The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • Forty-minute marvel

    It was a curious meeting of two curious men in curious circumstances. The public is curious about what they talked about and what they didn’t talk about during what was described as “strictly personal talks.”

    Curiously enough, the reunion of sorts reportedly lasted 40 minutes, which is enough time to talk about something in particular or nothing in particular.

    A report quoted “a top source” as saying:  “It is a reunion of Papa and his son. Do not read any meaning into it. The ex-President decided to make it a private visit in order to be able to have frank talks with Obasanjo. During the visit, Obasanjo and Jonathan locked themselves up for 40 minutes. No member of Jonathan’s entourage or Obasanjo’s associates in Ibogun was allowed to be part of the private session. All I can tell you is that the two leaders were able to iron out a few things and Jonathan has since returned to Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.”

    When on January 20 former President Goodluck Jonathan paid “a private visit” to former President Olusegun Obasanjo in Ibogun, Ogun State, it was as puzzling as it was illuminating. In the beginning, Obasanjo, in the dying days of his second-term administration in 2007, discovered Jonathan who was at the time seeking a continuation as Governor of Bayelsa State. Jonathan had served as governor for less than two years, following the removal of Diepreye Alaimeyeseigha under whom he was deputy governor for six years.

    The picture changed and Jonathan moved to a bigger stage as vice presidential nominee, with Umaru Musa Yar’Adua as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate. Jonathan became Vice President in May 2007, and became President following Yar’ Adua’s death three years after. Jonathan won the 2011 election but was defeated in 2015 when he pursued a second term.

    Interestingly, Obasanjo played an ironic role in Jonathan’s electoral loss. The godfather became the chief antagonist in a fiery power struggle that saw Obasanjo dramatically tearing his PDP membership card and publicly campaigning against Jonathan’s campaign for re-election.  Indeed, the kingmaker became the king killer.

    Against this background, Jonathan’s publicised visit to Obasanjo nearly two years after his electoral failure may well suggest he has had a rethink and he is remorseful.  Obasanjo was quoted as saying openly to Jonathan: “I sincerely hope and pray for more such relaxed situation where we can reminisce on situations of the past that we have been through in this country and we can also look at what the future portends.”

    This sounded like agenda setting for the closed-door meeting that followed. It is unclear whether their one-on-one conversation covered the critical “situations of the past” that left their relationship critically broken, and how much of the future it covered.

    Obasanjo also said: “When leaders come, they have little or no experience. When they have to go is when they have really amassed a lot of experience, where they have wisdom, their experience is in high demand.”  This sounds like a subtle criticism of term-limit, replaying his linkage with an unconstitutional third-term ambition that was foiled at an embryonic stage.

    Contrary to Obasanjo’s argument, it does not follow that the longer leaders remain in office, the greater their wisdom and experience. Spending a longer time in office could actually result in greater folly.

    It is relevant to revisit the recent controversy involving Obasanjo and Oba Sikiru Adetona concerning comments the king made about the former president in his 2010 autobiography. How much did Obasanjo achieve while he was President of Nigeria from 1999 to 2007? This is how Oba Adetona answers the question in his book: “All the enormous goodwill which Obasanjo carried into office was squandered with a performance that left him with a second term short of tangible achievements. Eight years in office was ample time to put electricity on a very strong footing. Eight years was enough to put down a strong foot against corruption and make a clear difference. Eight years was adequate for orderliness and the rule of law to triumph in every facet of our society. These were the basis upon which I gave him my support for the office. Some new State Governors have shown how much good can be achieved in a shorter time.”

    Obasanjo’s riposte in a statement that reverberated across the country: “Kabiyesi, if I have squandered all the goodwill I had, you would not have contacted me on behalf of All Progressives Congress, APC, to receive them in 2014 and you would not have been personally present when I received them as I demanded. I probably have greater goodwill today internally and externally than I had in office.”

    Talking of goodwill,   Jonathan’s visit to Obasanjo in his village does not suggest that he has become irrelevant. Rather, it is a sure sign of Obasanjo’s continuing relevance.  Before their closed-door session, Obasanjo’s words to Jonathan demonstrated his sense of self-importance: “I have said to you before and I will say again that there are plenty of opportunities out there, within the country, within West Africa, within Africa and indeed in the larger world where people will want you to make contributions. I believe that you are resting now and when you have fully rested you will be hearing from me because I have this opportunity to be around the world and if I mention your name…”

    Call it conceit; Obasanjo’s performance spoke volumes about his sense of self, which is perhaps validated by how other players of the power game regard him. It is worth contemplating how he seems to project inexhaustible political capital, which seems to be recognised by those in the power loop.

    But when all is said and done, the country does not need political leaders who are wiser and more experienced after their time in high office. In order to achieve the desired development and progress, the country needs leaders who have sufficient wisdom and experience to make things better while in office. Perhaps Obasanjo unwittingly identified the problem with Nigeria and the problem with Nigeria’s leadership.

  • Bomb boy

    Bomb boy

    The rage of recriminations of ethno-religious bashing that has razed southern Kaduna in recent times has beclouded many from one of the seminal speeches of late.

    Borno State Governor Kashim Shettima looked at the North in the eye, and he did not spare the truth. More evoking than anything is his ability to deliver the speech without any craving of limelight or the profligacy of political capital.

    As the chairman of the Northern Governors Forum, he stands as a principal voice of the northern elite, and what we expect any personage in that high estate is to present of speech of self-congratulating grandeur, however false. In other cases, it takes a tone coy self-disregard, criticising itself to excuse itself and to blame the other guy.

    But as Governor Shettima gave his speech, you had the impression that other regional leaders would do well to learn from its unvarnished self-scrutiny. One of his illuminations came from reference to the words of the Emir of Kano, Alhaji Muhammadu Sanusi.

    Hear him: “He was quoted as saying he was tired of philanthropists regularly expressing readiness to build mosques whereas the majority of girls were growing and married out without education. The result of course being high rise of maternal mortality in northern Nigeria. This bold thinking captures how we have misunderstood our beliefs. The Emir said he has enough mosques but has few educated women. This is true of most states in the North. We have many mosques and many churches with unfortunately, hungry and uneducated worshippers. We have worshippers who don’t have basic knowledge of the religion they practice, yet we keep building worship centres as against educating the worshippers…”

    He was not addressing some quiescent students at a back-desert school or some academic lords bored into theory. He was speaking to the world beside emirs and his fellow governors. He was speaking not truth to power. It was power speaking truth to itself. It was an example of power in an extravagant moment of humility.

    He also gave one important piece of narrative, hardly highlighted or known by the media. Lamenting the corrosion of poverty, he unveiled an anecdote about spying and dying. Hear him again: “However, at the level of followers and other actors, poverty has made significant influence. For instance, in June 2013, we recorded a good number of extremely poor persons, who were recruited for as little as N5, 000 to either spy on soldiers and report their vulnerability to insurgents, attack and set ablaze by late night, or in some cases, poor old women were paid similar amounts by insurgents to either keep arms in their huts or smuggle arms from one point to another. One case I particularly remember is one Musa Grema, a 13-year-old boy who revealed that he accepted N5, 000 to set three of our primary schools ablaze and also spy on soldiers because his parents relied on him for their feeding.”

    I have pondered the story of that little boy since that speech. He was a child of war, but he merely thought he was doing good by his family. What does a little boy of 13 know about the fatal extremes of faith, about the bloodshed that eviscerates other families? He wanted his mother fed, and could not bear to see them hunger and die. Yet, to achieve that, others have to die. A father or mother with a 13-year-old like him will die because he snitched. Or another 13-year-old will go because he wanted his mother not to go.

    He is the story of Boko Haram, the story of a failed North, of bad governance that has endured generations while what the elite has focused on was hegemony. What sense does that make when the boy on the street and the girl hawking one piece of Kolanut cannot spell their names?

    Novelist Charles Dickens wrote Oliver Twist, a tale of a boy with poor background and teased dangerously into crime and gang. The novel forced the Prime Minister to ask Dickens if such a person lived in England. Oliver twist was a product of capitalist cruelty, but Grema is feudal, deeply rooted though in capitalist corruption.

    Shettima hit the bulls’ eye of education. It is the answer to a North that failed to look itself with self-love that is not self-doting. He noted that the backwardness of the North is a failure of effort and not of opportunity. But poverty, he noted, was the result of this, and the North had to tackle poverty. He said if the “North doesn’t kill poverty, poverty will kill the North. Allah Ya Kiyaye!”

    As the helmsman of northern governors, I like to think that others are beginning to think like him, and he also talked about appreciation of multiculturalism and difference, which he characterised as a “major challenge and indeed a litmus test of leadership, good governance and progress not just in northern Nigeria but in the entire globe.”

    The question of how to address the issue of herdsmen and the clash between them and the other citizens in southern Kaduna naturally flows. Where people are well-educated, and not fixated on religious fidelity, they are able to cast away bloodshed and hate.

    The supporters of Donald J. Trump are not necessarily uneducated, but they take advantage of the majority who have read little and therefore cannot know much. Musa Grema who spied to let his family live may think differently if he goes to school and grows into a 50-year-old. He may know they have taken advantage of him.

    But it was a society that gave birth to Musa that had to do what he did. It shows, as they now say of America, that elections have consequences. Many military leaders and democratically-elected governors presided over a North that played ostrich abroad but scavengers at home, exploiting the little one. Ali Modu Sherriff, who was Borno governor and Shettima’s predecessor, once boasted that his fellow citizens could not read what the media reported about his bad governance.

    It is that sort of scenario that Shettima lamented. Whether Southwest, Southsouth or Southeast, the lessons are not learned enough. If poverty has generated so much bad blood in the North, the currents in other regions are worsening as kidnapping, robberies and impunity are ominous indicators.

    There are many Musa Gremas down South. They are ticking bombs, of bombs as boys. It is no longer time for vigilance because we can hear them tick. It’s time to take action.

  • Magu, Lawal’s clearance

    President Buhari’s clearance and re-nomination of acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC, Ibrahim Magu are bound to throw up more puzzles than they intended to resolve. The inability to make public the findings that led to the clean bill of health given to the anti-corruption czar did not help matters.

    For now, we are faced with an off-hand dismissal of the weighty allegations raised in the DSS memo given that the president’s letter only said he had got ‘clarifications’ on the issues for which the Senate declined to screen him for confirmation. This casual treatment has been followed up with preachments and sanctimonies as to why the momentum of the fight against corruption has to be sustained with Magu at the steering.

    A lot has also been heard of a strong lobby to get the Senate approve the re-nomination taking into advantage, the strong majority of the ruling party in that chamber. And in the seeming desperate attempt to cajole the public to accept Magu, a weird impression is being conveyed that without him, that war cannot make any more progress.

    How consistent these are with reality is left to be conjectured. Whether the credibility deficits thrown up by the scandalous allegations would be better served by injecting a new hand into the war or retaining the man whose integrity has been put to question, (Buhari’s clearance notwithstanding) is another kettle of fish.

    In all, the unmistakable impression thrown up is that of a government fighting hard to save face; a careful attempt to cover up the seeming duplicity in the fight against corruption. Hard as the government tries in this direction, it would appear it is already caught up by the dialectics of the situation with little or no room for quick escape.

    For one, the report which the President totally faulted and had to re-nominate Magu, was issued by the DSS, an agency of the same government domiciled in the presidency. If it is really true that there was no basis for the allegations, then it speaks loud about the credibility of that critical agency.

    And for another, it could suggest one or two things. It is either it was done out of mischief and prejudice or some people in the agency had axe to grind with the EFCC helmsman’s and had to concoct all manner of subterfuge to get him out of the way. It could also be a mark of incompetence on the part of the agency for such weighty allegations to have been easily dismissed the way the president did.

    Is it possible that the issues traded by the DSS were mere concoctions? Could the agency have gone out of its way to simulate allegations that only exist in the figment of its imagination? Or does the agency stand to gain anything through a spurious report that is loaded with the frightening prospects of stultifying current efforts at stemming the tide of corruption?  These are the issues to consider. And the way they are perceived will shed more light into the complications thrown up by the President’s clearance of Magu.

    The President should have gone further to make public how the clarifications he got resolved the N40 million apartment said to have been rented and paid for Magu by one Umar Mohammed arrested sometime ago for questionable transactions. We needed evidence that he did not violate the President’s order barring public functionaries from travelling by air on first class. More specifically, evidence that he did not fly Emirate Airlines in first class when he went for the Lesser Hajj would have made the difference.

    It would have equally made better sense for the government to have come out with incontrovertible evidence to countermand the damning allegation that Magu maintains a flamboyant and duplicitous lifestyle- one which portrays him as an anti-corruption czar who harbors no friends but at another level hobnobs with corrupt people. It is vital to know how the President resolved the conclusions of the DSS that, Magu “failed the integrity test and will eventually constitute a liability to the anti-corruption drive of the present administration”.

    It is not a matter of bandying unsubstantiated allegations as put forward by the chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, Itse Sagay when he said Magu was ‘victimized because he was doing his job very well’ and that people were afraid that he was doing an excellent job and they felt threatened.

    Coming from such a serious mind, Sagay needed to produce further evidence of those who victimized Magu because of fear over their personal safety in the war. Does this reference apply to those whose report he said has now been found “totally untrue and unsubstantiated” or some others outside of it? Definitely, those who can wield such powers must be within the same government. And that makes the matter more confounding.

    The public deserves to know those attempting to victimize Magu and what action if any, the government has taken to punish them for derailing the momentum of the anti-corruption campaign through allegations that have now been dubbed spurious. We needed to know the critical details of such plans and those behind them to reassure the public that these are no mere attempts at cover up. The issue is already in the public domain. Sagay would be helping matters by demonstrating very unambiguously that the allegations bordered on witch-hunting.

    Then, the credibility of the DSS would have been put to question. In saner climes, the turn of events would have seen the authors of that report resigning their positions especially where the report was based on credible intelligence. All the same, the DSS will have to contend with credibility deficits of having authored a report which prima facie looked credible but the government has come out to say lacks merits. That is the purport of the clearance and re-nomination. But that is not the end of the matter.

    The Senate must come in to determine between the President and the DSS who is right in the positions they have taken in respect of the suitability of Magu for the EFCC job. In this regard, the relevant Senate committee must thoroughly conduct an independent investigation into all the issues raised in the DSS letter to it. In this assignment, it should match whatever evidence at its disposal with the reasons adduced by the president for re-nominating Magu for the sensitive job. All issues must be trashed out in the most credible and transparent manner for us to come to terms with the true picture and direction of the much dramatized war against corruption.

    In the case of allegations of misconduct against the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Babachir Lawal, the matter is much simpler given that the relevant senate committee which investigated and called on the president to relieve him of his post has all the evidence at its disposal. Already, its chairman, Shehu Sani has cried foul over what he termed the doctoring of the report of the committee.

    The senator has faulted some of the conclusions on which basis the President cleared the SGF of the allegations raised against him. The Senate has to redeem its image by demonstrating very clearly that there exists strong basis for its conclusions in the matter of the SGF and his interest in contracts pertaining to the humanitarian crisis in the north-east.

    Magu’s re-nomination and Lawal’s clearance are at the heart of the credibility test of the anti-corruption campaign. They must be handled in the most credible and transparent manner so that Nigerians can properly tap into the temperament of the anti-corruption campaign. The way they are trashed out will give inkling into whether “corruption is fighting back” through the corridors of the campaign prosecutors or outside of it. It will also address clearly, growing feelings that there exist different sets of laws for different people in this war.

  • Don of a new era

    Don of a new era

    The crowd, as some have said, seemed to call back the tumult of 1968. Then the young across the United States as well as in France bubbled to the streets in uproar against the system. Saturday’s march did not show that much rage, but the discontent was different.

    While the 1960’s was against a system, Saturday’s targeted one man: Donald J Trump. The toupee President, who fought in a presidential campaign as though he didn’t. He allowed his foes to take him for granted, and they did.

    He bullied to cow his opponents while he wowed his crowd. When he sullied them, his opponents growled in complaints, while he roared in the polls. They all thought he would pull out or lose out, but his opponents were squished. In the fallout, they fell. He preened to see them bleed. One after the other, they licked their wounds.

    It was like a movie, and last week, on Friday January 20, Trump stepped on the stage and became the president of the United States. His opponent, the staid, maligned Hillary sat as spectator beside her husband Bill. She was quieted and avoided a squint because of censorious media cameras.

    But the Saturday after, we saw a surge of discontent. City after big city, in the United States and around the world, crowds were unbound. I wondered where were they when we needed them? The guy did not show himself a good guy. He said he did not like people who did not sound like him, who did not colour like him, who did not dress like him, who did not worship like him. Although on the worship theme, he did not worship anyone but Donald J. Trump and the money that Donald J. Trump made.

    He fed off his crowds and they all loved walls, curses, bigotry. Yet we all looked and thought that somehow, the world was too good to embrace such demagogues. The United States constitution, so superb in its revolutionary impulses for the common good, would checkmate the rise of such a character.

    Indeed, the constitution fell first and the people afterwards when Trump won. The idea of the electoral college was to stifle people like him. Rather he rolled the document in his palms and his vulgar psalms made more sense to the people than its homilies.

    The founding fathers like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, etc. may turn in their grave. They never had checks against the rise of a Trump. That is why they did not want democracy, they wanted a republic. Democracy is about the rabble. A republic is about institutions. The founding fathers saw the past democracies, especially Greece, and they saw how it threw up tyrants. They might have recalled a phony like Pisistratus who draped himself in fake blood and lied to the Greek commoner that he was hostage of the elite, and the people backed him until he became tyrant over all. They also read Shakespeare, especially Coriolanus, and how a patriot is misunderstood and the people line behind their tyrants.

    So, the United States leaders suspected the popular vote and wanted institutions to mortgage the mob. But as we saw last November, the elite collapsed under the weight of an angry underclass of white men and women who thought it was better to support their own than to own their history of tolerance. It was the rise of the raw blood. They chose race over embrace.They conflated diatribe with tribe.

    He has now promised to build a wall. But his whole promise was a big wall. A wall between America and China, a wall between rich and poor, a wall between decency and barbarism, a wall between free trade and fair trade. He has pitched himself on the wrong side of every divide.

    Yet, if you listened to some of his rhetoric, many who are tribal bigots here at home would have lined up behind him if they were white. The southern Kaduna crisis is evidence that we are no moral superior. But the difference is that America has always claimed to be the city on the hill, the exceptional beacon of goodwill and integrity, the defender of the better angels of our soul.

    Trump is saying, the world has taken that for granted and it is time to hit the other cheek. He says he is going to be friends with Putin. But Putin wants to be the initiator and controller of that dynamics. He quickly despatched Aleppo and staged a conference and invited the U.S. Well, Trump is not sending any envoy there.

    He will find out in time that the man who hacked the computers to tilt the polls in his favour wants to be congratulated and deferred to. Putin has no intention to befriend a Trump. A megalomaniac with an adolescent sense of his own power cannot operate equally with another adolescent with equal hubris. The stage is set for a world confrontation. Many just don’t know it yet. Before that, Russia will be forced to let the world and Trump know that it played a role in his victory, and also may blackmail him with video. That will determine whether Trump remains as president or will be impeached.

    Such a possible turn of events may be the blood slander that Trump needs to turn on Putin with the potential of a nuclear war. We hope and pray it does not get to that.

    On China, we witnessed at Davos how Chinese leader Xi Jinping became a cheer leader of free trade as a counter-dynamic against Trump’s hectoring rhetoric that he wanted to confront China. The truth, though, is that Trump is right. China is speaking about free trade when it thinks it is working for it. Trump wants to renegotiate, and that calls for both powers who need each other to handle this matter.

    The Chinese are now more self-reliant because domestic consumption has risen, and their nationals are gradually doing away with their dependency on American products. But that is because they have stolen American brands and domesticated them. They have their own I-phone, Google, Facebook, Instagram, etc.

    But does Trump have the right temperament to turn negotiation into advantage or war? Just as the issues of the South China sea is a conduit of confrontation.

    But more importantly though, we want to know if Trump will not destroy the world economy by insisting on protectionism when America needs its products to do well around the world. It could implode America’s economy with inflation.

    Then his so-called white working class in Pennsylvania and Ohio will know that we are no longer in the 20th century and technology has roared past them. That was what many knew about Trump but thought he could lose if they did not vote.

    The women filled the streets Saturday but it was too late. He is going after blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, etc. They could have shown this zeal on polling day. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” is a quote credited to Edmund Burke without evidence. But it shames the protesters. We hope Trump stumbles, although he has the potential of success. He wants to rupture the system and rebuild. But whether he can rebuild after the rupture is the stuff of history.

    Is he a Machiavellian liar with good intention or just for his ego? The lie he told once in his primary campaigns about Muslims portends his reign. He said a storied American general known as Pershing in the First World War slaughtered 49 Muslims with bullets dipped in pig’s blood. He asked the 50th person to go home and tell his fellow Muslims what he saw.

    This sort of soul does not preside over decent people. He is the don of a new era, and the error of a new dawn.

  • Tales of Boko Haram defeat

    Shortly before the end of last year, we were treated to the cheering news of the final defeat of the Boko Haram insurgency. The nation’s leadership had announced with much fanfare, it had impregnated the much dreaded Sambisa forest and dislodged the last stronghold of the insurgency group.

    It said the last bastion of defence of Boko Haram had been overrun with the capture of what it termed “Camp zero”. By the calculations of the military, with the dislodgement of “Camp zero”, the war has been won.

    A highly elated President Buhari did not waste time to commend “the determination, courage and resilience of troops of Operation Lafiya Dole at finally entering and crushing the remnants of the Boko Haram insurgents which is located deep into the heart of the Sambisa forest”. He said he was told that the terrorists were on the run and had no place to hide.

    This came precisely a year after the initial deadline to smoke out the insurgents, degrade and destroy their ability for mischief. Then, President Buhari had in an interview with the BBC said Boko Haram has been “technically defeated” and that “Nigeria has technically won the war against Boko Haram”.

    When prodded further given renewed attacks by the same terror group shortly after, he said “my own description is that they can no longer mobilize to attack police and army barracks and destroy aircrafts as they used to do. But they can regroup and go after soft targets”.

    Since then however, we have seen different fierce engagements between the seemingly degraded Boko Haram group and the Nigerian military. There have been series of high scale attacks from both sides with serious casualties. The casualty figure and the high profile military officers who have unfortunately paid the supreme sacrifice on account of the resurging confrontation raised doubts about initial claims by the government on the progress of the war.

    That has been the situation until the same government at the end of last year came up to say again that it has destroyed the last remnants of the insurgents with the capture of the last bastion of their defence deep in the heart of the Sambisa forest. Before then, the government had secured the release of 21 of the abducted Chibok girls, raising hopes that an understanding which would permanently end the war had been struck. One had thought everything was going on well for the government.

    When last week, the government advertised its intention to ferry some leaders of the Bring Back Chibok Girls group and journalists to the Sambisa forest to see things for themselves, it was generally viewed as an indication of the final end of the insurgency. But behold, as the trip was about to go on, the terrorists struck within the University of Maiduguri mosque leaving in its toll sorrow and awe.

    As the nation was still contending with that loss, came the chilling incident of the bombing of a camp for Internally Displaced Persons IDP’s in Rann in the same Borno State killing more than 100 people including officials of the Red Cross and other humanitarian workers. Reports said the pilot mistook them for Boko Haram insurgents who were regrouping.

    Theatre Commander of Operation Lafiya Dole Major General Lucky Irabor said he coordinated the air component of the operation following information that Boko Haram terrorists were gathering around the Kala Balge area of Maiduguri. He said when the operation was conducted, it turned that some locals were affected including soldiers.

    The government sympathized with families affected by this colossal disaster, attributing it to what it called “regrettable operational mistake”. Condolence messages in their torrents have been coming in from far and wide with many harping on the need for thorough investigation into the matter. The House of Representatives, apparently not satisfied with the rationalization of the bombing, has resolved to probe into the matter.

    Many are unable to come to terms with the excuse adduced for this colossal disaster especially given the very casual manner the presidency and Gen. Irabor addressed the matter. Operational mistake resulting in the killing of scores of those still suffering from the pangs of displacement from their homes by the war, is too costly for this nation to bear.

    Apart from casting doubt on the conduct of the war all along, it seemed to have put to question some of the claims we have been treated to by this regime regarding the overall progress of the war. How come the same military mistook an IDP camp it set up for a gathering of the terrorist group?  How did the information come about and was there due diligence before the air force plane was cleared to roll out the lethal weapons?

    It is unclear the distance between Rann and Kala Balge where the terrorists were said to be regrouping. But even if they are very close, we are yet to hear what action the military took thereafter having discovered that they hit off target. Did those regrouping at the Kala Balge disappear thereafter or were they now allowed to fortify themselves?

    These issues underscore the fact that it was too early for the government to have swallowed the excuse that the killings emanated from operational mistake. First, if the air force could bomb an IDP camp at the dying moments of the war, what guarantee is there that the rules of engagement had all along been adhered to? What of its implications on human rights abuses?

    Secondly, to accept that will throw into serious doubt, the proficiency of our military without prejudice to the enormous sacrifices and personal risks to their life in the prosecution of that war. Again, for a war that has been touted won, accepting the excuse of operational mistake coveys the miserable impression of exaggerated claims regarding its overall progress. We do not expect a war that has been won to produce complex situations that confused our military to the extent of bombing a camp it set up and privy to.

    What signals did the pilot see on ground to confirm these were terrorists? And if terrorists could still gather in such large numbers requiring an air force plane to be dispatched to bomb them, what remains of the claim of the defeat of the insurgency group?

    Overall, it would appear there is more to the circumstances leading to the disaster than ordinarily meets the eyes. In the face of recent disclosures that some soldiers sympathetic to the cause of the insurgents would face trial for cattle rustling to fund the terrorists, the presence of moles even with the progress made in the war can no longer be discounted.

    These are some of the possibilities to be looked into instead of the offhand dismissal of the fatal onslaught as a mere mistake. It could as well turn out a mistake. But that can only be determined through a thorough and unbiased investigation. Nigerian Air Force cannot investigate itself on this matter and expect an impartial report.

    It would appear the nation is not being fed the right information on the overall progress of that war. And the reason is not farfetched. It hovers around the urge to take quick credit for having defeated the insurgents in keeping with campaign promises. Having failed to meet the first deadline, the government seems in a hurry to announce a conclusion of the war a year after.

    Ironically, as it goes about this, issues arise casting serious doubt to the claim. That was the position a year ago when it announced a technical defeat of the insurgents. The same trend re-enacted last week with the fatalities recorded in the IDP camp. The problem is with the negative politics we had played with the war against Boko Haram. We seem caught up by the monsters we created.

  • Selective supremacy

    Perhaps only Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Chairman, and those who think like him, understood what he meant when he boasted that the party had succeeded in re-establishing its supremacy, despite the activities of challengers of party primacy.  He was quoted as saying: “What is important is that it has finally happened. What is important is that the APC Caucus in the Senate is now a one united body. The APC Caucus in the Senate will now take full charge, full control and full dominance as the governing party and the majority party in the Senate.”

    Odigie-Oyegun continued: “What is right is what is right and it is now clear that the authority and the supremacy of the party have finally been recognised, which is a critical ingredient to the smooth-functioning of the apparatus of governance. Today, we can stand up and tell the whole world with full confidence that these things they used to refer to as crises within the APC are now on the way to fully and permanently put behind us. Today, we have a united party, a united Senate, and a Senate that is firmly under the control of the APC.”

    Perhaps he was just speaking like a politician, meaning he was playing to the gallery. He spoke when the new leadership of the APC Senate Caucus visited the party’s National Working Committee. The background: Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume of the APC who represents Borno South Senatorial District was removed as  Senate Leader and Senator Ahmed Lawan (Yobe North) replaced him in dramatic circumstances on January 10. Ndume’s removal was plotted and perfected by the APC Senate Caucus which communicated the development to Senate President Abubakar Bukola Saraki in a two-paragraph letter entitled “Notice of change of leadership.”

    Ndume’s reaction: “This is a parliamentary coup because many of my colleagues said they were not aware of any Caucus meeting. But so be it. God gave me that position and if that is His wish that I should leave, I have left everything to God. Had it been that I was found wanting of any allegation, I will not be surprised. All I know is that God will fight back for me.”

    Ndume added: “I did no wrong, except the issue of the confirmation of the Acting EFCC chairman, Mr. Ibrahim Magu, which brought up some issues. There was a disagreement on Magu beginning with my fight with Sen. Dino Melaye. Based on legislative procedure, I said Magu had not been rejected by the Senate. Shortly after that, there were rumours of collection of signatures to remove me. Even at that, we met at the Senate leadership level on Monday; there was no complaint against me. I was not aware that the leadership was not happy with me. There was no allegation against me at all. Certainly, it is a coup.”

    When a democratically elected legislator says he lost his leadership position in the legislature as a result of a coup against him, his choice of words deserves attention. When did legislators in a democracy begin to plan and carry out coups?

    Certainly, it did not begin with Ndume’s ouster. Indeed, Ndume himself benefited from what may be called a coup when he was installed as Senate Leader in a move that defied the directive of his party’s leadership. A June 23, 2015, letter to Saraki by Odigie-Oyegun had named Lawan for the position of Majority Leader among the “names of principal officers approved by the party” for the 8th Senate. At the time Ndume emerged as Senate Leader contrary to his party’s position, he did not see it as a coup against the party. It is said that what goes around comes around.

    It is curious that Odigie-Oyegun interpreted the APC Senate Caucus leadership change simplistically.  It is a misinterpretation of reality to suggest that Ndume’s removal means that the APC has achieved party unity and party supremacy.

    The reality is that as long as Saraki remains at the helm of the Senate, it does a great disservice to the idea of party supremacy. This is a legislative commander that emerged in an ethically inappropriate manner, and whose emergence was coloured by a colourless subversion of his party’s position. Only a dysfunctional decoding of the concept of party supremacy can accommodate an ascendancy he actualised through an unapologetic defiance of his party’s desire and decision. A functional interpretation of party supremacy must be informed by the logic of supremacy. Supremacy is supreme.

    It is noteworthy that the same warped twist resulted in a queer combination and cohabitation at the helm of the Senate. With Saraki of the ruling APC, a party elected to power on the premise of progressivism, and Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu of the unprogressive Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the 8th Senate has a leadership that is ambiguous and confusing.   Saraki made matters worse by rubbishing his party’s list for Senate leadership posts, which is how Ndume became Senate Leader in the first place.   Additionally, the allegation that Saraki and Ekweremadu benefited from forged Senate rules remains a blot on their positions.

    The question is: How can the APC reassert itself and its supremacy in the circumstances? It is clear that Saraki wants his controversial emergence as Senate President to be treated as a fait accompli. As he approaches his second anniversary in the saddle, it looks like he might get away with the disruptive behaviour by which he got the position. If that happens, it would amount to a big disgrace to party supremacy.

    To put it directly: Saraki must not be allowed to get away with what may well be described as a coup against his party.  APC supremos must save party supremacy, and they must find their own way of doing so.   The conflict over party supremacy in the APC is nothing short of a domestic war, and the war cannot end with Ndume’s removal. There is no doubt that Saraki’s matter is a more complicated complication. However, it must not be regarded as a complication beyond correction.

    Party supremacy should not be selective, meaning the APC can ill afford to believe it has resolved the burning issue by putting Ndume’s case on the front burner while Saraki’s case remains on the back burner. Restoring party supremacy based on party discipline, party cohesion and party integrity must not be done selectively; it must be done inclusively.

  • Second Niger Bridge: Beyond politics

    Second Niger Bridge: Beyond politics

    Those who have followed events surrounding the construction of the Second Niger Bridge would have heaved a heavy sigh of relief at recent disclosure by the Buhari administration that it intends to commence work on the project.
    Before now, the same government through its Minister of Environment, Laurentia Mallam had told an expectant nation that work on the project had been suspended because the Environmental Impact Assessment law was not taken into account by the last administration. The announcement was not altogether surprising, as it did not depart sharply from the policy summersaults that had been the fate of that project in the hands of succeeding regimes.
    Not unexpectedly, interest groups in the south-east saw in it a further evidence of the hostility of the Buhari regime to the zone. They could not come to terms with the reasons adduced for the project’s suspension especially given the strategic importance and overall benefits it holds for this country.
    But addressing reporters after the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting just before the Christmas, the Minister of Works and Housing, Babatunde Fashola said the government had given a go ahead for work to continue on the bridge.
    He said the bridge was conceived as “Public-Private Partnership PPP with government financing but negotiations had not been concluded and it is important to continue to work there”. Fashola said government officials would continue discussions and see whether they could conclude a full business case and possibly concession the agreement to enable private investors come in and conclude the remaining works.
    The minister has gone ahead to visit the project site apparently to underscore the seriousness the government attached to this new commitment. He had said during the visit “I came here in pursuant of the commitment of the federal government and that of President Muhammadu Buhari to complete the bridge”.
    As a further evidence of this, the federal government last week announced the award of a N14.4 billion contract to Julius Berger for early works on the bridge. In a statement from the Federal Ministry of Power, Works and Housing, the contract award was said to be clear evidence of the Buhari regime’s resolute commitment to the completion of the project.
    For those who before now, consider the Second Niger Bridge project a pipe dream given the high-wired politics into which it had been enmeshed over the years, the renewed interest of the current regime to the project provides new hope for its eventual coming on stream. It is definitely something to cheer. This is more so, given the larger benefits to the nation the completion of the bridge that links the south-east and the south-west parts of the country will bring about.
    It is therefore a big relief that the current regime has gone beyond finding faults with the conceptualization of the bridge project to awarding a contract for early works on it. By that, the government has gone beyond words to demonstrate in very unambiguous terms that it shares the ideals for which the construction of the bridge has been a recurring decimal, the politics of past regimes notwithstanding.
    It is a good step that will go a long way to disabuse raging feelings that nothing good will go to that part of the country because the current regime did not receive huge votes from them in the last election. Be that as it may, it is also strategically and politically expedient for Buhari to complete the project since he or another member of his party will soon be seeking re-election.
    He must therefore have something very concrete and tangible to tell people of the zone to deserve their votes especially given their advantaged position in federal appointments. So it is even in the enlightened self-interest of the president to see to the completion of the project.
    But there are still issues to be resolved fast, otherwise the project could still suffer its’ characteristics fate. The government should move into quick action to commence negotiations with private investors so that they can come in and complete the project conceived under the PPP arrangement. Though the government has announced with fanfare the award of the N14.4 billion contract to Julius Berger but this is only part of the initial commitment of the government during the last regime to contribute 25 per cent amounting to about N30 billion of the total construction cost.
    With the total financial outlay for the project put at N117 billion by President Jonathan during the ground-breaking ceremony in 2014, it is left to be seen what impact N14.4 billion would make in the overall performance of the project. The larger chunk of the funding will still have to come from the private sector for reasonable progress to be recorded.
    In effect, even if the government meets its own commitment to the project, not much may come out of it until the participation of the private sector is fully finalized. There is therefore the overriding imperative to ensure that all impediments to the full realization of the project are eliminated by fast-tracking the process of negotiations with private investors.
    The other matter the government must be quick in action is compensation for those whose properties will be affected by the project. Fashola made references to this when he asked those to be affected not to disrupt the project in the overall interest of its larger benefits to the people. This may as well be. But indications by the Obi of Onitsha, Alfred Achebe that there have been no consultations with stakeholders on the matter cast some slur on the entire arrangement.
    It is pertinent that immediate discussions are commenced with stakeholders if anything, to identify all those to be affected and compute whatever compensations to come their way when the government is ready to pay. To leave matters hanging, only to rely on appeals to the sentiments of those who will lose property, is a sure way to court trouble. If and when protests crop up, the government or the contractor may turn around and hide under such to abandon the project.
    There is still ample time for all the rough edges to the project to be straightened. We say so given the fate which the project has suffered in the hands of previous administrations. Necessary steps must be taken to ensure that the latest effort marks a substantial departure from previous ones.
    With the current economic recession consequent upon the dwindling revenue accruals to the federal coffers, it is only to be expected that timely completion will save the government the huge cost it is bound to encounter due largely to spiralling inflation.
    Even now, there is everything to indicate that the N117 billion earmarked for the project in 2014 has been adversely affected by the exchange rate of the Naira. It will not be surprising if this becomes a big issue in discussions the government will hold with private investors. This point has to be underscored because in 2009, the Obasanjo regime had awarded the same contract to Gitto construction Ltd at the cost of N55 billion.
    We can see the whooping difference time has brought to bear in the value of the contract even when the exchange rate hovered around N19 per dollar in contradistinction with the current rate of about N340. That has been the prize we procured for ourselves due to tardiness in attending to strategic national projects with abundant economic benefits to the citizens. That is the bane of the kind of politics our so-called leaders play. The Second Niger Bridge project goes beyond partisan politics. The sooner we realized that, the better for this country.
    Overall, it is good a thing Buhari has shown commitment to complete the project. If he succeeds, he would have carved the niche of a leader who succeeded where others failed. Besides, he would have endeared himself to a people who have overtime, groaned under the shackles of neglect and near abandonment by successive regimes. Will he? Time will tell.

  • Sound and silence

    Sound and silence

    There is a time to speak and a time to be silent. When former President Olusegun Obasanjo spoke about what was said about him in a 2010 book, it was clear that he considered silence inappropriate.
    It is intriguing that his reaction to the contents of the book came after six years, but this in no way weakened the significance of his strongly worded response. It is thought-provoking that the hot aspects of the autobiography were not publicised until now. This may be a reflection of Philistinism, particularly among the country’s media workers who are supposed to be knowledge workers.
    Obasanjo said in his statement: “Kabiyesi, I believe that I should set the record straight for posterity and to caution you from engaging in unedifying rumour-mongering and untruth.” His reaction to claims by the Awujale and Paramount Ruler of Ijebuland, Oba Sikiru Adetona, Ogbagba II, was unmistakably loud.
    Obasanjo’s response: “The extract from your autobiography, “Awujale: The Autobiography of Alaiyeluwa Oba S. K. Adetona, Ogbagba II”, published by Mosuro Publishers 2010, pp. 187-195, which I attach to this letter was presented to me for my attention. Your assertion in the publication was a tissue of lies and untruths.”
    This was a subtle way of calling Oba Adetona a liar. But it may well be that Obasanjo is more deserving of the label. At the centre of the claim and counterclaim is Globacom Chairman Mike Adenuga who Oba Adetona claimed was unfairly treated by Obasanjo because of his relationship with the then Vice President Abubakar Atiku, with whom Obasanjo had a serious conflict.
    Oba Adetona said in his autobiography: “The kernel of the matter really, as I told him, was his disagreement with Abubakar Atiku, his deputy, and they had taken the matter almost life-and -death level. Mike Adenuga was a pawn in the crisis…”
    Obasanjo’s defence is food for thought: “Kabiyesi, the total sum of what you have put down in those pages of your book is that I dislike Mike. Maybe I need to remind you that if there was any iota of truth in such a position or mindset, Mike would not have been granted the mobile telephone licence which made him a billionaire. It was my prerogative as the President so to do.
    He continued: “You may also be reminded that in the first round of the auction which Mike did not make, the country earned $285 million for each licence. The country earned only $200 million from the licence transaction with Mike and in the subsequent transaction with Etisalat, the country earned $400 million. It was a deliberate action on my part that a Nigerian should own one of the licences. Anybody else but Mike could have been that Nigerian.”
    On the question of lying, it is interesting that Obasanjo said: “The invitation to Mike to contribute to the building of the Library block of Bells University was issued to him by the then Vice-Chancellor, Professor Julius Okogie, who never told me about inviting Mike to so contribute until Mike pulled out. And that I have not and I will not talk to Mike about it should convince you that I know nothing about its genesis.” It is curious that Obasanjo claimed to know nothing about the invitation to Adenuga to help build a structure in the university he founded.
    Oba Adetona’s version: “It was in Ota that he solicited for the construction of the Administration Block of his university, Bells University in Ota. Mike agreed and Carchez Turnkey Projects Ltd handled the project for him… However, the construction project at Bells University slowed considerably while Mike was in exile and a few solicitous calls from Obasanjo to Mike while he was in exile did not change the pace of work. On his return from exile, the school Bells University had the temerity to write to him seeking for a meeting to discuss the continuation of the project. When I got to know, I offered to be in attendance at the meeting and sent word round that I would be in attendance. I had the intention to lambast all of them. They must have sensed it because up till now, the meeting has not been held!”
    Also interesting is Obasanjo’s claim that Adenuga approached him, asking to be considered for a national honour. He said: “It is of interest to me that Mike did not tell you that when he wanted national honour, he came to me and I did not react until Babangida recommended him and said, “Of all those I have helped, Mike is one of the most appreciative.” Is this account true? Does this give a reliable insight into how Adenuga was made Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON) in 2012?
    How much did Obasanjo achieve while he was President of Nigeria from 1999 to 2007? This is how Oba Adetona answered the question in his book: “All the enormous goodwill which Obasanjo carried into office was squandered with a performance that left him with a second term short of tangible achievements. Eight years in office was ample time to put electricity on a very strong footing. Eight years was enough to put down a strong foot against corruption and make a clear difference. Eight years was adequate for orderliness and the rule of law to triumph in every facet of our society. These were the basis upon which I gave him my support for the office. Some new State Governors have shown how much good can be achieved in a shorter time.”
    Obasanjo’s answer to that answer: “Kabiyesi, if I have squandered all the goodwill I had, you would not have contacted me on behalf of All Progressives Party, APC, to receive them in 2014 and you would not have been personally present when I received them as I demanded. I probably have greater goodwill today internally and externally than I had in office.”
    As things stand, Oba Adetona and Adenuga need to respond publicly to Obasanjo’s sound. This is not a time to be silent; it is a time to speak out.

  • Every inch

    Every inch

    Many a time a person feels a certain obligation to write about his life. It is because he has been a governor, a chief executive, a supposedly professional high-flyer, or a socialite of great frivolity.

    Many of them are projects in egotism. They are public desperadoes banging their feet to gain attention. Some have good stories to tell but fluff them in flawed narratives. Others write grandiloquent tales that literary pundits call ‘burlesque’ with a lot of theatre but little treat.

    Last year, I reviewed the book on Felix Mathew Osifo, titled From Machine Boy to Managing Director, about a Nigerian who rose from the dust to become a pearl of corporate Nigeria. The book authored by Professor Hope Eghagha, a poet and head of English Department at the University of Lagos, documented an essential story not only of a time in Nigeria when it paid to work hard but how Nigeria has evolved into a redoubt of opportunists. Osifo’s flight from houseboy to managing director of GB Ollivant and Vono, unveils the twists and turns of a man’s brilliance and audacity, and a picture of a society sometimes at odds with itself.

    We need books like this to demonstrate the intersection of persons and their times. In fact, the best way to tell history is to examine the actors at various stages of their stagecraft. Hence Ralph Waldo Emerson asserted that “there is properly no history, but the biographies of great men.” Tolstoy, though, thinks otherwise.

    The public caterwauling of former president and Owu chief, Olusegun Obasanjo, about a book written over half a decade ago by the Awujale of Ijebuland drew attention to one of the most impressive personages of this era.

    The oba, a tall, robust, charismatic figure, told a story of some of his interactions with the Owu chief. Having written it, he made no bones about howling after the fact. He had written it, and he moved on. Seven years later, the Owu chief is whining and wailing.

    Oba Sikiru K. Adetona Ogbagba 11 is one of the underappreciated talents and virtues of this age. Perhaps because he heads what we all know as an anachronistic institution, we tend to undervalue what political scientists call “soft power,” a term coined and popularised by Harvard political scientist Joseph Nye. He does not need to hold political office, or stand behind an army tank, or be a governor, to wield influence. He had to exercise the force of courage, honesty and the principle of fierce independence.

    It is interesting that, in spite of the ballyhoo of the Owu chief, the Awujale routinely ignored him. News reports say the Owu chief has apologised. It had better be true. The man is not only older than the former president, the Awujale has earned his octogenarian credentials, not by years but the exercise of his dignity.

    The book, titled Awujale: the autobiography of Alaiyeluwa Oba S.K.Adetona Ogbagba 11, unfurls his forthrightness. If he has lashed out at OBJ in the book, it is a little lazy, especially of our media critics and journalists, not to have plunged deeper. Many have restricted themselves to where he narrated Obasanjo’s witch-hunt of GLO chief executive Mike Adenuga. But the monarch has been quite fair to Obasanjo. We all know, Adenuga was targeted in an exercise of hypocrisy when he wanted the same man to help build his Bells University.

    The Awujale worked with Obasanjo to push the presidential candidacy of Professor Adebayo Adedeji during IBB’s quicksand transition programmes. While opposing his actions in government, he praised him for constructing roads that gave access to Ijebu land, and stood against those who wanted to dislodge him from office. He had called Obasanjo Judas and made it known he called him so in a meeting in the buildup to the elections that selected him to run against Falae. Yet, in spite of OBJ’s failing, the Awujale thought for the sake of the country and stability, Obasanjo’s rift with Atiku ought to end in order to save democracy. Newspapers ought to pay attention to books as news, not as vapid material for inside pages but virile aspects of our conversations. It is a reflection of the philistinism of today’s news organisations that many of such gems pass us by.

    I was also struck by his sense of balance in the Ogun State governorship sweepstakes. Ever a stickler to be nonpartisan, he said when Gbenga Daniel indicated he wanted to be governor, he advised Daniel to wait out Aremo Segun Osoba’s stewardship. But he didn’t. The Awujale stayed neutral. But when Daniel stormed his palace for a visit, he insisted that he would not attend to Daniel unless he stopped his supporters from throwing invectives at Osoba outside his palace. Daniel reportedly obliged.

    His Awo story also should have made news in 2010 when the book was published. He implied Awo’s AG and UPN resisted dissent or intellectual independence. He said he had doubted Awo’s socialist credentials and wondered if he was a socialist, why was he so wealthy he would not part with his properties as Mahatma Ghandi did. Awo had replied that he would if the society agreed to have full-blown socialism. That was not the same thing with Ghandi. Ghandi led by example. Awo wanted the mass example to lead him.

    During the western crisis, he had tried to play peace maker, but neither Awo nor Akintola obliged. He wondered why Awo wanted everyone in Ijebu-land to line behind him uncritically while he wanted others from other ethnic groups he competed against to abandon their ethnic leaders for him. His tale with Awo dovetailed into his crisis with Chief Bisi Onabanjo, who had dinner with others downstairs in his house with Awo, while he asked him to wait up to an hour upstairs. It began a friction that, once Onabanjo became governor, he deposed him as Awujale. This is the same person he had predicted would betray him after showering hospitality on Onabanjo in London with free accommodation, meals and transport back home when he was sick.

    He even offered to resign as oba when Diya succeeded Onabanjo after the military coup. Diya would not reinstate him even when the courts ruled against Onabanjo. After his military bluster, Diya had to acquiesce because the man said he wanted a plebiscite and if 90 percent or less voted against him, he would resign, support his successor and buy him a car. In spite of this, he eulogised Onabanjo’s exploits as governor.

    He also stood with the NADECO chieftains. He was openly called Oba NADECO and he even hosted the meetings. He had warned Shonekan that he would be dislodged as interim leader and history would call him a traitor.

    He knew very early to enjoy his reign, he had to be financially independent. Chief Odutola had wanted to teleguide his reign as he had done the predecessor. But Adetona resisted him. He launched into commerce and pried himself loose from the antics of government wheel horses.

    This is a good book, not a great book. I had craved his fresh observations of men like Awo, IBB, Abacha, Shonekan, Tafawa Balewa, Oba Sijuade, Adenuga, FRA Williams, etc. He had more than cursory interactions with them and must have greater insights than he revealed. Abroad, he met with Moshe Dayan, Golda Meir, etc in the Middle East. He mentioned them in passing. It is not his fault but his editors’. They could have debriefed and opened him to bigger revelations.

    The book is uneven, showering details in some areas and stingy in others. But it is a book that gives a window on a man of character, aware of his position and did not take anything he was not ready to do away with on principle.

    Remember he was the only Southwest monarch who did not mince words to Jonathan when dollar softened his peers.

    In Shakespeare King Lear, a character heard the voice of the king, and said, “he is every inch a king.” That is the impression the Awujale leaves you after communing with the story of his life.

  • New minimum wage

    Trade unions in their New Year message to workers and other Nigerians demanded good leadership from the federal government and a new National Minimum Wage to avoid a nationwide industrial unrest.

    Nigerian Labour Congress, NLC, Trade Union Congress, TUC and the National Union of Textile Garments and Tailoring Workers of Nigeria insisted that the new wage structure is the only remedy for workers to cope with the high cost of living occasioned by the current economic recession.

    They cited the “astronomical increase in the pump price of petroleum products, the massive and continuing devaluation of the Naira, the rise in inflation and the 43 per cent increase in electricity tariff” as factors that have combined to worsen the living standards of workers and teeming millions of ordinary Nigerians.

    In the absence of the wage increase, the unions have promised a nationwide industrial action that is bound to ground economic activities with deleterious consequences for an economy that is already in serious straits. That is the warning signal organized labour has left for us in the New Year.

    The issues raised by the labour unions especially as regards the debilitating living conditions of a vast majority of our people in the last one and a half years can only be ignored at a great peril. Workers in both the public and private sectors have had to contend with a mixed grill of retrenchment, salary arrears and salary cuts in the face of spiralling inflation never witnessed in this country for almost two decades now. The value of their take home pay has been drastically reduced as they now pay more for basic goods and services with many of them unable to access the basic things of life anymore.

    And in a milieu where the average worker has had to contend with the challenges of catering for his extended family, the reality of the situation becomes more glaring. There are hardly new job openings for the teeming army of our unemployed graduates and sundry school leavers.  It is therefore to be expected that the fastest way to ameliorate the debilitating living conditions of those who are lucky to still have jobs is through wage increase.

    That is the view of organized labour. And they have left nobody in doubt that they want the national minimum wage which now stands at N18, 000 to be reviewed upwards to lighten the burden of living and enable workers access the basic things of life. That sounds very plausible. But the government has not been forthcoming.

    With the dwindling revenue accruing to federal coffers on account of the drop in the price of oil in the international market resulting in the inability of most governments to pay salaries and allowances, the foot-dragging by the current regime can be understood. The government appears not to have come to terms with the rationale in wage increase when states are unable to cope with extant wage structure.

    The big puzzle is do you increase salaries when most governments are unable to meet the current wage regime?  And if such increases are made, are they not going to worsen the burden which the various governments are currently facing such that the federal government had to bail them out with some funds not long ago? That is the main issue to contend with.

    Labour unions believe the various governments should be able to pay and not hide under the drop in the price of oil to starve workers to death. They seem to be contending that given the lifestyle of some of these governments, they should be able to pay if only they make the necessary adjustments. This point cannot be discountenanced also.

    The way some of the state governors conduct themselves, the number of cars in their fleet, observed wastages and their ostentatious lifestyles do not seem to convey the impression of leaders who make judicious use of the resources available to them. If organized labour insists on wage increase, it cannot be faulted. Even with the current campaign against graft in public offices, the reality on the ground is that many public functionaries are yet to align themselves with the realities of the time. Corruption has eaten so deep into the nation’s social fabric that it would amount to wishful thinking to nurse the feeling that the malfeasance will disappear overnight. That is the sad reality on the ground and the toiling masses of this country are not under any illusion about it.

    That is why the rationalization about the dwindling revenue of the country does not seem to impress them. That is also why they have been strident in their demands for wage increase to cushion the biting effects of the economic downturn; the inability of the government to keep faith with the current wage regime notwithstanding.

    The situation therefore presents a dilemma of sorts. Workers are on the right path to route for wage increase as they have had to pay more for all goods and services. It is getting increasingly difficult, if not neigh impossible for them to survive in the face of the astronomical cost of living. Wage increase therefore appears to be the short term solution to the spiralling inflation that has made nonsense the current earnings of the working population.

    But the government is not entirely out of order in exercising utmost caution in approving a new national minimum wage that will not be implemented by state governments given their current defaulting profile in the payment of salaries and allowances.

    That is how bad the situation is. What to do? It would seem that even with the hardship encountered by workers on account of the difficult economic conditions, a wage increase may not be the soothing elixir out of it. We say so because various governments have not been up and doing in their payment of the current wage regime.

    Many of them have had to sack workers while some others had to evolve very questionable formulae to reduce the take home pay of public servants. Pensions and gratuities are in several months in arrears in many states with no respite in sight. What guarantee is there that a wage increase will not compound the already hopeless situation and precipitate a major labour crisis? That is the uncanny dilemma brought to the fore by the situation. What are the options in the circumstance?

    The way to go is for the government to embark on a comprehensive social intervention measures to cushion the effects of its debilitating economic policies. In saner climes, such policies would have been immediately followed up with social security measures that will enable the people have access to basic food items, healthcare and other social services that are now out of their reach at relatively affordable prices. We would have seen the government in conscious and concerted efforts to create jobs, accelerate investments in mass transit programmes and others that will have the net effect of reducing the cost of transportation and by the same logic that of goods and services.

    But we are yet to see much progress in that direction. All we have been treated to are promises that there will be bountiful harvest this year. We have also been treated to claims of self-sufficiency in rice production; a projected capacity to export the same commodity in a matter of months and such other political talks. Yet, the commodities have remained largely beyond the reach of the vast majority of our people. We would have seen governments subsidizing certain goods and services to cushion the effects of some of its policies. That has not happened.

    The government must take immediate steps to ensure that its current economic policies do not suffocate our people to death. Wage increase, as attractive as it is, only affects those in gainful employment. The answer lies in a multi-faceted approach that captures the demands of the workers and those of other citizens that do not have jobs but are equally exposed to the vagaries of the biting economic situation.