The Nation Newspaper

Category: Femi Macaulay

  • Where is the evidence?

    Two weeks into the presidential election 2019 campaign, a non-issue is still an issue. Minister of Information and Culture Lai Mohammed responded to talk of a presidential impersonator on November 29. Mohammed said to journalists in Abuja: “It is idiotic to say the President is cloned. I don’t see any serious government responding to that.” But the minister’s response amounted to a response by the federal government.

    The issue still attracts attention. President Muhammadu Buhari is said to have died and his place taken by an impersonator. This tale was reportedly triggered by a tweet by user @sam_ezeh on September 3, 2017, following Buhari’s recovery from an undisclosed illness. The president was treated abroad.

    A report said: “A video outlining the claim has since been shared more than 5,000 times on Facebook and Twitter. In it, Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), tells his followers that Buhari had died. ‘The man you are looking at on the television is not Buhari… His name is Jubril, he’s from Sudan. After extensive surgery they brought him back,’ he says.”

    Repetition of falsehood doesn’t make it true. But does Nnamdi Kanu know this truth? The controversial IPOB leader had repeated the absurdity about a week before Mohammed responded.  Kanu claimed in a radio broadcast that Buhari was dead and a look-alike from Sudan, Jubril Aminu Al-Sudani, was in Aso Rock, the seat of federal power.

    Kanu’s words: “Jubril is in Aso Rock… In any reasonable country around the world, the citizens should by now commence a worldwide protest to demand the identity of their president. Why is this Sudanese impostor in Aso Rock?”

    If the citizens are not protesting as Kanu expects, it is because they don’t know what Kanu claims to know about Buhari. And what Kanu claims to know is an absurdity. His illogic: “There was once a rumour that Obasanjo was dead but he came out and said ‘I dey kampe.’ Jubril can’t do that because he is not Buhari. Nigeria must fall. It is going to collapse under the weight of this fraud and deception of Jubril. I am not going to make trouble. I want them to return Jubril from whence he came. We can no longer be part of this fraud.”

    Some thinking is needed here: If there is a Buhari double in Aso Rock, what is the point of impersonating the president if he is unable to publicly assert that he is Buhari? If the alleged impersonator is unable to declare that he is Buhari, then it is an absurd impersonation.

    Kanu deepened the absurdity by claiming that US President Donald Trump never met with the real Buhari. What he means is that the April meeting was between Trump and the said Jubril.

    A report said Kanu “argued that pre-2017 photographs of President Muhammadu Buhari’s left side outer ear had a deformed lobule and a straight antihelix,” adding that those features could no longer be seen in the president’s recent photographs.

    Kanu’s observation suggests that he has become an anatomist of sorts. It is absurd that he insists on the accuracy of his absurd claims. This is yet another stunt by Kanu who has moved from stunt to stunt in the course of leading the separatist group. A reasonable stuntman should know that there are limits to the stunt business. Kanu’s performance so far casts doubt on his reasonableness.

    In addition, Kanu is not a credible voice.  He had disappeared on September 14, 2017, while on bail. He was facing trial for “alleged offences of conspiracy to commit acts of treasonable felony and other related offences.”  His reappearance 13 months after was as mysterious as his disappearance. His sureties had been asked to account for his whereabouts, but they seemed not to know.

    Following Kanu’s disappearance, his lawyers had argued that the Nigerian army authorities should be made to produce him because he allegedly disappeared during an operation by soldiers. They described the operation as “a murderous raid, where live and mortar bullets were fired on unarmed and defenceless people, leaving 28 persons dead.”  When Kanu suddenly reappeared at the Wailing Wall in the Holy City of David in Jerusalem, on October 19, it highlighted his lack of credibility.

    The ridiculous claim about Buhari has been repeated by others, including Reno Omokri, a former aide to President Goodluck Jonathan, and Femi Fani- Kayode, a former minister.  But where is the evidence? It is a reflection of lack of clarity and confusion that some have called the alleged Buhari double “Jubril” while others have called him “Jibrin.”

    Mohammed’s response coincided with Buhari’s presence in Chad for a meeting of Heads of States and Governments of the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC). Buhari, who is LCBC chairman, had called the meeting towards finding a solution to the Boko Haram insurgency.

    Mohammed’s words:  ”So, the same Jibrin that was cloned from Sudan or Chad is in Chad now? Isn’t that stupid? They even said he is from Chad. Yet, the same President is in Chad as we speak. The same Jibrin is remembering what the President did while in Petroleum Trust Fund and he is also remembering what he did when he was Head of State between 1983 and 1985.”

    The minister continued: “All the ministers do not know who is before them when they attend the Federal Executive Council meeting? The President remembers the memos he had seen or heard about in 1985 and we say he is cloned. So, Jibrin from Chad or Sudan will now remember all of these? It is too silly for the government to respond to this.  It must be ignored.”

    It is pertinent to focus on the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate campaigning for a second term as president.  Is he an impersonator?  What does Buhari need to do to finally show that those spreading this story are talking complete rubbish?

    The story is food for thought. It shows negative inventiveness.  A report said: “CrosscheckNigeria, a collaboration of newsrooms in Nigeria, comprising, among others, icirnigeria.org and The News Agency of Nigeria, has investigated this claim and found no evidence to support it.”

  • Sanwo-Olu’s positives

    When governorship campaigns begin across the country on December 1, some campaigns will attract greater attention than others, and some governorship candidates will be more magnetic than others. In Lagos State, the country’s former capital and “arguably the most economically important state,” the frontrunner is Babajide Sanwo-Olu of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Ahead of the primary that Sanwo-Olu won to become APC governorship candidate, a pillar of the party, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, painted a portrait of him:  ”I am encouraged by the emergence of a candidate in this primary who has served the state in senior positions in my administration, the Fashola administration and even in the current one. While possessing a wealth of experience and exposure, he is a young man endowed with superlative vision and commitment. Most importantly, he understands the importance of the blueprint for development. He esteems it as a reliable and well-conceived vehicle for the future development of the state. He also knows the value of reaching out and working with others in order to maximise development and provide people the best leadership possible.”

    This testimonial was decisive in the primary. It may well be decisive in the governorship election. Victory for 53-year-old Sanwo-Olu means he would be in a position to implement a master plan that has served the state well enough since Tinubu’s two-term tenure as governor from 1999 to 2007.

    Tinubu had shed light on the pivotal blueprint on the eve of the primary: “Roughly 20 years ago, a corps of dedicated and patriotic Lagosians, put aside personal interests and rivalries, to put their minds and best ideas together for the good of the state. Out of this collaborative effort, was born a master plan for economic development that would improve the daily lives of our people. Bestowed on me was the honour of a lifetime when I was elected to be your governor in 1999. My administration faithfully implemented that plan. The government of my immediate successor, Tunde Fashola, also honoured this enlightened plan. Where state government remained true to that blueprint, positive things happened. During my tenure and Governor Fashola’s, Lagos State recorded improvements in all aspects of our collective existence, from public health to public sanitation, from education to social services, from the administration of justice to the cleaning of storm and sewage drains. Businesses, large and small, invested, hired millions of workers and thrived.”

    Tinubu provided an insight into the defining principles of the master plan: “All Lagosians were to fully participate and justly benefit from the social dividends and improvements wrought by this plan. From the common labourer, to business leaders, to professionals and our industrious civil service. We all were to be partners in a monumental but joint enterprise. None was to be alienated. None was to be left out. And none were to be pushed aside. This is especially true for those who contributed so much to our development, whether as a business leader who has invested heavily in Lagos, the homeowner who struggles to pay his fair share of taxes or as someone employed in the hard work of keeping our streets and byways clean so that others may go about their daily tasks unimpeded.”

    To Tinubu’s credit, he had remarked realistically, “I make no pretence that the master plan is perfect. It can always be fine-tuned.”  Sanwo-Olu would be faced with the challenge of following the plan and fine-tuning it.

    It is noteworthy that in 2017 Lagos was listed among the world’s 100 Resilient Cities (100RC).  A project of the U.S.-based Rockefeller Foundation, the 100 Resilient Cities include places in Africa, U.S.A., South America, Europe, Asia and Middle East.  According to a  report: “President of 100 Resilient Cities, Mr. Michael Berkowitz, said out of the over 1,000 applications received and three rounds of selection process, Lagos was chosen for its innovative leadership, infrastructural strides and influential status not just in Africa but in the world.” The project has its definition of urban resilience, which provided a context for the listing of Lagos:  ”Resilience is about surviving and thriving, regardless of the challenge.”

    To what degree was this recognition ascribable to implementation of the master plan Tinubu highlighted?  Outgoing Governor Akinwunmi Ambode acknowledged the value of the master plan:  ”I have been lucky to be administering over a state that has been put on the right track by my two predecessors, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN).”

    Lagos was in 2015 listed 12th among the world’s largest 35 cities. With over 23 million people, the city has to grapple with mega challenges.  On account of its mega status, Lagos State is exposed to “chronic stresses” and “acute shocks.”  ”Chronic stresses,” which are said to “weaken the fabric of a city on a day-to-day or cyclical basis,” include “high unemployment, inefficient public transportation systems, endemic violence, and chronic food and water shortages.”   “Acute shocks,” which are described as “sudden, sharp events that threaten a city,” include “earthquakes, floods, disease outbreaks, and terrorist attacks.”

    A list of resilience challenges facing Lagos: Chronic Energy Shortages, Coastal Flooding, Disease Outbreak, Infrastructure Failure, Overpopulation, Overtaxed/ Under Developed/Unreliable Transportation System, Poor Transportation System, Rainfall Flooding, Rising Sea Level and Coastal Erosion.

    If resilience is elasticity to manage change, Sanwo-Olu’s trajectory suggests that he has the capacity. A university-trained surveyor, he held senior positions in banking before he switched to the public service following his appointment as a special adviser on corporate matters to a former deputy governor of the state.

    He has been acting Commissioner for Economic Planning and Budget, Commissioner for Commerce and Industry, and Commissioner for Establishments, Training and Pensions. He was Managing Director/CEO of the Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC) before he won the APC governorship primary.

    Sanwo-Olu’s experience means he is well equipped to govern Lagos State. In addition to his insight into what it takes to govern the state, Sanwo-Olu has the quality of believability.  When Governor Ambode opened a lecture theatre at the Lagos State University on November 22,  he was quoted as saying:  ”I am so excited about the fact that Mr. Sanwo-Olu has actually come out here and he has issued a promissory note and what that means is that we are going to have a government of continuity.” This was another testimony to Sanwo-Olu’s progressive candidacy.

    It is expected that Sanwo-Olu’s positives will give him victory in the governorship election on March 2, 2019.

  • Atiku again

    Former vice president, and presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar is scheduled to launch his campaign today.  Atiku, who will be 72 this month, will try to win over the electorate ahead of the presidential election on February 16, 2019.

    A statement issued by Atiku Presidential Campaign Organisation said: “Our campaign offers a simple message: united, the people of Nigeria can begin anew, creating a prosperous and secure future and a better life for every Nigerian.”  Atiku is expected to release a policy document that will hopefully give the voting public an insight into his agenda.

    The statement said the things politicians say: “Our policy document focuses on creating jobs, ensuring security, growing business, developing power and water infrastructure, agriculture and education and how we will empower women. Our policies outline the goals and methods for developing and revitalising Nigeria as the foundation of our campaign. This policy document is being launched to encourage a dialogue with the people of Nigeria, inviting everyone to join us in helping to get Nigeria working again.”

    It remains to be seen how Atiku will get the electorate to believe him and believe in him.  There is no denying the fact that Atiku’s political trajectory mirrors a certain inconstancy. For instance, when in 2014 he left the then ruling PDP for the All Progressives Congress (APC), he had argued:  ”In 2006, as a result of my firm stand in defence of our constitution and our democracy, my supporters and I were pushed out of our party, the Peoples Democratic Party, a party that we worked tirelessly with other compatriots to build as a vehicle to restore democracy to our country. We later returned to that party in 2009 when a new leadership of the party and the country promised a new direction of inclusiveness, of internal democracy, of an end to impunity, adherence to the rule of law and respect for the dignity of members and Nigerians. Sadly, however, these promises have not been kept.”

    It is interesting that Atiku, the country’s second in command from 1999 to 2007, returned to the party’s embrace after his alleged ejection and subsequent unsuccessful 2007 presidential run as the candidate of the former Action Congress (AC).

    Against the background of his embarrassing loss in the PDP primary for the 2011 presidential election and his subsequent alleged informal exclusion from its leadership structures, he felt claustrophobic and needed a new space for political expression. Interestingly, the fresh breathing space he found turned out to be APC, which had a strong AC content, suggesting a return to familiar turf. His statement on his resignation from PDP had described APC as “a party of change committed to the improvement of the lives of our people and to the continued existence and development of Nigeria as one indivisible country.”

    Although he called his move “the right decision,” his destination was intriguing, especially because he bypassed the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM), the party he claimed to have co-founded and which he is believed to have financed heavily. This seemed to corroborate the view that maybe his overriding inspiration was situational wisdom, even fair-weather logic, although he emphasised that “this is not about me”; no doubt, conscious of such damaging interpretation of his new association.

    It is this possibility of unprincipled changeability that darkens the integrity of his expressed purpose. The PDP treated his 2014 departure not only with cynicism but also contempt. PDP’s then Deputy National Chairman, Prince Uche Secondus, said:” We are waiting for Atiku to go on this voyage and to come back. He has done it before. This is not the first time and we will welcome him back when he comes, because APC cannot win election.”

    Then APC won the historic 2015 presidential election and Muhammadu Buhari became president. In November 2017, Atiku left the ruling party. There is no question that the issue of his presidential ambition is central to the pros and cons of Atiku’s acrobatics. It looks like he didn’t mean it when he declared: “ I will do all within my God-given powers to help the APC win elections all over Nigeria and bring true change to our country and its long-suffering people.”

    Being a political acrobat must come with its own difficulties, and puts Atiku in a tough position. It certainly doesn’t enhance his image.  It is noteworthy that Atiku was a prominent member of the defunct Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the Third Republic, apart from his membership of PDP, his time in AC and link with PDM.

    Given the different ideological colours of these platforms, it is important to consider whether Atiku’s political trajectory is informed by any firm philosophy. It is too easy and unconvincing merely to talk about thoroughgoing socio-economic change and advancement.

    Four years ago, on APC platform, Atiku had said: “The process of building a nation, of securing and deepening democracy is indeed difficult. And it is not a lineal process. There would be alignment and realignment of political forces. There would be ups and downs and zigzags, triumphs and challenges. Amidst all that, patriots must remain focused and do what has to be done to save and build the country and serve our people better.”

    As Atiku gets set to challenge President Buahri and APC in next year’s election, there are many voices complaining about how the federal government has allegedly lost the plot. If Buhari is a failure, it cannot be said that APC is a success.

    Last year, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, an APC leading light,  declared in a bold and brilliant lecture at the National Defence College (NDC), Abuja: “We have to criticise ourselves when it is necessary, speak truth to power. We are the power; we will talk the truth to ourselves.”  The coming presidential election will show whether the voters think the Buhari administration has been teachable.

    The Atiku Presidential Campaign Organisation said: “We recognise that this will be a vigorous and hard fought election.”  It promises to be a big battle.

  • Video show

    If it happens, the public appearance of the contractor who recorded the sensational videos that allegedly exposed Kano State Governor Abdullahi Ganduje as a kickback receiver will take a riveting story to a greater level of intensity.  An online medium, Daily Nigerian, published by Jaafar Jaafar, had sensationally released the videos.

    A report said the unnamed contractor, described as a “whistleblower,” had set conditions for his appearance in a letter, through his lawyer, to the seven-man Kano State House of Assembly Investigative Committee. According to the report, “One of the conditions is that the video clips would be submitted to two experts for forensic analysis. He said one of the experts must be a serving officer of the Department of State Services and the other an expatriate, while their bills would be paid by the state.”

    Other conditions stated in the letter are: “That a Certified True Copy of the report(s) prepared by the experts shall be made available to our client prior to his appearance; that our client has undertaken to surrender to the experts the device used in capturing all the events in the video clips submitted and others yet to be submitted for discreet analysis and scrutiny; that all the proposed questions to be asked by the panel in the anticipated session shall not be more than 10 and shall be forwarded to our client in advance; and that the sitting be restricted to limited persons and that our client should be allowed to wear a mask, bear a fictitious name and receive protection from authorities for himself, family and business.”  In addition, the contractor demanded that the governor, the publisher, and one Aminu Daurawa should also appear when he appeared before the panel.

    It looks like the contractor means business. But it is curious that he wants to be allowed to “wear a mask” and “bear a fictitious name.” The spectacle of a masked man with a false name trying to clarify what is unclear is something to think about. One question: Why limit the questions to 10 when there could be more than 10 questions that need answers?

    Jaafar had told the investigative committee when he appeared on October 25: “A whistleblower, who is someone I know, gave me the video clips. He told me that Governor Ganduje is fond of collecting bribes of between 15 and 30 per cent from contractors executing various projects in the state. I told the whistleblower that we need evidence before we publish the story; and that we have to rigidly follow the rigours of the profession.”

    Jaafar explained how they got the said evidence:  “We then agreed to plant spy cameras on his Kaftan lapel so that he can capture the brazen act in hard evidence. He captured at least 15 clips, nine of which fully showed the governor’s face, body and hands collecting bundles of dollars.”  The first video, published on October 14, showed the governor allegedly receiving US dollars from a contractor. “The video also showed His Excellency tucking these monies under his flowing gown and putting them inside an envelope,” Jaafar added.

    The publisher argued that the authenticity of the videos was unquestionable:  “Before Daily Nigerian publishes stories, pictures or videos on its website (www.dailynigerian.com), the editors subject them to rigours of verification to establish their authenticity or otherwise. In the case of the video clips in question, our in-house technical expert, the editor-in-chief and editorial adviser certified that the videos were original and not doctored contents. Experts from Amnesty International Nigeria, BBC and Premium Times also watched the clips and certified their authenticity before we went to press.”

    Meddlers entered the picture when a lawyer and  the National Coordinator of Lawyers for Sustainable Democracy in Nigeria, Muhammad Zubair, asked a Kano High Court to stop the Kano State House of Assembly from conducting an investigation into the bribery allegation against Governor Ganduje.  This intriguing intervention further problematised democratic practice in Nigeria.

    Governor Ganduje chose to respond to the serious accusation in writing, saying he “did not collect, has not collected and will never collect bribe from anybody.” His defence letter was signed and delivered   to the committee by Information, Youth and Culture Commissioner, Muhammad Garba.

    It looks like Ganduje trivialised the accusation.  His appearance would have demonstrated that he understood the gravity of the allegation. But he didn’t appear.  Or did he think his position meant he didn’t need to appear?  It isn’t enough, and can’t be enough, that Ganduje responded in writing.

    It’s no business of Zubair and the group known as Lawyers for Sustainable Democracy in Nigeria.  Asking a court to stop the investigative committee from further probing the bribery allegation is anti-democratic. This is no way to sustain democracy. The group’s move to halt the probe is suspicious. If there is nothing to hide, and nothing to fear, why does the group want the investigation discontinued?  It is interesting that the committee is going ahead with the probe.

    Democracy is not expected to encourage corruption, which is not to say that the governor is corrupt, or that he is guilty.  Ganduje is expected to defend himself and prove his innocence. This meddlesome group does not help his case.

    This case of bribery videos represents a new high in the fight against corruption, particularly political corruption.  The publisher has demonstrated that fighting corruption is a serious business that requires more than the usual way of doing business. The legislature has also shown unusual enthusiasm. It is expected to fulfill the promise of its intervention.

    The drama is a warning sign.  Governors and others will have to be more careful in their dealings with contractors and others. It is important to find out the truth and nothing but the truth. If the videos are a reproduction of reality, the implications for the governor, his party and his supporters are clearly negative. If the videos are a presentation of fake news, it is bad news for the news business. It would be disappointing if the drama ends in suspense.

  • Anenih’s unsung wonder

    When a dead politician’s good example is overshadowed by his perceived bad politics, it should be a lesson to the living.  Chief Tony Anenih, who died on October 28, aged 85, earned the nickname, Mr. Fix It, on account of his intensely controversial political manoeuvres. He had a reputation for fixing things to advance his own political interests, which suggested that he was not always guided by principle.

    But the same man was quoted as saying: “The only life worth living is the life lived in service to God and humanity.” This was his response when the management of the University College Hospital, UCH, Ibadan, asked him to endow Nigeria’s first geriatric centre.  Chief Medical Director, UCH, Prof. Temitope Alonge, had said: “At the core management meeting of the hospital held in July 2012, management unanimously agreed on the choice of Chief Tony Anenih, CFR, the Iyasele of Esanland as the most suitable Nigerian to endow this centre, the very first of such in Nigeria.”Anenih’s positive response resulted in the Chief Tony Anenih Geriatric Centre.

    Alonge explained that the then Minister of Health, Professor Onyebuchi Chukwu, had sold the idea of getting a philanthropist to endow the centre   to the management when he visited the university. “This will ultimately dovetail into the naming of such projects after the endower,” he added.

    At an event last year, Alonge highlighted the importance of the centre: “We are now at the Geriatric Age in Nigeria. The adult population is increasing at an alarming rate and therefore the demand for care of the aged has been on the rise as against what it used to be in the past. The Tony Anenih Geriatric Centre in UCH, commissioned five years ago, is the only centre committed to the care of the aged. The centre has since its inception treated close to 30,000 patients with the daily patients figure attendance at 1,000 daily.”

    It is sad that Anenih’s politics cast a shadow over his commendable endowment of the geriatric centre. His role after the military annulled the country’s historic June 12, 1993 presidential election won by Chief MKO Abiola was an albatross around his neck until he died. His lack of enthusiasm for the popular struggle to validate Abiola’s mandate was considered a betrayal of democracy. As chairman of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), which had won the election, Anenih was oddly apathetic.

    In the course of his political life, which spanned decades, Anenih projected the image of an unprogressive political player. As chairman of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) in the former Bendel State, his association with the conservative party spoke volumes about his political inclination. As National Chairman of SDP, it was an unlikely association exposed by his disconnection from the unjust annulment of Abiola’s electoral victory.

    Anenih’s participation in the Constitutional Conference in 1994 reflected his involvement in the country’s search for political solutions. His role as Deputy National Coordinator of Olusegun Obasanjo Campaign Organisation in the 1999 and 2003 elections showed his belief in the development capacity of the conservative camp. President Obasanjo appointed him Minister of Works and Housing in 1999, and he later became Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the then ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Anenih was a symbol of godfatherism in Nigerian politics, meaning he was identified with a form of political corruption. As a political godfather, particularly in his native Edo State, he regarded himself as a kingmaker with the power, and influence, to determine who became governor.

    However, Anenih was eventually demystified. In 2008, Adams Oshiomhole of the former Action Congress (AC) became governor of the state despite Anenih’s opposition. Anenih never recovered from the political blow. Not only did Oshiomhole do two four-year terms, his successor also came from the progressive camp opposed to Anenih. By the time he died, Anenih had announced his retirement from politics, a sign that the godfather recognised his decline.

    It is noteworthy that in October 2009, a senate committee issued a report following its probe of how over N300 billion was spent in the transport sector during the Obasanjo administration. The committee had recommended prosecution of 13 former ministers, including Anenih, who was accused of awarding contracts without budgetary provision.

    It is puzzling that Anenih’s death attracted flattering tributes, even by those who detested his politics. This thought-provoking contradiction is not redemptive.

    The redeeming feature comes from an eye-witness account by Folu Olamiti published last year: “At a point in my life, I could no longer afford the soaring cost of medical checks abroad. It was at this point that someone introduced me to Chief Tony Anenih Geriatric Centre at the University College Hospital, UCH, Ibadan… Behold, it was a sight to behold. I started seeing familiar faces of retired Vice Chancellors, Professors drawn from virtually every part of the country, aged politicians, businessmen, clergymen and aged peasants of all sorts. Some could barely walk and were in wheelchairs. The environment was sparkling, made beautiful with well- manicured gardens, gardens brimming with aromatic flowers. Everything the aged needed was provided.”

    Olamiti continued enthusiastically: “Upon investigation, I learnt that the centre is the brainchild of the politician popularly known as “Mr. Fix It”, Chief Tony Anenih. The man had hitherto been fixing virtually every political jigsaw in Nigeria’s current democracy but at some point, he decided to fix better life for the aged.  I give him kudos.  He deserves a big applause from all well-meaning Nigerians. I equally learnt that he started ploughing back the seeds realised in politics to build this centre to cater to the aged way back in 2012;and from then, he has never looked back as he keeps the centre going with regular funding; and he does so single-handed.  Chief Anenih picks the bills on anything and everything that has to do with the centre. He sets up a Social Health Insurance Scheme for all the clients at N18, 000 annually, which gives the beneficiaries access to health care of up to N500, 000 yearly.  Here, fees payable for clinical services are pegged at 50% of normal hospital fees.”

    Anenih is dead. The ultimate tribute to him is to keep the geriatric centre going.

  • Kanu: Stunt after stunt

    His disappearance looked like a stunt. His reappearance looked like another stunt. An October 19 online video showing the controversial leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, praying in Israel, extended an attention-grabbing drama that began with his disappearance on September 14, 2017. His reappearance 13 months after was as mysterious as his disappearance.

    The group’s Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, said in a statement that corroborated the video:  ”Fellow Biafrans, friends of Biafra, enemies of Biafra, men and women of goodwill and of good conscience across the world, we wish to reliably inform you that the Supreme Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, prayed today at the Wailing Wall in the Holy City of David in Jerusalem Live today, October 19, 2018.’’

    Kanu’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, reinforced the corroboration in a statement:  ”I received a direct confirmation from my client, hearing once from him after 13 months in captivity. I am very delighted therefore, to use this singular opportunity to announce to the world that my client is the very person seen in the pictures /video. That I can confirm authoritatively.”  Has Kanu been in captivity?

    Since Kanu disappeared while on bail, his sureties had been asked to account for his whereabouts, but they seemed not to know. Kanu was granted bail by a Federal High Court on April 25, 2017, after many sympathetic voices had called for his release from prolonged detention for separatist activities.  Kanu was facing trial for “alleged offences of conspiracy to commit acts of treasonable felony and other related offences.”

    Following Kanu’s disappearance, his lawyers had argued that the Nigerian army authorities should be made to produce him because he allegedly disappeared during an operation by soldiers. The operation was described as “a murderous raid, where live and mortar bullets were fired on unarmed and defenceless people, leaving 28 persons dead.”  They had said in their motion: “The invading soldiers who had direct contact with the applicant on this fateful day (September 14, 2017) should be in a position to produce the applicant before the court. It is either the respondent’s rampaging soldiers abducted the applicant during this raid or killed him in the process.” Kanu’s reappearance means that this was an opportunistic claim. A military exercise in the Southeast, “Operation Python Dance,” was ongoing at the time soldiers allegedly invaded Kanu’s house in Afara-Ukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, Abia State.

    After Kanu disappeared, a former governor of Abia State, Orji Uzor Kalu, had supplied information about his whereabouts: ”Kanu was not taken away by the military. Kanu went to Malaysia from where he travelled to the United Kingdom… He was not arrested by anybody. He left the country on his own. One of his relations has spoken to me and explained everything because I wanted to see him and talk to him wherever he was and see how I could meet some Federal Government officials on his issue. I also wanted to see ways of talking to the President about him, and find common ground but his family told me that he has left the country, unless they are lying to me.” Kanu’s group and his lawyers rubbished this information.

    An announcement followed: “Mazi Nnamdi Nwanekaenyi Kanu, the former Director of Radio Biafra is hereby dismissed and removed as Director of Radio Biafra following extensive and intensive consultations.” The announcer named one “Mazi Ezenwachukwu Sampson Okwudili as Kanu’s replacement.” Kanu was accused of: “Personalisation of the Biafran struggle and derailing from the core objectives of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a grassroots movement.”

    There were other accusations against Kanu: “Kanu’s actions and his decisions to incite members of IPOB towards violence leading to the death of many innocent young people in Onitsha, Aba and Umuahia are totally unacceptable and grossly irresponsible. Kanu privately collected £14 million and another $22 million to purchase landed properties abroad in his name and that of his father, Igwe Israel Kanu, in a clear case of ‘monkey dey work baboon dey chop.’ He was also accused of failing to “drum up support for the release of his colleagues and co-detainees such as Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.”

    IPOB rubbished the reported announcement in a statement:  ”For anyone to believe that faceless hitherto unheard of individuals can wake up one evening and announce the replacement of a man that commands 50 million people with presence in over 100 countries of the world, making him only second to Pope Francis as the personality with the largest cult following on earth, is plain stupid.” This characterisation of Kanu was striking for its hyperbolism.  Who was expected to believe this picture of Kanu’s alleged global stature?

    About three weeks before he disappeared, Kanu was characteristically rebellious when he addressed a crowd on August 27, 2017, at the Boys Technical College (BTC) on Faulks Road in Aba North Local Government Area of Abia State. According to a report, “He used the forum to reiterate that there would not be election in Anambra in November or any part of “Biafra Land” even in 2019, unless the group’s clamour for referendum got the blessings of government.”  He was quoted as saying: “I’m a Biafran and we are going to crumble the zoo. Some idiots who are not educated said that they’ll arrest me, and I ask them to come. I’m in Biafra land. If any of them leaves Biafra land alive, know that this is not IPOB.”

    Without Kanu, days to the governorship election in Anambra State on November 18, 2017, IPOB was still flexing its muscles. Members of the separatist group marched around with a death threat in Onitsha, Anambra State, on November 3, 2017.  They were quoted as saying: “If you vote you will die. Don’t go out, stay in your house. If you vote on November 18, you will die…There will be no election. We will not participate, we will not vote.” The Anambra State governorship election was lost and won, and Kanu was still nowhere to be found.

    What will happen now that Kanu has reappeared?  According to Kanu’s lawyer, “the shocking tale of how he made it alive once again will be made public in his scheduled world press broadcast to be beamed live” on October 21. It would be interesting to hear what Kanu has to say about what happened, where he has been and why he reappeared at this time.

  • Lagos: A plan matters

    A master plan is special, serious and specific. Its implementation demands a sense of concentrated commitment. The question of a master plan and questions about its implementation were at the centre of the October 2 All Progressives Congress (APC) Lagos governorship primary.

    Indeed, the issue of a master plan determined who lost the primary and who won it. Governor Akinwunmi Ambode had 72, 901 votes while Babajide Sanwo-Olu had 970, 851 votes.

    Why was the matter of a master plan so pivotal in the primary? A pillar of the party, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, said in an illuminating statement on the eve of the primary: “Roughly 20 years ago, a corps of dedicated and patriotic Lagosians, put aside personal interests and rivalries, to put their minds and best ideas together for the good of the state. Out of this collaborative effort, was born a master plan for economic development that would improve the daily lives of our people. Bestowed on me was the honour of a lifetime when I was elected to be your governor in 1999. My administration faithfully implemented that plan. The government of my immediate successor, Tunde Fashola, also honoured this enlightened plan. Where state government remained true to that blueprint, positive things happened. During my tenure and Governor Fashola’s, Lagos State recorded improvements in all aspects of our collective existence, from public health to public sanitation, from education to social services, from the administration of justice to the cleaning of storm and sewage drains. Businesses, large and small, invested, hired millions of workers and thrived.”

    Tinubu provided an insight into the defining principles of the master plan: “All Lagosians were to fully participate and justly benefit from the social dividends and improvements wrought by this plan. From the common labourer, to business leaders, to professionals and our industrious civil service. We all were to be partners in a monumental but joint enterprise. None was to be alienated. None was to be left out. And none were to be pushed aside. This is especially true for those who contributed so much to our development, whether as a business leader who has invested heavily in Lagos, the homeowner who struggles to pay his fair share of taxes or as someone employed in the hard work of keeping our streets and byways clean so that others may go about their daily tasks unimpeded.”

    It is interesting that Ambode had acknowledged the master plan implementation by his predecessors in a thought-provoking article published last year. Ambode’s words: “I am sharing my thoughts in this article, not necessarily as the Governor of Lagos State but as a Nigerian; a Nigerian who wants to see progress and sustainable growth in our country. I have been lucky to be administering over a state that has been put on the right track by my two predecessors, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN). I do not think I have done anything special except to bring my own style of leadership, my own experience and my vision.” Ambode’s failure in the primary implied that his style of leadership, his experience and vision were out of sync with the master plan he was expected to implement.

    It is noteworthy that in 2017 Lagos was listed among the world’s 100 Resilient Cities (100RC). A project of the U.S.-based Rockefeller Foundation, the 100 Resilient Cities include places in Africa, U.S.A., South America, Europe, Asia and Middle East. According to a report: “President of 100 Resilient Cities, Mr. Michael Berkowitz, said out of the over 1,000 applications received and three rounds of selection process, Lagos was chosen for its innovative leadership, infrastructural strides and influential status not just in Africa but in the world.” The project has its definition of urban resilience, which provided a context for the listing of Lagos: “Resilience is about surviving and thriving, regardless of the challenge.”

    To what degree was this recognition ascribable to implementation of the master plan Tinubu highlighted? To Tinubu’s credit, he had remarked realistically, “I make no pretence that the master plan is perfect. It can always be fine-tuned,” adding, “However, whenever a government departed from this plan without compelling reason, the state and its people have borne the painful consequence of the improper departure.”

    The crux of the matter: “To ignore this blueprint for progress in order to replace it with ad-hoc schemes of a materially inferior quality contravenes the spirit of progressive governance and of our party. Such narrowness of perspective does not bring us closer to our appointed destination; it takes us farther from that destiny. For reasons unknown to me and most Lagosians, we have experienced such deviations from enlightened governance recently.”

    So, Ambode lost the chance for a second term. The lesson is that the importance of master plan implementation and the importance of having a governor who will demonstrate the desired intensity of commitment to the master plan cannot be overemphasised. If respecting the wisdom of the master plan was responsible for the positives of the Tinubu and Fashola administrations, disrespecting the blue print has been a costly adventure for Ambode.

    Tinubu’s decisive endorsement of Sanwo-Olu played up the master plan and his confidence in Sanwo-Olu’s grasp of its supremacy. Tinubu’s words: “I am encouraged by the emergence of a candidate in this primary who has served the state in senior positions in my administration, the Fashola administration and even in the current one. While possessing a wealth of experience and exposure, he is a young man endowed with superlative vision and commitment. Most importantly, he understands the importance of the blueprint for development. He esteems it as a reliable and well-conceived vehicle for the future development of the state. He also knows the value of reaching out and working with others in order to maximise development and provide people the best leadership possible.”

    It is creditable that the development of Lagos since the Tinubu era has been based on a master plan, allegedly downplayed by Ambode. It means that the city’s progress is planned. As Sanwo-Olu prepares for the governorship election, with the advantage of his progressive candidacy, he represents the superiority of planned progress.

     

  • Money changed hands

    It was not only a game of money; it was also a show of money.  Those who gave money and those who received money were on the same page. Perhaps it was predictable, given the big political ambition of the big spenders.

    Reports of big spending by presidential aspirants to get the votes of delegates showed that the national convention of the  Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which held in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, on October 6, was a travesty of democracy.

    A report captured the corruption: “Members of the Peoples Democratic Party, who were fortunate to be delegates at the party’s national convention… were said to have received thousands of dollars as bribes from some presidential aspirants. As early as Saturday morning, some of the delegates said they already had up to $9,000 each while they said that they were still expecting more.”

    The report continued: “A particular aspirant, who had taken part in a presidential primary before, was said to have first offered the delegates $2,500 each in exchange for votes. But when he heard that another aspirant offered the delegates $3000, he increased his own to $4000. Our correspondent however gathered that the first aspirant later offered same amount of $4000, an action that forced the man who offered $4000 to increase his own to $5000.”

    The report supplied more information: “Another aspirant was also said to have offered a mere $1000. It was also learnt that some aspirants gave out naira to the delegates, while a source said states with large delegates got N50m, while others with fewer delegates got less. However, investigations …also revealed that other aspirants had also offered unspecified amount of money to the delegates. Two delegates from the North-West… confirmed they received cash. One of them, who showed our correspondent the envelope that contained the dollar bills, said they decided to receive the gratification as a means of getting their share of the ‘national cake.’

    Who gave what? The presidential aspirants were a former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, who won the primary; Governor of Sokoto State, Aminu Tambuwal; Governor of Gombe State, Ibrahim Dankwambo; a former Governor of Kano State, Senator Rabiu Kwankwaso; a former Governor of Sokoto State, Alhaji Attahiru Bafarawa. Others were the President of the Senate, Senator Bukola Saraki; a former President of the Senate, Senator David Mark; a former Minister of Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Relations, Alhaji Tanimu Turaki (SAN) and a former Governor of Plateau State, Senator Jonah Jang. Also in the race were a former Governor of Kaduna State, Senator Ahmed Makarfi; a former Governor of Jigawa State, Alhaji Sule Lamido and Dr. Datti Baba-Ahmed.

    Take Senate President Bukola Saraki, for example. He is a rich political player who further demonstrated his richness by playing a paymaster’s role in a recent case. With the 2019 general election approaching, the public should expect to see more of the things rich politicians do with their riches because they want power or because they want to remain in powerful positions.

    When Saraki reportedly paid 20 months’ unpaid salaries of 220 traditional rulers in his constituency, Kwara Central senatorial district, he showed that he had no qualms about using what he had to get what he wanted. The chiefs were mainly district heads from Ilorin East, Ilorin South and Asa Local Government Areas. A report said: “The affected local government councils could not meet their financial obligations to the traditional rulers because of the drastic shortfall in their allocation from the federation account.”

    Then Saraki provided N49.4m, which the affected traditional rulers received at a ceremony at the ABS Constituency Office in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital, on April 16. The Director- General, ABS Constituency Office, Alhaji Musa Abdullahi, said Saraki had set up a committee to resolve the non-payment of the salaries, and had acted on the committee’s recommendation ?to pay the unpaid salaries. Abdullahi was said to have advised the district heads “to continue to support the senate president to enable him attract more dividends of democracy to the state.”

    Here is the meat of the matter: Where did the money come from?  The answer to this important question cannot be left to speculation, and will likely lead to further questions. This is because a question may be answered and an answer may be questioned. In the end, there may be more questions than answers.

    Indeed, the same question should be asked in the case of the PDP national convention: Where did the money come from?  Could it be that the aspirant who gave more money than the others won the primary?  What will happen in the presidential election?

    It is noteworthy that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) reportedly said it was prepared to make vote buying impossible in the governorship election held in Ekiti State on July 14.

    INEC’s National Commissioner in charge of Ondo, Ekiti, Osun, and Oyo states, Solomon Soyebi, who represented the Chairman, Mahmood Yakubu, at a stakeholders’ meeting on the continuous voters’ registration, in Ado Ekiti, had said that money was used to influence voters during the last elections in Edo, Ondo and Anambra states.

    “The elections in Edo, Ondo and Anambra states were largely monetised,” Soyebi had asserted. “We are aware of this. It was ‘see and buy,’ but it won’t happen in Ekiti.” He also said:  “It was N5, 000 per vote in Ondo and Anambra states. We are working with security agencies not to allow it to happen again. We even seized some cash in Anambra State.”

    Obviously, something needs to be done so that politicians won’t be able to use money to get voters to vote in their favour. Must politicians buy votes? Must they think of buying votes?  To think of buying votes and to buy votes means that there are people who are ready to sell their votes. There can’t be vote buying without vote selling. So it is not only vote buyers that should be condemned; vote sellers should be equally condemned. After all, it is said that it takes two to tango.

    The general election will show whether Nigeria wants a democracy of vote buyers and vote sellers.

     

  • Politics of peace

    HOW a discredited former president, Goodluck Jonathan, promoted peace has been highlighted again as an enduring lesson for political players in this political season. Though the story has been told in various forms since 2015 when Jonathan conceded defeat to then-challenger Muhammadu Buhari, it has now been retold in a more clarifying form.

    Jonathan shouldn’t have lost the presidential election if he hadn’t lost his sense of reality.  He underrated the response of the electorate to bad governance. The wave of change under the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) exposed how mind-boggling corruption corrupted the Jonathan administration. Jonathan’s 60th birthday last year was a time to think about the power of performance and the powerlessness of non-performance.  In the final analysis, democratic leaders are expected to pass or fail based on their performance and the evaluation of the electorate.

    Three years after Buhari’s historic victory in the 2015 presidential election, the National Peace Committee, on September 25, released an illuminating report titled “2015 General Elections: The Untold Story.”  The main point of the report is that the committee did not pressure Jonathan to concede defeat.

    According to the report, the committee had, in the evening of March 31, 2015, requested an audience with Jonathan at the Villa. The report said: “As it awaited confirmation for the meeting with the president, the committee chairman, General Abubakar, also put a call through to General Buhari, who informed him that President Jonathan had only minutes earlier called to concede the elections. He particularly asked the committee to please convey his good wishes to President Jonathan for his great act of statesmanship. Shortly after that, members of the committee, who were greatly relieved, headed to the Villa where they met privately with President Jonathan and thanked him for his great courage.”

    The report explained: “At this point, the Buhari Campaign team were yet to address the press on the historic development and as such, many Nigerians got the news of the concession from General Abubakar’s brief media scrum with State House Correspondents, which perhaps helps create the wrong, but widespread impression that the committee sat with President Jonathan at the Villa as the results came in and had directly prevailed on him to concede.”

    It is noteworthy that Buhari had also painted a picture of what happened.  He told State House correspondents during the activities marking his first anniversary as president in May 2016 that he was shocked when Jonathan conceded defeat so easily after the March 2015 presidential election.

    Buhari had said: “This is where I pay my respect to former President Goodluck Jonathan. This is actually privileged information for you. He called me at a quarter-past-five in the evening. He said, ‘Good evening, Your Excellency, sir’ and I said, ‘Good evening.’ He said, ‘I have called to congratulate you that I have conceded defeat.’ Of course, there was dead silence on my end because I did not expect it. I was shocked. I did not expect it because after 16 years; the man was a deputy governor, governor, vice-president and was president for six years. For him to have conceded defeat even before the result was announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission, I think it was quite generous and gracious of him. Gen. Abdulsalami recognised the generosity of Jonathan to concede defeat and said we should go and thank him immediately and that was the first time I came here.”

    The 51-page report also drew attention to another significant happening that puts Jonathan in a good light.  The report said: “A meeting with Jonathan was held at the Aso Rock Villa in the afternoon of Wednesday, March 25, 2015. At the meeting, he (Jonathan) raised some issues concerning the state of the nation, the threat of violence by the opposition (APC) based on allegations that he (Jonathan) and his party were planning to rig the elections. He (Jonathan) noted that he took very seriously the threat by leading members of the opposition to form a parallel government in the event that they didn’t win the elections, but that he chose not to react to such apparent treasonable acts in the interest of peace.”

    It is unclear why the committee released its report at this time, three years after the event.  But, ironically, it is a timely release. With the 2019 general election within view, the report is food for thought. By conceding defeat, Jonathan demonstrated a desirable spirit of sportsmanship. The report is a reminder that he could have chosen another path, with consequences for the polity.

    When Jonathan was honoured with an award, 2015 International Person of the Year, by African Sun Times, his critics trivialised the recognition.  Jonathan had said: “We proved that nobody’s political ambition is worth the blood of any Nigerian or any national of any country for that matter. That, to me, is a most worthy testimonial of the character of the Nigeria nation and the resilience of our people, which is why I dedicate the honour to them.”

    Politicians need to understand that politics is a stage and players will have their exits and their entrances. Whether they are exiting or entering, politicians must do so with a sense of what is sensible.

    It is commendable that the National Peace Committee has re-energised its efforts. It is a reflection of the political situation that General Abubakar told journalists  after the committee met  with the Independent National Electoral Commission chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu, and the heads of security agencies in the country: “As you are all aware, we are approaching 2019 general elections and already you are very much aware of how politics has been heated as a result of which we decided to stop at nothing to ensure that there is peace in the country and that the politicians play by the rules of the game and also that security agencies and the INEC play their roles accordingly.”

    It remains to be seen whether the 2019 general election will be conducted peacefully; whether politicians understand that victory or defeat is not as important as peace.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Lalong and security restructuring

    It is ironic that Plateau State Governor Simon Lalong is faced with a storm, despite his philosophy of peace.  He rushed back home from the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Convention in Abuja following June mass shootings in which hundreds of people were reportedly killed in the state, despite the presence of  a special military taskforce in charge of security, Operation Safe Haven. The shocking bloodletting in Barikin Ladi, Riyom and Jos South Local Government Areas has been attributed to   renewed antagonism between farmers and herders.

    It is noteworthy that President Muhammadu Buhari acknowledged Lalong’s positive role when he met leaders of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in the North at the State House on July 5. Buhari observed: “We must not forget that the same Plateau State which has been crisis-ridden for years has in the past three years been celebrated for its peace. The governor’s hard work for peace and the presence of the military’s Operation Safe Haven must have had some impact.”

    Buhari drew attention to three special military intervention forces in troubled zones:  Operation Safe Haven to secure Plateau State, Operation Whirl Stroke 1 (OPWS) to secure Benue, Taraba and Nasarawa and OPWS 2 to secure Zamfara and Kaduna States. “These forces are supported with investigative and intelligence gathering capabilities from the Nigeria Police Force, Department of State Services and other agencies,” he added.  Obviously, the scale of military intervention is a reflection of the intensity of the security crisis.

    It is understandable that the latest mass killings in Plateau State intensified the question of state police and the search for an answer.  In a reaction, Governor Aminu  Tambuwal of Sokoto State called for a review of the country’s  security structure while  opening a meeting of the  National Executive Council of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) in Sokoto.

    Tambuwal argued: “Whether we like it or not, there is seeming justification for state police and there is seeming justification for state governments to have some measure of control over security personnel. You call the police commissioner and that call is ignored is unfortunate and unacceptable.”

    Just before the recent Plateau tragedy, Zamfara State Governor Abdul’aziz Yari made a tragic observation:  “We have been facing serious security challenges over the years but in spite of being governor and chief security officer of the state, I cannot direct security officers on what to do nor sanction them when they err. As chief security officer, the nomenclature is just a name.”

    Lalong is also in this category. What is a chief security officer without power over security?  Lalong told journalists after a meeting with President Buhari:  “We are all concerned about the killings…This issue of killings must stop…No governor will sit down and encourage or allow crisis. Even by omission, if you see it, you must address it squarely.” Given the current security structure, Lalong is faced with a clear security handicap.  In other words, security restructuring may well be the solution.

    Indeed, security restructuring is an inevitable aspect of political restructuring. In 2016, former Inspector-General of Police (IG) Solomon Arase had painted a picture that showed just how under-policed the country is. He had said in an interview: “When you say the number of policemen we have is 370,000, you have to take into consideration that we have traffic wardens, civilian staff, medical doctors, engineers and drivers. If you put those ones together and minus it from the 370,000, it will come down greatly. So, it leaves us with few operational policemen who we can give firearms to.”  Considering that Nigeria’s population was estimated at 178.5 million in 2014, the extent of the existing policing gap is extensive.

    More fundamentally, Arase had tried to dance around what may well be the primary problem. He had said: “On the recruitment of new 10,000 policemen that was ordered by the President, we want the recruitment to be state-based because we want to encourage community partnership. If we want to encourage community partnership, for instance, somebody from Kano who understands the language and culture, as a constable, he will be able to serve better and gather information in that area after training instead of taking somebody from Lagos who does not understand the culture to go and dump him in Kano and then take a young boy who has not passed through Kaduna before to be dumped in the South-East. So, we want to discourage those things and ensure that it is local government and state-based by the time we recruit.”

    It is unclear whether Arase’s successor and current IG Ibrahim Idris Kpotum is thinking along similar lines. But thinking along those lines isn’t enough.  The truth is that no matter how hard the authorities try to invent a substitute, there is no real substitute for state police properly so called.  The concept of state police goes with federalism properly so called, which means that Nigeria’s version of federalism is an oddity because it doesn’t accommodate state police, among other essentials.

    Following the Plateau killings, it is interesting that the National Assembly endorsed state police on July 3. The Senate and the House of Representatives described the country’s security system as a “failed architecture,” and backed the call for the establishment of state police to tackle the rising killings allegedly by herdsmen across several states. The two chambers of the National Assembly agreed to amend the constitution for this purpose. Specifically, the Senate has asked the Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution led by the Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu, to present an amendment bill within a specified period.

    Of course, it is one thing to talk about state police and it is another thing to take action in the direction of completion. It is on record that the National Assembly rejected a proposal for state police three times in the past.

    To present the big picture, the Plateau problem further illustrates the necessity for a federal arrangement that will give a governor like Lalong the powers to pursue public peace, prosperity and security to the best of his ability and without hindrance by a flawed federalism.