Category: Columnists

  • The third annual lecture of Arewa Media Forum

    The third annual lecture of Arewa Media Forum

    Two Saturdays ago, the Arewa Media Forum, a forum of some Northern journalists and friends of the Northern media which I chair, held the third of its annual lectures at Arewa House, Kaduna. The topic was “The Crisis of Leadership in Nigeria as a Source of Insecurity in the Country: The Way Forward.”

    As guest lecturer, we invited Archbishop Josiah Idowu-Fearon on account of his integrity as a man of God and as a well-regarded scholar of comparative religion. This was in consideration of how religion, along with ethnicity, has since become the first refuge of the failed leadership of this country.

    We invited two other scholars, Professor Kyari Mohammed, an expert on the Boko Haram scourge, and Malam Ibraheem Sulaiman, a scholar of Islamic Law, and one politician, Mrs Margaret Ichen, a former, and so far the only female, speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly, to discuss the archbishop’s paper.

    To chair the occasion we invited Professor Ango Abdullahi, former vice-chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, the Magajin Rafin Zazzau and District Head of Yakawada, and lately a very outspoken spokesman of the Northern Elders’ Forum led by the First Republic minister, Alhaji Maitama Sule, Danmasanin Kano.

    The Royal Father of the Day was the Emir of Kazaure, Alhaji Najeeb Hussaini Adamu, one of the younger and more outspoken traditional rulers in the North. The Chief Host was the Kaduna State Governor, Alhaji Mukhtar Ramadan Yero.

    All seven came, except two of our three discussants, Mrs Ichen who had called earlier to say she was bereaved shortly before the event, and Malam Ibraheem who sent an email to say he had to attend to an unforeseen family matter on the day of the event. The Chief Host too did not come in person but sent his chief spokesman, Alhaji Ahmed Maiyaki, with a powerful speech.

    In his paper, Archbishop Idowu-Fearon disagreed with the usual conventional wisdom that the failure of leadership in the country begun with the military overthrow of the First Republic in1966; “From Tafawa Balewa (1960 – 1966) to Olusegun Obasanjo (1999 – 2007),” he said, “the crisis of leadership remains the same.”

    Quoting from Arthur Nwankwo’s 1989 book, Before I Die, apparently approvingly, he said in effect, that Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, our first and only prime minister, was reactionary; J.T.U. Aguiyi-Ironsi, the general who took over after the 1966 coup was ignorant and clueless; General Yakubu Gowon who took over after the second military coup in July 1967 was the only leader in the world who had so much money he didn’t know what to do with it; General Murtala Mohammed who succeeded Gowon after July 1975 coup was dynamic but ruled too briefly – all of only seven months – to make a lasting impact; General Olusegun Obasanjo on whose shoulders the country’s leadership fell after his boss was assassinated in February 1976 kept faith with his predecessor’s promise to return the army to the barracks but had “a pathological hatred for intellectuals.”

    Alhaji Shehu Shagari, the country’s first executive president, was, like Tafawa Balewa, too enamoured of the status quo; General Muhammadu Buhari, the first military ruler after the overthrow of the Second Republic, was too draconian; General Ibrahim Babangida who overthrew Buhari in a bloodless palace coup, had the intelligence and personal charm to make a difference but lacked the integrity and discipline to keep faith with his own transition programme; General Sani Abacha who Babangida left behind as army chief to strengthen the backbone of the interim administration he installed under Chief Ernest Sonekan, not only exceeded his brief by overthrowing Sonekan. He became arguably the most kleptomaniac leader in the country. Until, that is, the return of General Olusegun Obasanjo to power in 1999, this time in mufti.

    Obasanjo, according to this assessment, pretended to fight corruption but ended underselling public property, mostly to himself and his friends; General Abdulsalami Abubakar, who handed over to Obasanjo after implementing the shortest transition programme in the country –all of only eleven months – was “coolheaded and compassionate” but “emptied the foreign reserves of the country in the name of democratic transition”; Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua, who Obasanjo handed over to, was “incompetent” and weak; but the world, he concluded, was now “watching to see the direction of the current administration of President Goodluck Jonathan”

    Singly, the accuracy of this assessment of our leaders since Independence is debatable. Certainly the claim that the jury is still out on the present administration is hardly tenable; on the contrary most observers, I suspect, may have since concluded that it is clueless and corrupt – at least so far. Generally speaking, however, most Nigerians would agree that the archbishop’s assessment has more than a ring of truth to it.

    The big question, of course, is how to end this long run of bad and poor leadership in the country. For a man of God, his solution was hardly surprising: a return to our religious values. “My simple contribution,” he said, “is for Nigerians especially those of us from the Northern states (to) go back to our religious teachings and take seriously what our two communities, Muslim and Christian, share in common as far as leadership is concerned.”

    Nigerians, he said, are a religious people. Problem is, he added, the same people are “practical atheist,” i.e. those, he said, quoting a French Catholic Philosopher, “who believe that they believe in God, but who in fact deny His existence by their deeds and the testimony of their behaviour.”

    It may be difficult to change this attitude, he said, but it is not impossible and, in any case, we have no option, but to try and succeed if we want our country to become great. A country, he said, needs good people to have good government. “However good the system of government,” he said, quoting Lee Kuan Yew, the Singaporean leader who took his country from Third World to the First in one generation, “bad leaders will bring harm to their leaders. On the other hand, I have seen several societies well governed in spite of poor systems of government, because good strong leaders were in charge.”

    The credibility of Mr. Lee’s recipe for progress is debatable; it may be argued, as Professor Kyari Mohammed, the only discussant that turned up did, that bad systems have a way of corrupting good and strong leaders. There is no doubt, however, that a bad leader can only bring harm to his people no matter how good the system.

    It should also be obvious, as the archbishop implied, that a country can produce good leaders only if its people too are good. Until, as I said on these pages recently quoting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) , each and every one of us sees himself as a shepherd who must account for his flock no matter how small the flock and no matter how lowly his position in society, we will not produce good leaders.

    As the archbishop said, quoting an Hadith as narrated by Bukhari, “Each of you is a guardian, and each of you will be asked about his subject.” This, he said, has it Biblical equivalent in the words of Jesus Christ when he said in Matthew 20:28, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

    The long and short of all this is that we must each re-examine ourselves as individuals to see if we do our own bit for society and do unto others what we expect them to do unto us.

    Before the archbishop’s speech, the chairman, the royal father of the day and the chief host all spoke about the need for good leadership and they all agreed that we suffer from a serious deficit of same. The emir, however, entered the caveat that the public and the media are all too often unduly harsh on the leadership, a position, the chairman later begged to disagree with.

    Of these three probably the harshest criticism of our leaders came, interestingly, from the chief host, himself a leader even if by default. The country’s leaders, he said, have, since the First Republic, become greedy with a penchant for “convert(ing) public wealth into private riches.” He even spoke more harshly against leaders in the course of the short speech and concluded with the advice that the country in general, the North in particular, “must sit together and identify the myriads of problems facing our region and together find solutions to them.” He did not say how this sitting should take place, an answer which would no doubt interest the country’s advocates of National Sovereign Conference.

    News of killings in Baga in Borno State of hundreds of innocent civilians, including women, children and old men, and the virtual sacking of the town in an apparent reprisal attack by soldiers for the killing of an officer by Boko Haram insurgents over the weekend, coupled with the denial of the killings by the military in spite of the fact that the figures are from the Red Cross which has hardly been known to over-state casualties of hostilities, suggests that anyone hoping that the end of our long running crisis of unaccountable leadership as a source of the insecurity and the attendant underdevelopment of our dear country is in sight, still has a long wait ahead.

    However, the way to shorten that wait is clear; pray to God and at the same time organise individually and collectively to reject any politician with a track record of bad leadership who asks for our votes in 2015.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Akpabio, Leadership and ‘Rebuilding Nigeria’

    Akpabio, Leadership and ‘Rebuilding Nigeria’

    The theme: “Rebuilding Nigeria” presupposes that the nation is in ruins and needs to be restructured. The process, if we borrow from the French Philosopher, Rene Descartes, would involve demolishing certain ancient structures and preserving some for accommodation in the remoulding process. Above all, it involves the human factor who, first, must admit that there is work to be done and sets about doing it to fruition.

    It was, perhaps, the consideration of the last factor, the human input in rebuilding Nigeria that informed the gathering of the crème de la crème of the society by the Leadership newspaper, in Abuja. It was April 16. And, specifically, the event built around the theme of Rebuilding Nigeria, recognized those who have so far made significant efforts towards the refashioning movement. From the business to the religious; from the social to the political, recognition went round. But two categories stood out most – the religious and the political. While, very significantly, Sultan Sa’ad Abubakar and John Cardinal Onaiyekan won a joint award for exemplary, peaceful religious leadership; Governor Godswill Akpabio emerged the ‘Leadership Governor of the Year 2012’ for uncommon transformation of his state with quality infrastructure.

    In deed, love him or hate him, Akpabio’s achievement in the area of restructuring the landscape of the nation through infrastructure has so far been unequalled. Some argue that he receives a lot of money from the federation account but fail to explain why some other states who receive similar or more funds can’t develop at the speed of light seen in Akwa Ibom in recent years. Obviously, those convinced by detractive and hateful criticisms are few as it was evident in the International Conference Centre venue of the event. As Akpabio was called upon to receive the award, which as usual he dedicated to the people of Akwa Ibom State, the hall erupted in a deafening ovation. For minutes, the proceedings were on hold as almost everyone present acknowledged that the “wonder worker governor” deserved his day in the sun.

    It wasn’t his first “Governor of the Year” or “Man of the Year” award. He has had several in the past six years; so this one was just a confirmation of the numerous others. But as usual, Akpabio shone brighter than all the stars in the galaxy! Responding, on behalf of other awardees at the Leadership event, Akpabio said leadership needs sincerity of purpose; focus; dedication; commitment and common involvement of all.

    Principally, the plank Akpabio stood head above other governors at the event was in his development focus. Space may limit elaboration here but suffice it to say that apart from other evidences, Akpabio is now jocularly knows as “The Roadmaster”, on account of his unprecedented road network development. As he constructs even federal roads for all Nigerians to ply, he is “rebuilding Nigeria”. Some critics even say he’s the “Education-by-force Governor”. Yet, this is one area he proudly pointed out at the event as his effort at “rebuilding Nigeria”, as all Nigerian children resident in his state benefit from the scheme. In deed, the governor’s love for education, in particular, is based on his understanding of the great importance it holds for the people. He appreciates, like John Maurice Clarke, the English economist that, “knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns”. He has invested in education more than any governor before him in Akwa Ibom State. Challenged by the ignorance and poverty that had once ravaged the land and affected the psyche of the people, Akpabio is changing the fortune of his people through education. Similarly, the e-Library; the gas plant; the Ibom International Airport; the prisons built and handed over to the federal government; the construction of over 10 buildings within the University of Uyo, a federal institution; the various contributions – structural and financial – to the University of Uyo Teaching Hospital (UUTH), another federal body, all aid in “rebuilding Nigeria. Moreover, as the governor mentioned at the event, he doesn’t segregate on account of tribe. For instance, his principal aides are from the diverse tribes in the country; completely mixed and he is blind to religious sentiments, too! Hence, he was “rebuilding Nigeria” when he built a hostel at Hussaini Adamu Federal Polytechnic, Kazaure, Jigawa State, recently.

    For the above reasons and more, he has in the past won various recognitions. For instance, on February 25, 2012; the Sun newspapers, after a painstaking exercise, picked Akpabio for honour as its “Man of the Year, 2011”. Similar affirmation also came earlier from Daily Independent; Tribune; National Daily, etc. He was even named an “Emerging Tiger” by the Thisday a few years back. Usually, the Board of Editors of each paper say Akpabio was picked based on verifiable indices witnessed independently while on spot inspections to Akwa Ibom State.

    Even members of the opposition parties have admitted that Akpabio deserves a place in history as a “national builder”. ACN’s Comrade-Governor Adams Oshiomhole of Edo State said that much at the Sun award, last year: “The Sun Man of the Year 2011 that you are being honoured today is not a fluke. It is based on what you have been able to put in place in your state as their leader since you took over the reigns of leadership. I have been to Akwa Ibom State and I know what I saw. This award is a confirmation of your achievements in office and I can say without any apology that you deserve this award”, he said.

    Governor Peter Obi of Anambra State (APGA) once described Akpabio in similar glowing terms when he visited Akwa Ibom. The Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) in Akwa Ibom recently said: “We have noted with delight, the apparent and heartening pace of developments that have been recorded by Gov. Godswill Akpabio and particularly applaud the development initiative in the areas of infrastructural provision across the state as well as the institutionalization of free and compulsory education”.

    Akpabio’s media aide, Chief Usoro I. Usoro, said it was African Church which first recognized that the governor has been “rebuilding Nigeria”; hence they named him “Nehemiah of our time”. Usoro, Senior Special Assistant on Print Media and Research, recalled that even the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) also named Akpabio “the Best Governor in Nigeria”, in terms of micro-credits and empowerment of the masses. It was noted the governor has been “rebuilding Nigeria” with his policy of providing 4500 women with direct training and capital for agricultural purposes.

    Interestingly, Akpabio talks less about his achievements, yet he delivers more; perhaps in line with Henry Kaiser’s cautions: “When your work speaks for itself, don’t interrupt.” But a goldfish has not hiding place and in the words of Apostle, “a city set on a hill cannot be hidden…no one lights a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lamp-stand that gives light to all who are in the house (city)”. In other words, like marketers would say, a good product markets itself!

    For Akpabio, the awards actually spur him to do more. From far and near, the world appreciates his efforts and has risen in diverse locations with words of encouragements. Recently, in far away Houston, Texas, the United States Congress described him as exceptional…confirming a Wikileaks reports that he is one to watch in good governance.

    Ms Sheila Jackson Lee, a member of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, who conferred Akpabio with a Certificate of Congressional Recognition, on behalf of the Speaker, said the governor’s “shining example of leadership is truly worthy of respect, admiration and commendation of the United States Congress”. The governor’s wife, Ekaette, also got an award for her charity works centred on widows, women, poverty and the disabled.( She described Akwa Ibom under Akpabio as “a state with limitless opportunities,” saying “with so many projects delivered, over 3000 of them, and a lot still in the works, Akwa Ibom state now stands out as a foremost state in the Niger Delta, not embroiled in tribal wars, militancy or crime.”

    To many, the tide of honours flowing Akpabio’s way is not surprising. The consensus at the award ceremony was that leadership is not about lip-service and convoluted opinions. It is not about precepts and theories but much about exemplary living. When the common people are touched; when they pass a vote of confidence on a leader, it doesn’t matter what the selfish, politically motivated and hate-induced opinions are. A leader, by his fruit exhibited through “rebuilding Nigeria”, will always be noticed and recognized!

     

    • Edward, a journalist and teacher, wrote this piece from Lagos.

  • Imbibing the culture of collective security

    Imbibing the culture of collective security

    The way things currently stand in the country has clearly shown that there is an urgent need for Nigerians to become more security-conscious in their day-to-day life. If there is any time in our national history when we need to be very alert in terms of security, it is now. This is because all across the country, cases of kidnapping, pipeline vandalisation, theft, armed robbery and terrorist attacks stare us in the face on a regular basis. And the usual thing we do when we hear of such negative cases is to first heap blames on governments across the country. While it is true that government has the onerous responsibility of ensuring security across the country, it is equally not far from the truth that security is a collective responsibility.

    For instance, for a Mega city like Lagos, the Police-Personnel Population ratio of 1- 400, is considered a big security issue that must be the concern of well-meaning Nigerians. Hence, the Fashola administration in living up its billing, envisioned more highly trained men and women working with modern logistic support, with effective cooperation and collaboration with other stakeholders through the now popular Lagos State Security Trust Fund.

    In-spite of the state government laudable security initiatives such as the acquisition of two Bell EP helicopters, restriction of the activities of ‘okada’ riders on highways, opening of gated streets between 5am and 12 midnight, lighting up of the city at night, situating and naming of streets responders to get to crisis centres on time, sending those who live or trade under the various bridges in the state packing to get rid of unscrupulous elements hiding in such places to perpetrate evil, among others, it is still quite clear that government efforts alone cannot surmount security challenges. Consequently, it is important for Nigerians to become highly vigilant about happenings within their immediate environment.

    Since it is often said that all crimes are localized, criminals and perpetrators of evil deeds no doubt live within us and obtain the information about their victims through our carelessness. They are not spirits and do not have any magic to know our details. We, therefore, have a responsibility in our various neighbourhoods to observe basic security rules. We all have to take interest in strange characters, movements as well as conduct in our area and swiftly report same to the appropriate quarters for necessary action.

    We must identify people with funny tendencies in our various streets, estates and communities. This includes people with no clear cut source of livelihood who, nevertheless, live ‘big’. We need to constantly be on our guards at all times because the agents of evil are very cunning and smart. Religious houses are not excluded in this process of renewed security consciousness.

    The various mosques and churches must be extra watchful especially towards men who hide under the pretext of coming for spiritual counselling to perpetrate dastardly acts. These are unusual times that need extraordinary precautions. Sometime in the past, it is unthinkable that places of worship could become targets of evil men. But that seems to be the norm today. Parents also need to be more proactive in the way they handle security issues relating especially to their children. If the children must be at home, they must be left under the care of responsible and mature adults.

    It is risky to live children alone at home, especially during holidays. It is also important that children are taught basic security tips such as being extremely careful with strangers, playing within the confines of their compounds and ensuring that necessary domestic security measures are strictly adhered to. Similarly, children that have come of age ought to know the phone numbers and other personal details of their parents. Also, schools, especially private ones, should step up on security efforts within and outside their premises. Under no circumstances must unauthorized people be allowed to pick pupils from schools.

    Every school must have a fool proof means of bringing pupils to school from their respective homes and vice versa. It is equally advised that organisations should, as much as possible, discourage the idea of keeping huge amount of money within their premises. Efforts should be made to embrace current trend in cashless transactions to the letter so that people will desist from carrying huge cash around under whatever guise.

    Night crawling is another aspect of our social life that we should re-consider. Except for those that must really work at night, it is quite risky to move about at night. For people who love to hang around at drinking joints after work, it is safer to do less of it now especially since they could as well go home from office and ‘catch fun’ with their families. Indeed, considering the prevailing security situation in the country, this is the right thing to always do after a hard day’s work. One other area where people need to exercise serious restraints is in their conversations.

    Most often, without knowing, people make themselves easy targets of unscrupulous elements through the reckless conversations they make in open places such as restaurants, public buses, offices, among others. Examples abound of people who have fallen victims to the antics of underground men because they could not ‘control’ their mouths. Some go to the extent of boasting of their material possessions in open places and inadvertently arouse the attention of criminals. Also, those who do business must be careful with the kind of people they deal with.

    It is important that they are cautious with the kind of ‘deals’ they are involved in. Most often, cases involving assassinations and other such vices arise from consequences of secret deals that people engage in from time to time. Now, Nigerians should know that as much as government has the responsibility to protect them, an effective public security can only be obtained with the active involvement, participation and support of every segment of the society. This is because public security is the responsibility of all individuals, groups, communities, organisations and other units that constitute the state.

    Traditional rulers and religious leaders have a critical role to play and should motivate landlords and market associations to help report suspicious movements and persons. It is a known fact that despite the magnitude of government investment in public security, there are still Herculean challenges that government’s resources alone cannot tackle. In as much as everyone in a state pursues varied interests, the pursuit of public security should, nevertheless, be the common goal of all. The involvement and participation of individuals and non-governmental actors in the issue of public security is, therefore, a necessity for the actualisation of a secured society. God bless Nigeria!

    • Ibirogba is Lagos commissioner for information and strategy.

  • This committee needs ‘amnesty’

    This committee needs ‘amnesty’

    In its relentless efforts to end the Boko Haram insurgency, the Presidency has constituted a body, the Presidential Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution of Security Challenges in the North. The decision followed the consideration of the report of the technical committee commissioned by the government to review fresh ways of addressing security challenges in the North. The 26-member committee, headed by Kabiru Turaki, Minister of Special Duties, is saddled with the responsibility of engaging members of Boko Haram in dialogue and designing a framework for resolving the violence precipitated by them.

    Unfortunately, two members of the committee have declined their membership. They are Shehu Sani, social activist and the Executive Director of the Civil Rights Congress, and Datti Ahmed, the President of the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria. Sani turned down his membership on the grounds that he was neither consulted nor informed by the Presidency before the announcement of his membership was made. On his own part, Ahmed, a medical doctor, said he rejected membership of the committee because of the bitter experience he had with the government in 2012, when he voluntarily tried to mediate between the authorities and members of the violent Islamic sect.

    Alleging insincerity on the part of the government, Ahmed said the composition of the amnesty committee was faulty. He argued that the chairman of the panel, as well as the secretary, who are nominees of the federal government would always tell the government what it wanted to hear and not the truth. “The minister and secretary will tell lies to the government and we would be left quarrelling with young Nigerians, young enough to be our children.”

    Datti said he previously made such moves twice and that it was not the government that asked him to do so. “We had reached a stage where, had the government agreed with what we resolved with the sect members, by now, we would have forgotten everything. Nigeria would have witnessed peace by now”, Ahmed said. “From past experience, the government was not sincere and it did everything to ensure that the earlier talk failed. It was just like we were going to have a peaceful resolution the next day, and what the government should have done was not something difficult. It was just for them to release their (Boko Haram members) wives, reduce tension in Yobe and Borno states, and stop persecuting the people there. The government said it was going to do that but it did not. It is the same government that wants to do that now.”

    Boko Haram had, in March 2012, picked Ahmed as a mediator between it and the federal government. At that time, it said his choice was based on the fact that its former leader, the late Mohammed Yusuf, served as a member that represented Borno State in the Council of Sharia in Nigeria. But a few days later, Ahmed pulled out of the process after details of the discussions appeared in the media.

    Though the government seems not to be perturbed about the two members’ withdrawals, I am quite sure the decline of Ahmed to serve in this committee has dealt it a ‘ballistic’ blow. The first is that although nobody is indispensable, Ahmed definitely wields a lot of influence both in the northern part of the country and Nigeria as a whole. In my days in TELL magazine, 1991-2004, he was a fearless critic of whatever he perceived to be wrong with the government of the day without mincing words. No wonder reporters naturally flock around him to extract words or interviews from him. He is widely respected and loved by his people.

    For such a man with high level of credibility and with whom a lot of trust is reposed, even by the Boko Haram sect, to have pulled out of the committee means that the 26-member committee has a long, difficult and tortuous road to travel in the discharge of its mandate. There is no doubt that there are still many members of the committee who are eminently qualified in their own right to be on board, but a person like Ahmed is very vital and may be key to an effective interface with the dreaded sect members. Don’t forget that he had earlier voluntarily interfaced with some members of the sect in the past. So, to me, it was like a right step in the right direction for government to have thought it wise enough to include him in the committee.

    But now, the bubble has burst. How far can the committee go in establishing trust between the government and members of the sect before any meaningful modality towards a peaceful and amicable solution can be found to the lingering impasse which has claimed several innocent lives and property? It is only hoped that no other member drops out any longer. Otherwise, it may seem that this committee itself needs ‘amnesty’ to put it on a good footing.

    In my discussion with a friend in the United States last week in the wake of the announcement of the composition of the committee, my friend, a Nigerian professor, said that the membership list did not include anybody from the South-South geopolitical zone of the country. He pointed out that it was an unpardonable error. For one, amnesty has worked or seems to be working in that part of the country. It is believed that it is that workability of the amnesty programme in the Niger Delta that may have goaded people to start the clamour for amnesty for Boko Haram. Therefore, ignoring or the omission of such an integral part of the amnesty programme by the Presidency cannot by any yardstick be justified.

    It is only normal that people with experience on amnesty be included so as to give the committee a good boost. Now, not even a soul from either the South-South or anybody with background experience on the ongoing amnesty programme in the Niger Delta has been included in the 26-member list. It gives an impression that the President has no input in most of these committees except that people just cook up the lists and bring them to him for his assent from time to time. This is not good enough for the image of the President himself. Besides, many people also believe the membership is unwieldy. To them, perhaps, a seven, nine, 11 or 13- member committee would have just been it.

    There are several names in the South-South that could have conveniently made the list. There is Annkio Briggs, a known Niger Delta activist; Timi Alaibe, the immediate past Special Adviser to the President on Amnesty is there, so also is Kingsley Kuku, the incumbent Special Adviser to the President on Amnesty and Alaibe’s successor. There are also those who have been toiling day and night to make the Niger Delta amnesty programme work. One of them is Chibuzor Ugwoha, the immediate past managing director of the Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC. He is an incurable believer in due process and the rule of law who has been passionately championing the process of human capacity development. The products of his human capacity crusades as the boss of the NDDC are there for everybody to see. The people whose lives he touched by his programmes while in office are proud of him and are able to raise their heads everywhere in the world today. Human capacity development is one sure way to right the perceived wrongs wrought on the North by successive northern governments.

    With the amnesty committee in place, the country seems to have moved towards enthroning peace in the North, which, by extension, should extend to every nook and cranny of the entire country where banditry now reigns supreme. One sure way to do this is by properly identifying the root cause or causes of the disaffection in all corners of the society. The fact remains that we cannot continue with all the plethora of crises – violent robbery, pipeline vandalism, Boko Haram, kidnapping for ransom, and all that.

     

  • Margaret Hilda Thatcher: Lest we forget

    Margaret Hilda Thatcher: Lest we forget

    Baroness Thatcher, the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the 20th century had been laid to rest at the age of 87. She was better remembered as The “The Iron Lady” – a paradox indeed for the first woman to be British Prime Minister. Rabidly anti-communist, her globally “uncompromising politics and leadership style” made a Soviet journalist to so nickname her, Iron Lady.

    In Africa, we dare not speak ill of the dead. Certainly nobody would ever recommend a Thatcher Death party the type which before her burial reportedly attracted some hundreds in London, who had fun rather than shedding tears for a Prime Minister, whose poverty -inducing policies in Britain are known as Thatcherism.

    But while we are enjoined to miss a departed soul, some of the post mortem exaggerated tributes from Africa are too good to be believed about the Iron Lady. Indeed some tributes by their factual untruths amount to speaking ill of the dead. During her reign (without royal entitlement!) the no-no woman never gave in to flattery and praise singing. I recall that in 1988, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher visited Nigeria. The tour was greeted by NLC-led mass anti-apartheid protest. She actually declined to take along her BARB horse gift given to her by the Emir of Kano, Alhaji Ado Bayero. Definitely I bet that Maggie who rejected a royal horse gift would dismiss posthumous, unsolicited and certainly undeserved, attributions.

    President Goodluck Jonathan while condoling the government and people of Britain on the death of its former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said in a statement signed by the President’s spokesman Reuben Abati, that; “The late Baroness Thatcher will always be remembered by the world for her very unique, distinctive and purposeful leadership which restored pride and respect to her country and made a resurgent Great Britain a force to be reckoned with on the global stage.” These tributes were mere words without historic justifications. What made Thatcher’s leadership “unique”, “purposeful” for our continent?

    The bane of contemporary African leadership is lack of memory and accountability. The generous posthumous assessment of Margaret Thatcher once again shows that some African leaders are eager to impress outside powers rather than being accountable to their peoples.

    True to her divisive character, Thatcher while in office made two rancorous visits to Africa characterised by protests and condemnations against her notorious racist support for the discredited apartheid terror-regime. A woman who in defiance of the world and unapologetically saw Nelson Mandela as “a terrorist” deserving no freedom from Robben Island maximum prison (instead of a freedom fighter Madiba is) offered no purposeful leadership neither for Africa nor for Britain where anti-apartheid feeling was rooted in spite of her obstinacy. Undoubtedly, the sudden resignation of Thatcher as British Prime Minister on November 22, 1990 after her humiliation by her conservative party was one big relief for Africa. Long before the war in the gulf in 1990, her African policy passed for political and economic equivalent of war(s) against a continent. Thanks to the scores of her doctrinaire policies (read: missiles) for which the continent lacked the capacity (read: patriots) to repel.

    Apartheid South Africa thrived on Thatcher’s ‘no-sanctions’ policy. The popular belief was that both the liberation efforts and sanctions by the international community would bring the racist Boers to reason and negotiation table. For her, sanctions campaign was ‘absurd’ and commonwealth-after-commonwealth, she could not conceal her annoyance about the fact that sanctions would not set out ‘to relive the poverty and starvation’ in South Africa. She single handedly subverted reasoned positions of the of the Commonwealth’s Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) on apartheid and guaranteed British security for the most inhuman system on the globe.

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo commendably unmasked Thatcher’s outlook in a personal letter, sent to her published in an edition of British Financial Times, when he told her thus: “Many people around the world view your continued opposition to sanctions as founded in instinct, not logic and as displaying a misguided tribal loyalty and myopic political vision…”

    She mischievously taunted the repeal of the so-called Mixed Marriage Act by Pik Botha as evidence of her romance with apartheid. General Obasanjo reportedly asked Thatcher if all 25 million blacks were fighting for was to “marry or have sex with five million whites” adding that the “mental laager of the Boer seem to be mirrored” in Thatcher’s “own attitudes”.

    Thatcher’s UK did not promote any decolonisation policy or initiative on Namibia. On the contrary, Cold war perspective beclouded the policy perception of the legitimate efforts of SWAPO to restore the usurped rights of black men and women. The struggle for independence was reduced to a ‘regional ideological conflict’ according to which a ‘linkage’ existed between the withdrawal of the Cuban troops in Angola and the independence of Namibia. Indeed, with the unscheduled visit of Mrs. Thatcher to Windhoek in September, 1989, the world nearly had a caricature of UN Resolution 435 on Namibian independence as she displayed colonial bias and wrongly accused SWAPO of ‘disrupting’ decolonisation process, she never believed in the first instance. Africa problem-solving was never her specialisation in office.

    Her worst footprint was on the global economy. Obviously not by accident, her tenure coincided with the worst economic crisis in Africa: balance of payment crisis, collapse of primary goods’ prices, poverty and unemployment. These crises were in themselves attributable to the debt crisis. Maggie was ruthlessly committed to debt collection and the better if the structural ‘adjustment’ programme lacked a human face. Britain was the home of the ‘Club of private creditors’. The Prime Minister was committed to neo- liberal free enterprise at home, never hesitated to export same abroad with the support for IMF and World Bank reforms. Thus the continent became a showcase of mutually exclusive competitive policies of devaluation, liberalisation, privatisation and cuts in public spending.

    The results: unemployment, brain drain, decline in income, and ‘perverse flow of resources’ through debt repayment. Her tenure was the same as SAP-military imposed regimes in Africa. She suffered no democracy rhetoric in Africa; she administered UK at a time constitutionalism was trampled upon by corrupt military adventurers in notable commonwealth states of Nigeria and Ghana. As recent as 2004, Sir Mark Thatcher, the son of Lady Thatcher, was arrested and charged over claims that he was involved in a plot to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea.

    Let’s forgive but we dare not forget her dubious African legacy. The defunct West Africa Weekly summed up Mrs. Thatcher’s tenure thus: ‘Mrs. Thatcher never developed a coherent policy that remotely took account of the genuine interests of African people…’

    • Aremu mni, is Vice President of Nigeria Labour Congress

  • Playing kite with corruption in Imo

    Playing kite with corruption in Imo

    That huge corruption thrives in Nigeria is no news. It rankles. It is sad that from the low class, through the middle class, to the elite, corruption seems to be the order of the day. But, it is sadder, when the ruling elite, the class projected on public beam, and meant to represent the interest of the people of the country, are also guilty of this malady. Particularly irksome to me is the current state of affairs in Imo State.

    I’m particularly worried about the malfeasance which caused the impeachment of Jude Agbaso, the erstwhile Imo deputy governor. Following an embittered relationship with his boss, Agbaso, upon impeachment recently by the Imo State of House of Assembly over a N458m bribe allegation, is singing like a canary. According to reports, the N458m kickback came from a Lebanese road contractor, Joseph Dina of JPROS International Nigeria Limited. His disclosure showed that discussions that probably took place in cosy sanctuaries and at odd hours is now out in the open and for all ears. It stinks of shady dealings in top places.

    The way it is, development is coming at a great cost to Imolites. Though, the state government maintains a public display of thriftiness and modesty, this might not really be the case with the governor at the helm of affairs. And if the words of the impeached deputy governor have any measure of truth, then, funds earmarked for development purposes in Imo have embarked on foreign trips. This is indeed a sad development.

    On the surface, Imo State governor, Rochas Okorocha, seems to be concerned about saving Imo State government funds. It never tires the governor to reiterate how he does not spend his ‘security’ vote on himself. Rather, he boasts of how he channels it towards developmental efforts. But, a tour around the state reveals a chaotic form of development, where things are perpetually in a state of work-in-progress. The truth be said: After his four-year term, Okorocha might just turn out to be another extravagant governor.

    And, while posterity has rubbished Agbaso by brandishing him as being corrupt, it remains to be confirmed if indeed that is the whole truth concerning the matter. This is because, like a wounded animal, Agbaso is attacking back. He is talking about complicity involving the use of state funds, which he says that even the governor, Okorocha, is aware of. According to the embittered deputy governor, Joseph Dina who has graft cases to answer with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was made to implicate him.

    According to Agbaso in an interview, ‘Joseph Dina was specially sponsored to falsely confess that he gave me bribe. If not, how could a Lebanese, who had had series of graft cases with the EFCC since 2009, boldly come out in the open to confess that he used up to 46 per cent of fully paid contract sum from Imo people’s money to give me bribe? It is unbelievable.’

    On the other hand, how could I collect such an amount from a man I never did any favour for and was not in a position to do any favour for?’

    Agbaso had said, ‘An aide of Governor Rochas Okorocha, Prince MacDonald-Akano, who is the governor’s Special Adviser and Chairman of the Committee on Monitoring and Implementation of Road Projects in Imo State, was made a shareholder in JPROS International Nigeria Ltd. on June 20, 2012 and allotted two million shares of the company’s 10 million shares.’

    Following his impeachment, Agbaso and his family enlisted the services of private investigators. According to him, the N458m purportedly paid to him was traced and it was found out that the money was paid in two tranches through private foreign bank accounts in Dubai and London. The investigation, Agbaso said, also revealed that the accounts in which the money was paid into belonged to Three Bother Concept Nig. Ltd and IHSAN Bureau De Change Limited. Defending himself, Agbaso said he had no links and had no relationship with any of the companies.

    Agbaso also said it was the governor that paid the contractor an initial N200m from his office. Again, if close aides to Okorocha are in the thick of the matter and if the ousted deputy maintains that any money missing can be explained by the governor, then, something is definitely fishy. What is it? Could the governor be complicit? Or is it merely a case of pot calling kettle black and making the kettle pay for being black?

    It takes two to tango. And a leopard does not develop spots overnight. Surely, Agbaso and Okorocha were buddies before things turned sour. And both of them, to an extent, know about the deals going in Imo State. To have power is sweet as people obey your words. But, those in power should realise that it intoxicates. And the outcome is not too rosy. In his cries, Agbaso had said his impeachment also had to do with the politics of 2015.

    I know Nigerian politics is one of strange bedfellows; hence, there is no way Agbaso cannot come out clean. But, the fact is that there are certain things which are not right. For one, Agbaso fingered his aide for being made a director in the company only last July. Is investigation going on in that direction? In addition, there was so much hurry to prosecute Agbaso. Why? Has the phony ‘construction equipment’ rant by the company been investigated? It would be difficult for Okorocha to claim not to have knowledge of how the disputed money went.

    In the Imo financial conundrum, it seems Agabso is just being used as the sacrificial lamb by a gang of corrupt politicians. While Agbaso really deserves little pity, the situation is not fair. More eyes should be cast on other implicated persons, even if they are friends and cronies of the governor. Even, if it is the governor himself.

     

    • Nduka writes from Owerri

     

  • A misbegotten constitution review

    A misbegotten constitution review

    The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha, has been all over the media this past week congratulating himself and his colleagues on executing what by his reckoning is one of the rarest political feats ever achieved in this clime.

    “We have kept faith with Nigerians,” he proclaimed, in an article detailing the exertions the House of Representatives put itself through in its self-serving and utterly misconceived task of fashioning a new Constitution for Nigeria (ThisDay, April 19, 2013).

    He recalled how, on December 10, 2012, all 360 members of the House fanned out across the country to their constituencies to stage town hall meetings at which various “stakeholders” deliberated on a 43-item template of issues they would like to see amended in the 1999 Constitution.

    Discussions at the sessions were not merely free and robust, Ihedioha wrote, they were resoundingly “participatory.” Thereafter, votes were taken and recorded in full view of all the participants. Each member of the House then presented a report, incorporating voting results from his or her constituency and backed by video evidence, to the secretariat of the ad hoc Committee on the Review of the Constitution.

    The reports were then deposited at the secretariat of the Constitution Review Committee, which again invited representatives of “stakeholders” to join with its staffers to collate the results.

    As Ihedioha sees it, the outcome of this process, presented to the House of Representatives last week, categorically represents “the voice” of the Nigerian people regarding what changes they would like to see an amended Constitution.

    He admitted that the process may not be perfect, but before you could give him high praise for candour, he declared without fear and without research that “it is the first time in the history of this country that Nigerians at the grassroots have been made part of the Constitution Review Process in a practical and transparent manner.”

    The process is nothing of the sort. In conception and execution, it is as incurably flawed as the 1999 Constitution it was supposed to modify. It is certainly not an improvement.

    To begin with, what the nation needs is not a trainload of amendments to a Constitution that may not be a grand forgery as some leading authorities have called it, but is so shot through with errors and omissions, and so constricted in its underlying assumptions, that it cannot serve as a useful guide for and resolving the conflicts convulsing the country.

    In undertaking to re-work that document, Ihedioha and his colleagues in the House of Representatives were laboring under a misapprehension

    Even if the House has a mandate to review the 1999 Constitution, the way it went about it belies Ihedioha’s claim that the outcome represents the “voice” of the people. For one thing, the people had no hand in preparing the agenda. They certainly took no part in designing the “43-item template” that constituted the substance of discourse – assuming it is not a case of unnecessary dignification to call what took place a “discourse”.

    For another, those whom House members railroaded from their constituencies into attending the town meetings were for the most part self-selected or induced by the prospect of free food and drinks and gifts from the abundant perks – the constituency and hardship allowances, among others — of the Honourable Visitor from Abuja. In no sense can they be said to represent the political tendencies or shades of opinion in the constituency, much less in the country.

    For yet another, there was no independent verification of the “collation” that followed each town meeting. The House member who staged the meeting and had a vested interest in showing that it was a “robust” grassroots deliberative forum, the kind of which Nigeria had never witnessed, was responsible for the “collation”. In this digital age, the “video evidence” presented with the report cannot authenticate an exercise that was at bottom a mockery.

    Or “a sham and a monumental failure,” as High Chief Rita Lori-Ogbebor, the influential minority-rights activist called it, in a withering critique (ThisDay, November 13, 2012) of the town meeting held in her Delta State constituency of Warri. The exercise, she said, was “nothing more than a ploy to rubber stamp the selfish agenda of those who organized it.”

    The Warri town hall meeting took place the day President Goodluck Jonathan was visiting to join in the birthday celebrations of the televangelist, Ayo Oristsejafor. Scheduled to start at 9 o’clock in the morning, it did not begin until 4 p.m. By then, many of those who had gathered for the event had left.

    Only one minute was allowed for indicating “yes” or “no” to 43 questions on the template. That was the sum total of the “discussions.”

    “How on earth do you expect people of my calibre and age to just answer ‘Yes or No’ about a matter that was not previously discussed?” Lori-Ogbebor asked in justified indignation.

    To be sure, not all the public hearings across the country were as shambolic as the one in Warri. But even where they were better organized, one cannot in good faith call them “consultations.” Asking members of the audience to answer “yes” or “no” to the questions on the template cannot be called “consultations” without doing great violence to language. Nor can it be honestly claimed that the outcome represents the “voice” of the people.

    What a good-faith exercise requires is a forum at which persons elected for the purpose of re-writing the Constitution meet over a period of time – certainly not one day – and deliberate, no options foreclosed, on a wide range of significant national issues in a spirit of give-and take, and come up with a document reflects a broad national consensus on which a healthier union can be founded.

    The town hall meetings provided no such forum.

    One of the issues that has been convulsing Nigeria is that federalism – the bedrock principle on which the nation was established — has over the years been honoured more in the breach than in the observance, to the point that Nigeria today is more or less a centrally administered state.

    The so-called public hearings evaded the problem altogether, or sought to perpetuate it. One of the items on its template required the audience to indicate by yes or no whether the electoral commissions in the states should be abolished, leaving it to the National Electoral Commission to conduct all polls.

    No one desirous of restoring true federalism would ask a question like that.

    Another item called for a vote on whether the states should establish a police force, without laying out the arguments for and against, and without outlining how potential abuse of the scheme might be averted or curbed.

    And in Lagos State of all places, a majority of attendees – the very people who stand to lose the most – reportedly voted to deny federal funds to local governments allegedly created outside the framework of the1999 Constitution.

    How plausible is this outcome? Did they really understand what they were voting on? Surely, the more fundamental question is whether Kano State, which allegedly has roughly the same population as Lagos State, should have three times as many local governments in Lagos State, and three times as many representatives in the lower house of the National Assembly.

    The foregoing, in sum, is the process Emeka Ihedioha and his colleagues in the House of Representatives are busy advertising as a great breakthrough. This is the product they want Nigerians to accept as an unprecedented act of keeping faith with the public.

    I see it as a grand evasion of the problems at hand, and a usurpation of the prerogative of the sovereign people of Nigeria to give themselves a new Constitution. Something tells me that it will go down as yet another exercise in futility.

    Meanwhile, the question needs to be asked again: Who is afraid of an authentic people’s Constitution, one truly warranted by the preface, “We the people . . .”?

     

     

  • Jonathan vs. Amaechi: Again, judiciary on the spot

    Jonathan vs. Amaechi: Again, judiciary on the spot

    Nigeria’s judiciary suffered a major setback in its determination at ensuring fair dispensation of justice on Monday April 15 in Abuja High Court. Justice Ishaq Bello sacked the Rivers State executive of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP and approved the election of a parallel executive and a faction of the party.

    The issues in Rivers State politics especially with regard to Governor Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi and the PDP are well known. What is however strange and disturbing in the barefaced verdict is the consequences of this action on our judicial system and the consolidation of democracy. The sacked executive, led by Chief Godspower Ake enjoyed the support of Governor Amaechi while the parallel faction recently imposed on the people of Rivers State is loyal to Nyesom Wike, Minister of State for Education who is alleged to have been drafted by the Presidency to spearhead this onslaught against the people of Rivers State and their outspoken governor.

    Unknown to many Nigerians, what has turned out to be a judgement usurping the powers of a democratically elected executive is fraught with irregularities and absurdities. For instance, to all intents and purposes, the perceived crisis in Rivers State occasioned by the presidency’s undue interference is serving nobody’s interest. Aside that, this issue that resurfaced in an Abuja High Court is strictly an intra party matter which presupposes that it would not have been taken to court for adjudication in the first place. More so, the party congress that happened took place in Port Harcourt, not in Abuja. It is therefore inconceivable for a supposedly “local” case to be heard in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja and not even the Federal High Court. Lawyers will tell you this is absurdity of the first order.

    Baffling too is the fact that the state congress that produced the Chief Ake led executive took place in March 2012 and it took almost a whole year for the petitioners to file their case. The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC was joined in the matter of Obuah and one other versus Chief Ake and others before an FCT high court. By my elementary knowledge of law, this case was clearly filed out of time coming almost a year after the completion of the congress, thus statute barred. The judge also ignored this well known principle of law.

    There is also the outstanding issue of gross criminal allegations and the manner the judge treated it leaves much to be desired. Whereas there was an allegation of fraud and forgery, yet no witness was called throughout this trial. The trial judge relied on affidavit evidence sworn to by one of the officials who conducted the congress. This is against the spirit and practice of the law.

    The trial judge also deliberately ignored a report from INEC which monitored the state congress as enshrined in the Electoral Act. It is quite ironic that these characters who now brandish a spurious court victory did not even purchase nomination forms nor where they found anywhere near the venue of the PDP congress.

    These developments are disquieting and posse a great danger to our democracy. There is no doubt that the judiciary and the work they do is a pillar in the consolidation of democracy. Daily, we drift steadily towards full blown dictatorship yet we all seem helpless. What is happening today in Nigeria is distressing and calls for urgent intervention from all men of goodwill.

    Sadly, those entrusted with the onerous task of keeping Nigeria running are the same people undermining and desecrating our institutions. Even a blind man can see the unseen hands of the perpetrators of the crisis in the PDP across the country and this is traceable to the Presidency. There is nothing accidental about this latest onslaught in Rivers State PDP considering the running battle between the Presidency and Governor Amaechi. As a people, I think it is time we took the affairs of our country more seriously.

    Fortunately, some Nigerians are already speaking out against this unjustified abuse that our country is subjected to almost on a daily basis. They are alarmed at the despoliation of the political space and the impending doom.

    For a judicial system that only recently embarked on measures to rid its rank and file of corrupt officials, this is a test case. The National Judicial Council, NJC must quickly act to restore confidence in the judiciary if the revered institution hopes to remain as generally perceived as the last hope of the common man. There is no doubt that the action of Justice Bello will impact negatively on the credibility of our courts. This is absolutely needless.

    As election year approaches, it has become very imperative for Nigerians to be more vigilant and participatory in this arduous task of building a country we can proudly bequeath to the next generation. We must also show interest in the affairs of our nation; that is the only way to build a great country. To assume that we are still learning because our democracy is still relatively young and evolving presupposes that we may learn forever and this will do us more harm. Therefore when patriots like Amaechi challenge any contradictory reality that is inconsistent with our federal structure, we must not stand aloof and watch.

    I believe that every serious Nigerian must be gravely worried at the turn of events in our country today particularly with our parties and their promoters. Less than twenty-four hours after obtaining the controversial judgement, a kangaroo swearing-in ceremony was arranged by some members of the PDP National Working Committee in Abuja. As a people, we must begin to take ourselves more seriously and the time to avoid taking actions that would haunt us in the future now.

     

    • Salami, Executive Director, Judiciary Watch Initiative writes from Lagos.

     

  • This way for necrolatry

    This way for necrolatry

    Eze Igbo gburugburu, the inimitable Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, must be smiling in his grave.

    The handshake across the Niger he canvassed in life, between Nigeria’s often mutually antagonistic East and West, might just be flourishing – in morbid romance with the dead, with the Ikemba himself as the undisputed godhead!

    It is the age of political necrolatry. Necrolaters, across the Niger, rejoice!

    The other day, Peter Obi, the Anambra governor, went to Ojukwu’s graveside and declared the Ikemba – dead or no – remained national leader of his faction of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). The humble governor dutifully queued behind the Ikemba, perhaps awaiting sacred instructions from the land of the dead!

    Not long after, after the judicial restoration of Victor Umeh as APGA national chairman by the Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu, Emeka Ojukwu Jr, staked a rightful claim to the Ojukwu godhead, as a political franchise. He said with Umeh’s reinstatement, his beloved father would be happy in his grave, knowing all was well with the party he left behind.

    Now, some political analysts are wondering: is this the opening skirmish in the APGA-PDP Vs APGA-APC war to come? Whatever it is, the Ikemba as a political franchise remains potent and undiminished.

    Step across the Niger then, to Oodualand, where Dr. Fredrick Fasehun, the Odu’a People’s Congress (OPC) leader, is mounting his own romance with dead ideas.

    With full flourish and even fiercer conviction, Dr. Fasehun is breathing new life into Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s Second Republic party, presumed long dead with that republic (1 October 1979-31 December 1983).

    But maybe it cannot, in all good conscience, be said UPN is dead.

    As The Nation columnist, Mobolaji Sanusi rightly argued in his “Steps without imprint” piece (April 12), the UPN mutated from Awo’s First Republic Action Group (AG); and has itself mutated into aborted Third Republic’s unregistered People’s Solidarity Party (PSP), which became a major partner in Social Democratic Party (SDP), the IBB-imposed party that clinched MKO Abiola the presidency.

    In this Fourth Republic, the UPN mutants are the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and its variants, Action Congress (AC), Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and even (but Bolaji did not include this in his analysis) Democratic People’s Alliance (DPA), formed by some disaffected Lagos AD members, made up of Awoist old guard and young Turks, in the run-up to the 2003 elections in Lagos State.

    Indeed, but for the Ibrahim Babangida “new breed” experiment that somewhat cut the inter-republic umbilical cord, the AG regnant credo would even have been more pervasive in the South West political mainstream.

    So, the UPN could not have been said to be “dead”. But that cannot be said of Pa Fasehun’s latest political gambit, after the Hamza al-Mustapha campaign.

    Like the looming APGA-PDP vs APGA-APC battle in the East, could the coming ACN Vs UPN battle be one and the same proxy battle, but fought under different colours, at the behest of the same desperate forces, digging in for 2015?

    Look, politicians would be something else, if they didn’t play politics – and the meaner, the more cynical and the more sinister, the better perhaps. The kingdom of politics suffereth violence; and the end always justifies the power meanness!

    There are speculations, of course – true or untrue. There is talk of Fasehun’s OPC faction pitching the Jonathan Presidency for South West oil pipeline security gravy. What is sauce for the goose, is it not sauce for the gander?

    And there is also talk of the mudunmudun (Yoruba for finger-licking gravy) from the pitched gravy train coming in handy for Fasehun’s quixotic UPN resurrection. And why not? As the Yoruba say, the drunkard is no fool; he only blows his cash on his passion! It is good old utility in basic economics.

    Even outside the Fasehun gambit, Olu Falae and the Afenifere old guard are stirring, smitten perhaps by the ongoing APC merger, to rally a “third force” of Labour Party and other partisan bric-a-bracs to also essay a merger.

    “Me-too” syndrome is a legitimate political aspiration – for in partisan politics, driven by eternal push for relevance, a plus for one is always a minus for the other! So, let the politicians play their game.

    But not so the people, the umpteenth victims of these rogue games. That is why the discerning must ask hard questions; and the people themselves never surrender their thinking process to demagogues, especially where development is the issue.

    There is a radical difference between Lagos of 1999 and Lagos of 2013. That did not just happen. It was product of deliberate and painstaking efforts. Perhaps with the Federal Government achieving a similar transformation nationwide, Nigeria would not be the anarchist’s haven it has become.

    Now Ogun’s Ibikunle Amosun is thinking of light rail to link his capital, Abeokuta, to Lagos, by the Lagos-Ibadan expressway corridor. If that happens, South West economic integration would receive a big boost.

    Ibadan, hitherto so glum and comfy in its muck and rot, is suddenly making a dash for one of the cleanest cities around, just as Lagos has made that transition. Is Ibadan that same place as Adedibu’s garrison headquarters, where satanic chefs served life-scalding amala and gbegiri, in unbridled anarchy?

    Osogbo, Ilesa and other Osun towns are receiving a boost, after years and years of politically induced coma, the Oyinlola years being the latest excursion in the desert of misrule and stasis.

    After the tragically hilarious years of Fayose’s juvenile rule, climaxed by Oni’s mimic rule of progressive reaction, Ekiti appears settling down to deliberate and systematic development, which could well be sustainable.

    Again, all these are no partisan accidents. They are the work of those who want to make a positive difference.

    Wale Oshun, chairman of Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG), hit the nail on the head in his interview in The Nation (‘Oshun: Don’t extend amnesty to Boko Haram’, April 16): Each time Yorubaland appears on track for sustainable development and the prosperity that comes with it, noxious forces, internal and external, move to truncate the move.

    That macabre drama appears unfolding in Pa Fasehun’s curious UPN resurrection campaign – and every discerning mind must see through it, even if the old man is entitled to his avowed nobility of motive.

    Awo, the UPN and all he stood for are ever-living winning ideas that need no recall to life by cheap demagoguery. Awo is too saintly to be an ogre for anyone’s dirty, private political wars. Ojukwu probably is too; but only the Igbo can tell.

    Besides, with the likes of Bode George pushing Fasehun’s brand of UPN, Awo unlike Ojukwu, is probably sadly turning in his grave.

    Dr. Fasehun is, of course, entitled to his latest whim of political necrolatry. But Awo’s lifework of enlightenment and development would have been undone if anyone took him seriously.

    His is a final flourish of dead ideas before they are interred with the scorn they deserve.

     

  • Amnesty and its payoffs

    Decision making in the face of uncertainties has been an integral part of the human organization. Confronted with such uncertainties, man in the medieval age, took resort to consulting oracles and sundry soothsayers to predict the future for them. Decisions were therefore taken depending on the perceptions of those concerned and sometimes in conformity with the instructions of the seers.

    Though these practices have not completely disappeared, they are increasingly getting irrelevant in modern day calculations that place heavy reliance on science and empirical theory. Science has been able to develop a variety of models not only to analyze, interpret and predict future occurrences but more importantly to aid decision making.

    That is the major concern of Decision Theory. Essentially, the theory deals with the principles for making correct decisions. Both in our daily lives and the running of modern governments, leaders face serious challenges of decision making. And the success of such decisions is intricately tied to the level of available information and rational calculations that go into them at the level of formulation. These entail rational calculations, choice, risks and payoffs.

    Today, the Jonathan administration is confronted with a serious challenge of decision making in respect of the Boko Haram insurgency. The card on the table is whether to grant amnesty to the deadly religious sect or not. Northern leaders of various shades have been at the vanguard of the campaign for amnesty arguing that it holds the ace for the resolution of the seemingly intractable insecurity in that part of the country. They want the Jonathan regime to give it a trial.

    But this idea has been vehemently opposed by the Christian Association of Nigeria CAN and many other well meaning Nigerians who would rather have the war concluded very decisively and culprits punished accordingly. All along, the government has not been swayed by the calls for amnesty or dialogue predicating its reasons on the fact that the group had remained largely faceless. But key northern leaders amongst them, the Sultan of Sokoto, Sa’ad Abubakar have remained unwavering in their belief that amnesty is the solution to the festering problem.

    Apparently succumbing to pressure, Jonathan had a forthnight ago set up a committee to advise the government on the desirability or otherwise of amnesty for the group. But the authentic leader of the sect, Abubakar Shekau scorned the move stating that it was they who are in a position to grant pardon to the federal government. From all Shekau said, proceeding with the amnesty deal for his group is bound to be an exercise in futility. That ought to have been the end to the entire idea. But northern leaders have pressed on urging the president to trudge on with the move. The issue now is the propriety of granting amnesty to a group that has unabashedly repudiated the entire idea. Should the Jonathan regime still proceed with the idea of amnesty despite opposition to it by CAN whose members have suffered incalculable losses; the rejection of same by those for whom it is meant and the not too convincing reasons for placating a largely unprovoked murderous group? That is the hard decision Jonathan has to take. And in this he is left with two options- to grant amnesty to the sect or not to grant. He has proceeded further to set up a 26-man committee to engage the Boko Haram sect. Its terms of reference are to develop a framework for the granting of amnesty; setting up of a framework through which disarmament could take place within a 60-day time frame; development of a comprehensive victims’ support programme and development of the mechanisms to address the underlying causes of insurgency that would help to prevent future occurrences. Even then, two key nominees Dr Datti Ahmed and Mallam Shehu Sani have declined the offer. Both have issues with the composition of the committee and the sincerity of the government. Incidentally, these two personages command the respect of the sect.

    Decision theory is concerned with the rational choice open to Jonathan in the face of the conflicting signals on the matter. It also envisages that the option he eventually settles for should be that which will minimize his losses in the event of the worst outcome. Should he still proceed with the exercise despite the conflicting signals from the north? And what are the consequences of aborting the process at this point in time?

    Rational calculations instruct that he should still go for the amnesty deal. What are the reasons? Northern leaders in whose domain the insurgency is largely domesticated have said time without number that that is what is needed to stem the tide. Even the two declining leaders share this view. Added to this is the seeming inability to win the war on the battle field. If Jonathan does not yield, there is everything to suggest that the insecurity will continue. It may even assume greater ferocity as some of those at the vanguard of the amnesty campaign could now find reasons to further fuel the insurgency to score the point that it is a consequence of the refusal of the government to buy the idea. This is a foreboding possibility.

    But then, there is no guarantee that amnesty is the necessary and sufficient condition to stem Boko Haram insurgency. There is therefore the possibility of policy failure. This could arise either from the discordant tunes from the north; the fact that there are many factions of the Boko Haram insurgents or the absence of facts on the ground to support amnesty as a therapeutic response to terrorism. The latter point is given credence by the fact that terrorism which the sect purveys is a global phenomenon and no where has it been solved through amnesty. Unless ours is substantially propelled by other factors, there are ample reasons for skepticisms regarding it capacity to stem the tide. There is thus the chance of failure. But the government should not be deterred by this. Failure could also arise from the type of package the committee would come up with; how it is received by the sect as well as the victims of their atrocious undertakings. It is therefore clear that the path to the success of the 26-man committee is strewn with dangerous thorns. Even with all these, the idea should be given a trial.

    Where whatever recommendations they arrive at fail to stem the tide, the government can now feel safely betrayed by the northern elite. The point would have been sufficiently made that those who have been at the vanguard of this campaign did not have the confidence of the sect. They would have lost any iota of credibility they purport to hold on issues concerning the insurgency and the objective conditions that sustain it. Then, the government can take liberty to do whatever it deems appropriate to stem the slide without apology to anyone.

    The northern elite now has a daunting burden to discharge by ensuring that the sect accepts whatever propositions the government may come out with as a solution to the killings in their zone. Fears have been raised about monetary gains being at the center of the amnesty calls. Such fears must be proved wrong. We are all watching!