producing meets the standard and once it does, we will certify it. We will also continue to monitor activities so that they do not rest on their oars in producing quality goods.”

According to him, “SON is ready to partner with all technical institutions, especially those involved in the production of life-saving equipment and materials at this time.

“This is so that their products will meet minimum requirements of the relevant Nigerian Industrial Standards (NIS), and undergo certification under the Mandatory Conformity Assessment Programme (MANCAP).”

Rector of the polytechnic Olusegun Aluko said “the materials for manufacturing the ventilator were sourced locally,” adding that local production “will make it more accessible and cheaper compared with imported ones which are scarce, costly and would take longer to deliver.”

The rector explained that a team of engineers at the polytechnic designed a functional ventilator with less than one million naira.  “It took us one week through trial and error… If we can produce this within one week, with all the research, that means in a matter of two days we should be able to produce one,” he said.

It is noteworthy that Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi State, has also developed a ventilator. The University of Lagos, University of Benin and University of Ilorin have also produced hand sanitisers in response to the coronavirus pandemic; and Abia State University, Uturu, developed a COVID-19 tracking system.

Local production of standard ventilators, air purifiers and hand sanitiser machines is expected to save the country’s foreign exchange spent on importation of such items in the fight against COVID-19.  It will also improve the country’s image.

In May, the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Mary Leonard, told journalists that President Muhammadu Buhari had requested ventilators from American President Donald Trump. “We already have a very robust U.S. government financial and tactical response to COVID, the two presidents talked in particular about what other equipment needs we might be able to address,” she said. “In particular there is a talk about ventilators, and so there is a national security council and USAID group back in Washington that is working on fulfilling that request.”

Minister of Health Osagie Ehanire had admitted that the country did not have enough ventilators, which triggered public alarm amid the coronavirus crisis.  A ventilator pumps air in and out of the lungs, and is required to assist patients who are unable to breathe, or breathing insufficiently. It is attached to a tube inserted in the patient’s airway to deliver air into the lungs. COVID-19 affects the respiratory system, and the number of patients needing breathing assistance may increase, thereby increasing the necessity for the machine.

“For ventilators, we can say we don’t have enough,” Ehanire had told journalists at a national briefing of the Presidential Task Force in Abuja.

“What we have done beyond taking inventory of the ventilators in government hospitals, we have gone far to take inventory of what is in private hospitals and they are ready to make them available to us.

”We have an arrangement that makes it possible that if you need more ventilators in Abuja we can send them from Lagos.

“If Lagos needs more ventilators, we can bring them from Enugu or anywhere so that we can be able to meet our needs as they are.”

Against this background, it is obvious that local production of ventilators will help greatly. But such machines, and other items produced locally in response to the coronavirus crisis, need to meet set standards, which is where SON comes in.  According to Aboloma, SON has also been providing technical quality assurance support to local manufacturers producing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) used in the fight against COVID-19.

Importantly, SON introduced the Mandatory Conformity Assessment Programme (MANCAP) in 2006 “to ensure that all manufactured products conform to the relevant Nigerian Industrial Standards (NIS) prior to sales in the markets or export.”

MANCAP is meant to “protect genuine manufacturers against unhealthy practices such as production of sub-standard products, faking and counterfeiting as well as unfair competition in trade. It provides consumers with confidence that products manufactured in the country are fit, safe and meet the intended use. It also ensures that the environment is free from unnecessary wastes and pollution. Products that are qualified under the scheme are issued with MANCAP certificates and NIS logos with unique identification numbers.”

Significantly, in June SON governing council approved 168 new standards “for publication and dissemination to various sectors of the economy…in furtherance of the federal government’s economic diversification policy.” It also endorsed the first-ever Nigerian National Standardisation Strategy (NNSS) 2020 – 2022, developed by SON under Aboloma, to identify crucial areas to focus on, based on national needs assessment.

The NNSS identified 658 standardisation projects in key areas highlighted in the Federal Government’s Economic Recovery Growth Plan (ERGP), the Nigerian Industrial Revolution Plan (NIRP) and related national strategic plans.

The SON chief executive listed the newly approved 168 Nigerian Industrial Standards, including 64 for Electrical/Electronic products; 53 for Chemical Technology; 47 for Food and Agricultural products; three for Civil/Building Technology products as well as the reviewed standard for Hotel and Serviced Accommodation Management System and Rating – Requirements and Guidance for Use.

The challenge of ensuring that only products which meet necessary quality standards are on the market in the country puts a burden of performance on SON.

By Femi Macaulay

From the look of things, local hunters may have been excluded from Operation Amotekun, contrary to the initial plan of the founders.

Operation Amotekun was launched in January by the governors of the six states in the country’s Southwest – Lagos, Oyo, Ogun, Ondo, Osun and Ekiti states – “to ensure an end to insecurity in the South Western, Nigerian region.”   It is the country’s “first regional security outfit initiated by a geopolitical zone.”

Members of the security outfit are supposed to include local hunters, the Oodua People’s Congress (OPC), Agbekoya, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) and vigilante groups.

But the publicised process of recruitment into the Amotekun Corps in Oyo State suggests that the state government failed to take local hunters into consideration.

The Oyo State Government has opened an online application site for those interested in joining the security outfit.

“The online form, which was uploaded on the official website of the state, indicated that the form is free and not for sale,” according to a report.

”The form contains three pages… The first page, which is for bio-data, asks among other things, for special skills or trade, security-related experiences and occupation of the applicants, while the second page asks every applicant to present medical reports on their health status, including hepatitis, random blood sugar, PCV, and vital signs.

“The medical reports, according to the form, must be obtained from Oyo State Government hospital, which must carry the signature, date and stamp of the hospital.

Also, the medical doctor that administered the tests must also sign that he has found the applicant medically fit for recruitment into the Amotekun Corps.”

”The third page of the form,” the report said, “requests two guarantors for each of the applicants, who must be their village heads and the lawmakers representing their constituencies in the Oyo State House of Assembly.

The two guarantors of each applicant must also attest that they know the applicant and that they have found him, or her suitable for selection for the corps, and they must also attest to the applicant’s conduct and character.

“They must also sign on the form that they are the ones recommending the applicant for selection and they should be held liable if the applicant is found wanting in character or other vices. The guarantors must sign and right thumbprint on the form.”

The report added: “The applicants have also been told to print out their slips after filling and submission of the forms online, and they must provide the slips during the screening exercise that would be made known to them.”

However, the Soludero Hunters Association, a group of local hunters in Oyo State, says its members will not register online to join the Amotekun Corps in the state.

The chairman of the association, Oba Nureni Ajijola-Anabi, was reported saying recruitment into the Amotekun Corps should not be based on paper qualifications.

He said: “We told them to focus more on the local people, who know the terrain, including the forests, but they told us to go and register online.

“What does online registration have to do with providing security for the people? If they insist on this, we will back out of the exercise…We are hunters; we are familiar with all forests in the zone.”

Considering how the outfit is expected to operate, it is understandable that the Soludero Hunters Association is opposed to recruitment through online registration.

This is the picture:  “The operatives of the security outfit will assist police, other security agencies and traditional rulers in combating terrorism, banditry, armed robbery, kidnapping and also help in settling herdsmen and farmers contentions in the region.”

Obviously, the outfit needs people who have practical security experience, which is a more important and useful qualification than familiarity with the ways of “the digital age.”

It is the responsibility of the outfit to ensure that local hunters, for instance, are not discouraged by a burdensome recruitment process.

In particular, it is unrealistic to ask local hunters who want to join the outfit to apply online, which is alienating, considering their background.  Is this a covert move to turn the security outfit into an elitist outfit?

It is said that we live in “the digital age.” But it is obvious that this does not apply to everybody. There are many people who still live in a pre-digital age, and this does not apply to local hunters alone.

The point is that the leadership of the outfit in Oyo State needs to simplify the registration process to accommodate local hunters and others like them. This also applies to the other states involved in the security operation.

Local hunters are relevant to the operation of the security outfit because, according to the Commandant of Ekiti State Security Network codenamed Amotekun, Brigadier-General Joe Komolafe (retd), “We want people that can enter the bush and give us native intelligence about criminal hideouts.”

During a tour of Ekiti West, Efon Alaaye and Ijero local government areas of the state, the Corps Commandant was reported to have “explained that the security outfit would employ ancient Yoruba tactics of securing territories and fishing out criminals from their hideouts”; and “charged traditional rulers to deploy their supernatural prowess to secure lives and properties of people in their domains.”

He observed that “the neglect of local and ancient patterns of exposing criminals was one of the factors responsible for the rising wave of crimes in the region.”

It is interesting that the security boss referred to the use of mystical powers for security purposes. This is the turf of local hunters.

They are credited with supernatural powers which they use in their adventures in the forests. This is the unique value that they are expected to bring to the security outfit.

The envisaged collaboration between local hunters, armed with ancient mystical powers, and modern security agents, represents a useful combination of forces to fight insecurity in the region.

It is noteworthy that Amotekun is a Yoruba word for Leopard. Excluding local hunters from Operation Amotekun, one way or another, is like amputating a leopard’s limb.

Such a leopard would be disabled, and cannot be expected to perform maximally.