The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emmanuel Oladesu

  • Electoral commission for local governments

    Electoral commission for local governments

    Opinion is divided on the push for a separate and centrally administered electoral commission for the nation’s 774 local government areas.

    The debate followed the Supreme Court’s judgment on local government autonomy, which tends to have limited, to a large extent, the state government’s control over the third tier.

    The Senate is discussing a Bill, titled: “National Independent Local Government Electoral Commission (NILGEC) and other matters (Establishment) Bill, 2024,” sponsored by its Finance Committee Chairman Sani Musa, a stalwart of the All Progressives Congress (APC) from Niger East District. If the bill scales through and is assented to by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) set up by state governments for council polls may be outlawed.

    The aims and objectives of the proposed local government commission, as highlighted by Senator Musa, are similar to those of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    These include conducting free, fair, and transparent elections to elect local government chairmen and councillors, preparing and maintaining an accurate and up-to-date voters’ register, and ensuring voter education and public awareness towards the electoral process.

    The proposed agency will set and enforce electoral guidelines and regulations for council elections, recruit and train electoral officers and workers for efficient election management, monitor and supervise all electoral activities and processes at the council level, investigate and adjudicate electoral disputes and grievances.

    Read Also: Beyond local governments’ autonomy

    The proposed NILGEC is expected to operate independently, free from external influence and interference; with its budget, approved by the National Assembly, to ensure financial independence.

    The electoral body shall announce the election schedule, at least, six months before the election, and define and enforce penalties for electoral offenses, including but not limited to voter fraud, ballot stuffing, and electoral violence.

    When established, “all powers and functions related to the conduct of local government elections previously vested in any other body or authority shall be transferred to NILGEC”.

    The apex court’s verdict on financial autonomy and conduct of council polls by NILGEC, if approved, may decorate local government as lower-level federating units of an inexplicable federation once characterised by three and later, four regions, and much later, military-created 36 states, as presumed or perceived federating units.

    Supporters of a separate umpire for conducting council polls believe that the commission would be independent, unbiased, more assertive, and more credible than the current 36 states’ Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs).

    However, those who have reservations about it contend that the country may gradually move from its meagre devolution to a higher degree of centralisation, although they never doubt the prospects of electoral efficiency and resultant free and fair council polls.

    Their other observation is that the establishment of a separate electoral commission for local governments would entail tinkering with the constitution, which has given legal backing to SIECs and state authorities to organise and supervise council polls.

    Section Seven of the 1999 Constitution gives the local government system a legal impetus. The section provides that “the system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the government of every state shall, subject to Section Eight of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance, and functions of such councils”.

    Section 3 Part II of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution makes provision for the establishment of SIEC. Section 4 of the Constitution gives SIECs the powers to organise, undertake and supervise all elections to local government councils within the state and to render such advice as it may consider necessary to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), including the compilation and registration of voters as long as the register applies to local government elections in the state.

    The above provisions show that INEC is superior to SIEC because the latter still depends on the voter register prepared by INEC although INEC does not perform any regulatory functions over SIEC.

    The constitutional interpretation is that while the Federal Government has constitutional power to constitute the membership of INEC, as contained in Section 154 of the 1999 Constitution, the same power is given to governors for the composition of SIEC, as contained in Section 3 of Part II of the Constitution.

    Unlike INEC, which has an organisational structure comprising a Chairman and National Commissioners, SIEC has “a chairman; and not less than five but not more than seven other persons”.

    But while all attention has been on the five elections conducted by INEC – the presidential, senatorial, House of Representatives, governorship, and House of Assembly; the polls conducted by SIEC – chairmanship and councillorship, have never generated widespread attention.

    The reasons are not far-fetched. Many stakeholders believe that local government poll results are predictable; the governor’s party often wins the poll by a landslide. Conceding defeat in some wards or councils means ceding some councils to opposition parties. To the ruling parties, it is a taboo. It is the height of political intolerance. In most cases, the grassroots elections are usually boycotted by opposition parties.

    Besides, experts have often complained about the lack of capacity and autonomy by SIEC as politicians may even be appointed as SIEC members. In many states, local government elections are conducted reluctantly by governors. They are inclined towards setting up caretaker or transition committees comprising their associates and lackeys.

    There is no uniformity in Nigeria’s local government system. While the chairmen and councillors enjoy a four-year tenure in some states, other states have chairmen and councilors with three or two-year tenures. While the Federal Government cannot dissolve a state government, many governors, until the recent court judgment, indulged in sacking elected council functionaries at will. The reluctance to conduct council polls has become a political culture in many states. It is inherited and transferred to successors. Some critics have rejected the economic factor cited as the reason. But the truth is that since state governments feed fat on the local governments’ allocations, conducting polls may reduce such opportunities. Thus, the poor financial status of some state governments does not predispose them to organising elections.

    Indisputably, security challenges, particularly in some trouble spots in the North, may not motivate state governments to take council polls as a priority.

    If NILGEC is established, Nigeria would be retracing its steps to the pre-Third Republic era of political experimentation but with a minor difference. The difference is that while the defunct National Electoral Commission (NEC) of Eme Awa conducted council polls with success, the responsibility will not be performed by a separate body appointed by the President. This may be due to the feeling that INEC may not be able to cope with the expansion of electoral responsibilities to cover local governments.

    In December 1990, the defunct NEC conducted the first nationwide local government election on a party basis, building on the success recorded during previous council polls in 1989 on a non-party basis.

    Many Nigerians hailed the electoral body, saying the election was very peaceful, adding that rigging was minimal, compared to previous polls. 

    The implication is that when a central election management body conducts council polls, its outcome can be more transparent and credible than polls conducted by the SIEC.

    However, while many polls conducted by SIEC may not have passed the integrity test, it should also be noted that not all the elections conducted by INEC in this dispensation were devoid of controversy.

    In Nigeria, where politicians never readily accept the outcome of elections, however transparent it might have been, would NILGEC be able to cope with numerous post-election litigations across the country?

    There are other puzzles: if NILGEC comes on board, will it also conduct elections into the smaller local units, the Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs), and area councils? These LCDAS are not listed in the constitution. They were legitimately and legally created, but the process, according to the Supreme Court, is inchoate. What would be their fate?

    Does it not also have an implication for the practice of federalism when the conduct of the grassroots election is centralised but not decentralised?

  • Tinubu, restructuring, and federalism

    Tinubu, restructuring, and federalism

    One of the greatest challenges confronting the current administration is how to restore true federalism.  It appears President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is trying to resolve the hurdle in an exceptional way and with a unique style.

    That time-tested style is characterised by devotion to the constitution, respect for the rule of law, and belief in the judiciary, the third arm of government and ultimate arbiter under democracy.

    As a democrat, the president is leaning on these pillars of popular rule as he undertakes the critical assignment of repositioning the country for the nation to have what some people call proper federalism.

    It would be a long journey. But the foundation is being laid,  to the surprise of those who thought the president may have abandoned what he agitated for when he was opposition leader.

    The key to restoring an effective federal principle is reform, which would yield the dividends of restructuring or devolution of powers that are ingredients of a decentralised democratic order.

    There are four routes to the goal. The first is by the convocation of a national conference. Many believe this approach is laborious, monotonous, and wasteful because the previous two conferences ended in a fiasco. The 2004 conference report was sacrificed for a third-term agenda. The 2011 conference was no more than a jamboree, a Greek gift.

    The second option is the Sovereign National Conference (SNC), which would validate a popular process leading to the birth of a people-oriented constitution, based on agreed terms for peaceful coexistence in a multi-lingual, multi-religious, and diverse society. However, this has been largely elusive.

    The National Assembly has often viewed an SNC as a threat and an affront to its sovereignty as the custodian of the constitution amendment process, oblivious of the fact that it was voted into power by the people.

    The third approach is through a constitutional amendment. This is the purview of the National Assembly. The belief is that the 1999 Constitution has lied against itself by posing as a federal constitution that harbours some elements of unitarism. So far, getting a consensus on many items in the national document has been an uphill task. Periodically, there is a piecemeal constitution review, but it is incapable of making Nigeria a proper federation.

    The fourth option is through a judicial pronouncement, particularly by the Supreme Court, which has the power to give a final verdict on constitutional matters and resolve any conflicts arising from inter-governmental relations in a supposedly federal entity.

    The third approach has produced a far-reaching, unprecedented result as the apex court affirmed local government financial autonomy. Allocations to the 774 councils will henceforth go directly to the council chairmen. The middlemen – governors – are being partly eliminated from the channels of financial control over the councils.

    With the development, it is hoped that there will no longer be any cause for fund diversion. Also, only democratically elected councils would be recognised; there would be no room for caretakers, generally perceived as impostors. The onus is on state governments to conduct council elections. With the apex court’s pronouncement, the local government is gradually becoming the third tier of government in Nigeria.

    But, in this circumstance, some puzzles have arisen. Has the court abrogated the State/Local Government Joint Account? Has it outlawed the power of the Houses of Assembly to create and politically supervise the local government systems?

    It appears the verdict has strengthened the councils financially to frontally tackle the challenges of grassroots development. It means that the councils’ responsibilities that were hitherto discharged on their behalf by states would be returned to them.

    Read Also: Rivers crisis: Appeal Court dismisses suit against Tinubu, Fubara, Amaewhule

    Politically, the local government will now be attractive to politicians. Competition for the positions of chairmen and councillors will now become stiff. There will be a need to check reckless council bosses who may want to convert their domains into a means for acquiring private wealth.

    But scholars need to study the emerging trend of having a corrective federalism whereby local governments centrally created by past dictatorial military regimes are listed in the constitution. On the other hand, those created by civilian governors, based on consultations and public yearnings, are not listed. Such a development would make the procedure for creating them inchoate.

    President Tinubu was an apostle of devolution of power and creation of true federalism when he was the opposition leader. Consistent with that avowed commitment, he has upheld the decision of the immediate past government to decentralise rail transportation, for example.

    This implies that the centralisation of the rail system is outdated. The railway is thus on its way to the Concurrent List. This is laudable. While the Federal Government can build on the existing structures, states, groups of states, regions, and groups of regions can collaborate to extend the rail lines for ease of transportation and commerce. If the railway is improved upon, the roads would be insulated from the threats posed by trailers and other articulated vehicles on the highways.

    Electricity has been a big headache to Nigerians. Yet, it is critical to public welfare, effective business operations and industrialisation, particularly the resuscitation of the manufacturing sub-sector, which can create jobs. Without a stable power supply, there would be no ease of doing business. Investors may also be reluctant to explore opportunities in Nigeria.

    The decision by the Federal Government to decentralise the supply of electricity is just beginning to catch up with the proposals enjoined by the Tinubu Administration in Lagos, which gave birth to Eron/PPP.

    It is now possible for a state or group of contiguous states or a region to collaborate to have regular power supply, instead of relying on the current mess.

    President Tinubu’s position on state police has also received commendations. The goal of a decentralised policing structure is to bring policing to the people’s doorsteps at the grassroots and boost the channels of intelligence gathering.

    Under the proposed state policing system, those who know the environment would police their areas. Therefore, they would have a good knowledge of the environment and the people they serve. The geography, sociology, history, psychology and the customs of each area would aid the policing system.

    This approach would enhance the security system, which would become the joint responsibility of the state or community policemen, the indigenes, and the residents.

    However, there are three challenges. The idea of state policing suggests that there would be a multi-layer policing system. What would then be the relationship between the federal police and the policing structure controlled by the governors?

    Also, the governors would become the chief security officers in their states. However, what is the assurance that they would not deploy state police to oppress their foes, or the opposition, especially during electioneering?

    There is also the concern about funding. While some states that are already giving substantial financial support for the federally centralised police can fund state police with success, other less endowed states may flounder in funding.

    Two other issues agitating students of Nigeria’s federalism are the Value Added Tax (VAT) and resource control. Already, the VAT case is pending in court. Should states that outlaw alcoholism, for instance, partake in the proceeds of tax generated through alcoholic consumption from other states?

    Does it not amount to robbing Peter to pay Paul when VAT is generated in a state for the benefit of other states? One zone tolerates alcohol, which consumption generates huge VAT and another zone has outlawed alcoholism. But in the portions of the VAT from the sale and consumption of alcohol in the former are still distributed to the later, because they must be their brother’s keeper.

    The crisis of federalism in Nigeria is connected to the quarrel over the distribution of the proceeds from oil, a national cake domiciled in the Niger Delta region and a few other areas. Host communities, despite the various Federal Government interventions, are still complaining about imbalance and lopsided distribution. While some states claim ownership of solid mineral deposits in their domains, they still get their shares from the revenue that accrues from oil, a national wealth sustaining the federation.

    There is still more work to redress perceived injustice and injuries arising from the nation’s highly defective federal system.

    Many believe that if reforms for devolution were implemented to a logical conclusion under the Tinubu Administration, Nigeria would be liberated from the yoke of ‘unitarism’.

  • Osoba at 85

    Osoba at 85

    AT 85, life goes on for Olusegun Osoba, the Aremo Awujale of Ijebu land, the Akinrogun of Egba land, veteran journalist, renowned administrator, astute politician, and two-time governor of Ogun State.
    Since the Third Republic, no other governor of the Gateway State has dwarfed his record, personality and honour as a community man, nationalist, patriot, experienced actor, and in Yoruba parlance, an Omoluabi – a thoroughbred.
    Osoba has been a household name in Nigeria even before he became a governor. He remains a foremost journalist, indeed a Senior Advocate of Journalism who, along with his colleagues – Felix Adenaike and the late Peter Ajayi – earned the sobriquet ‘The Three Musketeers’ from the indomitable Chief Obafemi Awolowo.
    His strength lies in his power of ideas, hard work, fidelity to labour and principle, perseverance, social networks, continuous learning, and divine grace. There is also an element of luck and the supernal intervention of destiny.
    Osoba was groomed by the doyen of journalism, the late Alhaji Babatunde Jose. The plain truth is that his potentials were not hidden. The eminent journalist was humble enough for his seniors to select him for grooming.
    As a politician, Osoba is a progressive to the core. Although he has friends and admirers across conservative and radical organisations, he has maintained his lane in the spectrum of political ideas as an advocate of change, and improvement in social welfare and progress.
    Like his other colleagues in this school of thought, he is also passionate about the country’s future. He has enlisted in the school of federalism, which he believes is suitable for a highly heterogeneous country like Nigeria to ensure peaceful co-existence among the diverse ethnic groups and to foster unity in diversity across the country.
    In the botched Third Republic, he was governor under an inexplicable diarchy, when the Evil Genius, Military President Ibrahim Babangida, converted Nigeria into a political laboratory for his experimentation. It was when Osoba returned as Ogun State’s chief executive in 1999 that he had the freedom to implement his development agenda with the scarce resources available to his administration.
    After getting out of power in 2003, Osoba and his colleagues – Lam Adesina (Oyo State), Adebayo Adefarati (Ondo), Adebisi Akande (Osun), Adeniyi Adebayo (Ekiti), and Bola Tinubu (Lagos) – were able to walk freely on the streets without the anti-graft bodies harassing them for misuse of public funds, unlike some of their counterparts in other geo-political zones who are still struggling to salvage their battered reputation, 21 years after leaving office.
    A man who has become an open book, Osoba will roll out the drums today for his birthday. The major highlight of the ceremony at the Eko Hotels and Suites on Victoria Island is the presentation of his new book, titled: Segun Osoba: My Life in Public Eye, which trails the previous semi-autobiography: Battlelines: Adventures on Journalism and Politics.
    Born in Osogbo, the Osun State capital, his name, Olusegun (God has conquered), was suggested to his parents by his maternal uncle, Apostle Ayodele Babalola, who he also spent his holidays with at his spiritual base in Efon-Alaaye. The name stuck. On all counts, particularly during his illustrious but sometimes turbulent journalism career, he triumphed; Olusegun conquered.
    The blessing of the Apostle was also at work when he escaped from Sani Abacha’s goons who, out of desperation, torched his Abeokuta house. He was lucky, unlike Chief Alfred Rewane, Mrs. Kudirat Abiola, Admiral Emanuel Olu Omotehinwa, Dr. Sola Omatshola, and Tosin Onagoruwa, who were assassinated by the Abacha killer squad.
    From his days at Methodist Boys’ High School in Lagos, his head teacher, Rev. Ade Osinulu, noted him for combining “disciplined rascality with seriousness in leadership”. That trait he manifested, even as a reporter.
    The turning point for Osoba was in 1964. Armed with his A Level Certificate, he joined the famous Daily Times where he was trained by Guy Walls, a Training Manager from Daily Mirror of London. He quickly learnt on the job, earning the commendation of his Editor, Peter ‘Pan’ Enahoro. Osoba was nominated for the International Press Institute (IPI) course at the University of Lagos (UNILAG) at Akoka. Later, he proceeded to the Commonwealth Press Union in the United Kingdom, Indiana State University at Bloomington in the United States, Nieman Fellowship Programme at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Thompson Foundation School for Journalism at Cardiff in England.
    Osoba operated in the madhouse, as the newsroom was then called. There could be a shouting match over stories and deadlines. Technology was in its infancy in those days. In his book, he said: “You cannot be in the newsroom and not be temperamental.”
    If any reporter boasts about getting scoops today, let him realise that it was Osoba’s pastime. He was a master of exclusives and he made his editors and newspapers proud. Osoba reported an expatriate, Patrick Chadwick, who slapped a Nigerian salesgirl, Adekunbi Adeite. It became a national issue. It provoked an industrial crisis at the United African Company (UAC), leading to Chadwick’s resignation and departure from Nigeria.
    In 1966, Osoba discovered the bodies of Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Finance Minister Festus Okotie-Eboh on a Friday on Abeokuta road, following their assassination by coup plotters.
    In February 1975, the military Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, was toppled and a curfew was imposed. The situation created an opportunity for Osoba to shine again. Out of fear, reporters had shunned work. But he braved the odds and went to his office. He left his rented room in Surulere, dressed up without taking his bath, and drove straight to Daily Times office on Kakawa Street in Lagos. He was the Deputy Editor of the daily edition. He and Managing Director Jose had to produce the newspapers in the absence of the Editor, Areoye Oyebola.

    Read Also:Josh2Funny to tour Nigerian universities


    Osoba called Gen. Emmanuel Abisoye on the phone and the military officer gave the editor the “load-down” on the choice of Gen. Murtala Ramat Mohammed as the new Head of State, the retirement of the service chiefs and other senior military officers in the ranks of Major General and equivalents. Osoba and Jose made clever moves during the curfew, giving copies of the Daily Times to soldiers at roadblocks. The soldiers allowed them easy passage. Those exclusives by Osoba gave the Daily Times an edge over other newspapers. It was an unforgettable event that continued to ring bells in the mind of Jose.
    On August 1, 1975, Jose appointed Osoba the Daily Times Editor “in recognition of his undoubted dynamism and sound judgment in the finest tradition of journalism”.
    All hell was let loose. Mass Communication and English Language graduates from the universities kicked, challenging the wisdom of picking Osoba, who got a diploma or certificate of training attendance, as they put it. By the time the crisis was resolved, the two sides were casualties.
    Osoba’s next point of call was The Herald in Ilorin. There too, his power of sources became an invaluable advantage when he was the paper’s General Manager. He was always fated to be in the right places at the right time. While on a visit to the East Central State, he witnessed the arrest of Lt.-Col. Bukar Suka Dimka, the principal suspect in the assassination of former Head of State, Gen. Murtala Muhammed. Osoba was with Military Governor Atom Kpera in his office at Enugu when Police Commissioner Kafaru Tinubu called the governor to inform him that Dimka had been arrested by his men. Osoba saw the coup leader when he was brought to Gen. Kpera and he witnessed the preliminary interrogation by the governor. Osoba’s account of the arrest in The Herald was the best among all the newspapers the following day.
    Osoba loves the news. If a reporter is going to interview him, he should be prepared for some drilling. His first question to the reporter, usually, is: what is in the news today? Or, what is the latest news in town? In the course of the interview, he would not allow you to proceed unless you ask follow-up questions, where necessary. Then, he would, by way of training, tell or assist you to frame your questions, not to his own advantage but in keeping with the best tradition of journalism – objectivity, originality, and balance.
    His friends know that he is a journalist for life. Thus, at an event marking his 80th birthday at Eko Hotel and Suites on Victoria Island, Asiwaju Tinubu, now president of Nigeria, teased him, saying: “Anything you don’t want people to hear, don’t tell him (Osoba). He is a journalist.” Up to now, he is ever ready to support initiatives that will make the profession and practitioners to grow and wax stronger. To the Guild of Editors, Osoba, a fellow, is a father-figure.
    His last four years as a practitioner was at the Daily Times, which was ironic; he bounced back as the paper’s Managing Director. At the same time, he served as the President of the Newspapers Proprietorship Association of Nigeria (NPAN).
    Osoba endured persecution at the top government level, which he was used to. He overcame the hurdle. But by the time Babangida nominated him to the Constituent Assembly, it was evident that he was preparing for a new role in the polity.
    In 1991, he fulfilled his destiny. But his tenure as a Social Democratic Party (SDP) governor of Ogun State under the inexplicable diarchy was short-lived. He, like other governors of the botched Third Republic, was booted out. He later enlisted in the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) battle against the military over the annulment of the June 12, 1993 poll won by his Egba kinsman, the late Chief Moshood Abiola.
    However, God ordered his steps back to Oke Mosan State House in Abeokuta, six years later on the platform of the Alliance for Democracy (AD). In 2003, Osoba and his colleagues – Jolly Nyame (Taraba State), Bukar Abba Ibrahim (Yobe) and Abubakar Audu (Kogi) – won the battle to contest for governor for the third time.
    The AD governors were the best in the country at that time. Yet, in their naivety, they were deluded into believing that they had a pact with President Olusegun Obasanjo on 2003 polls, whereby they would mobilise for him in the Southwest during the presidential election and he would not overrun them during the governorship poll. It was a miscalculation. The Awoist progressives and ideologues forgot the 1982 admonition of Awolowo in Yola that they should learn to dine with the devil with a long spoon.
    The case of Osoba was worse. He was the most experienced governor in the Southwest between 1999 and 2003, having been elected before in 1991. The appellations of “Segun Agba” and “Segun Kekere” were invented, underscoring a sort of friendship. It paled into an imaginary friendship without basis. On poll day, Osoba and Obasanjo were together playing either Ayo Olopon (mancala) or Ludo. Osoba did not know that he was playing with a political foe who dragged the rug off his feet.
    Then, a political earthquake swept through the Southwest. Only Lagos Governor Tinubu survived the political tsunami. Osoba lost office, but he did not lose his reputation.
    Outside power, the former governor has peace of mind, along with his delectable wife, Derin, who, from the multitude of girlfriends back then, became the ultimate winner of Osoba’s heart and mother of their promising children.
    The great politician has also been a consistent democrat and leader, held in esteem by his followers.
    Osoba has been a supporter of Awo in the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) days and stalwart of AD, ACN and APC. When he temporarily called it quits with APC over local political matters in Ogun State, he only identified with SDP and never defected to a conservative platform, until the day of reconciliation.
    Today, as a journalist, he is bothered by fake news. His admonition to practitioners is that the wheat should always be separated from the chaff. As a statesman, Osoba is committed to true federalism, which Tinubu is addressing through reforms and judicial intervention. His prayer is a new lease of life for all Nigerians.
    At 85, the Aremo is hale and hearty. His book that is being presented today will reveal more about yet unknown areas of his life and the disclosure will inspire those in public service, especially those who aspire to lead a life of integrity, creditably, and service to humanity.

  • Tinubu and restructuring

    Tinubu and restructuring

    President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has a unique style. It is characterised by devotion to the constitution, respect for the rule of law and belief in the judiciary, the third arm of government and ultimate arbiter under democracy.

    As a democrat, the president is leaning on these pillars of popular rule as he undertakes the critical assignment of repositioning the country on the path true federalism.

    The key to that restoration of effective federal principle is reform, which is capable of yielding the dividends of restructuring or devolution of powers that are ingredients a decentralised democratic order.

    There are four routes to the goal. The first is by the convocation of a national conference. Many believe this approach is now laborious, monotonous and wasteful because the previous two conferences ended in a fiasco. The 2004 conference report was sacrificed on the altar of third term. The 2011 conference was a jamboree, a Greek gift.

    The second option is the Sovereign National Conference (SNC), which is a validation of a popular process leading to the birth of a people-oriented constitution, based on agreed terms for peaceful coexistence in a multi-lingual, multi-religious and diverse society. However, it is permanently elusive.

    The National Assembly has often viewed SNC as a threat and an affront to its sovereignty as the custodian of the constitution amendment process, oblivious of the fact that it was voted into power by the people.

    The third approach is through constitutional amendment. This is the purview of the National Assembly. The belief is that the 1999 Constitution has lied against itself by posing as a federal constitution habouring some elements of unitarism. So far, consensus on many items have been an uphill task. Periodically, there is a piecemeal constitution review, but it is incapable of making Nigeria a proper federation.

    Read Also: FULL LIST: 20 States with local government caretaker committees

    The fourth option is through judicial pronouncement, particularly by the Supreme Court that has powers to give a final verdict on constitutional matters and conflicts arising from inter-governmental relations in a supposedly federal country.

    The third approach produced a far-reaching, unprecedented result yesterday. The apex court affirmed local government financial autonomy. Allocations to the 774 councils will henceforth go directly to council chairmen. The middleman – governors – are being partly eliminated from the channels of financial control over the councils.

    There will be no cause for fund diversion. Also, only democratically elected councils are recognised. There is no room for caretakers. They are impostors. The onus is on state governments to conduct elections councils. Local government is gradually becoming the third tier of government in Nigeria.

    There are puzzles: has the court abrogated the State/Local Government Joint Account? Has it outlawed the power of Houses of Assembly to create and politically supervise the local government systems?

    It appears the verdict has strengthened the councils financially to frontally tackle the challenges of grassroots development. It means council responsibilities discharged on their behalf by states would have to be returned to them.

    Politically, local government will now be attractive to politicians. Competition for the positions of chairmen and councillors will now become stiff. There will be need check reckless council bosses who may want to convert the council into an avenue for private accumulation.

    But scholars will have an opportunity to study the emerging trend of corrective federalism whereby local governments centrally created by past autocratic or dictatorial military regimes are listed in the constitution and new ones created by civilian governors based on consultations and public yearnings are not listed, making the procedure for setting them up to remain inchoate.

    President Tinubu has been an apostle of devolution and true federalism when he was opposition leader. Consistent with that avowed commitment, he has upheld the decision of the immediate past government to decentralise the rail transportation.

    The implication is that centralisation of rail system is outdated and railway is on its way to the Concurrent List. This is laudable. While the Federal Government can build on the existing structures, states, groups of states, regions and group of regions can actually collaborate to extend rail lines for ease of transportation and commerce. If railway is improved upon, the roads will be insulated from threats possed by trailers and other articulated vehicles to the highways.

    Electricity has been a big headache in Nigeria. Yet, it is critical to public welfare, effective business operations and industrialisation, particularly the resuscitation of the manufacturing sub-sector, which can create jobs. Without stable power, there is no ease of doing business. Investors may also be reluctant to explore opportunities in Nigeria.

    The decision by the Federal Government to decentralise the supply of electricity is just begining to catch up with the proposals enjoined by the Tinubu Administration in Lagos which gave birth to Eron/PPP.

    It is now possible for a state, ir group of contiguous states, or a region to collaborate on regular power supply, instead of reliance on the current mess.

    President Tinubu’s position on state police has also received commendation. The goal of a decentralised policing structure is to bring policing to the doorstep of people at the grassroots and to boost the channels of intelligence gathering.

    Under the proposed state policing system, those who know the environment will police the area. Therefore, the knowledge of the environment and the people they are serving; the geography, sociology, history, psychology and custom will serve as aids to policing.

    It is thinkable that the approach will enhance security, which will ultimately become a joint responsibility of the state or community policemen, the natives and residents.

    However, there are three challenges. The idea of state policing suggests that there will be a multi-layer policing system. What will be the relationship between the federal police and policing structure controlled by the governors?

    Also, the governors will now become chief security officers in their states. What is the assurance that they will not deploy state police to oppress their foes, or the opposition, during electioneering?

    There is concern about funding. While some states who are already giving substantial financial support for the federally centralised police in their states csn fund state police with success, other less endowed states may flounder in funding.

    Two other issues agitating students of Nigerian federalism are the Value Added Tax (VAT) and resource control. Already, the VAT case is pending in court. Should states that abhor alcoholism partake in the proceeds of tax on alcoholic consumption by other states?

    Does it not amount to robbing Peter to pay Paul when VAT is generated in a state for the benefit of other states?  A zone tolerates alcohol, which consumption generates huge Value Added Tax (VAT). Another zone abhors alcoholism. But, portions of the VAT from its sale and consumption in the former are still distributed to the later, because they must be their brothers’ keeper.

    The crisis of federalism in Nigeria is related to the quarrel over the distribution of the proceeds from oil, a national cake domiciled in the Niger Delta region and few states. Host communities, despite the various Federal Government interventions, are still complaining about imbalance and lopsided distribution. While some states are claiming ownership of solid mineral deposits in their domains, oil remains a national property sustaining the federation.

    There is still more work to be done to redress perceived injustice and injuries arising from the highly defective federal system.

    Many believe that if reforms of devolution are implemented to a logical conclusion under the Tinubu Administration, Nigeria will be liberated from the yoke of ‘unitarism’.

  • 25 years of uninterrupted legislative governance

    25 years of uninterrupted legislative governance

    In democracy, the Parliament is the first and most important organ of government. It underscores representativeness and a high level of inclusion as lawmakers are elected from diverse constituencies for law making, approval for budgets, ministerial screenings, performance of oversight functions and general legislative governance.

    The National Assembly, made of the Senate and House of Representatives, should be a partner in progress with the Executive arm, without compromising the principle of separation of powers and its accompanying checks and balances. It is counterproductive when the two branches of government co-exist in an adversarial manner. There should be no basis for rivalry that can cripple cordial relationship and upset the system.

    The quality of governance is related to the quality of legislative output. The failure of the legislature can create contraints, impede effevtive administration and slow down the works of the executive in its avowed commitment to the tasks of developmental governance. But, the executive is also expected to be sensitive to the pre-eminent position of the law making body as the anchor of popular rule. The executive cannot afford to be a bully in a democratic society.

    In a developing society like Nigeria, the parliament is on the weighing scale. Twenty five years after the restoration of civil rule, the country has witnessed unprecedented political stability, without an iota of legislative disruption. The contributions of the National Assembly to the growth of democracy would be determined by the efficient discharge of its constitutional duties and various interventions critical to the repositioning of the polity.

    Read Also; FULL DETAILS: What you need to know about Nigeria’s $150 billion Samoa agreement

    The journey began in 1999 with the National Assembly of a blend of old timers, seasoned politicians, experienced technocrats and promising youths. It was dubbed a nascent democracy, and a learning process, whereby actors were expected to learn the ropes, stumble where necessary, acquire skills and serve with patriotism the cause of nation building and development.

    The men of the old order in the Senate included Melford Okilo, Jim Nwobodo, Ike Nwachukwu, Wahab Dosunmu, Joseph Waku, Jonathan Zwingiwa, Chuba Okadigbo, David Mark, Rowland Owie, Modu Sheriff,  Evan Ewerem, Arthur Nzeribe, Dalhatu Tafida, Bello Maitama Yusuf, Femi Okunrounmu, Tunde Ogbeha, Alex Kadiri, Lekan Balogun, Idris Kuta, and Ibrahim Mantu.

    The youths at that time were Pius Ayim, Gbenga Aluko and Tokunbo Afikuyomi. The Lower Chamber was headed by a youth, Salisu Buhari.

    Both the executive and legislature, however, lacked ideological foundation. The ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) could not fill the gap in terms of ideological orientation and inspiration. There was no clear compass beyond the euphoria of the military disengagement and transfer of power to a new set of civilian rulers. Some AD senators, led by Mojisoluwa Akinfenwa, appeared to be ideologues. But, they were in clear minority. Also, the opposition under presidential system cannot be as effective as an opposition under the parliamentary system.

    Besides, Nigerians elected as president in 1999 a soldier who never purged himself of residual dictatorial tendencies; a General who could not easily adjust fully to the requirements of a civilian rule. President Olusegun Obasanjo was not like President Shehu Shagari or Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa who have never leaned on the barrels of gun.

    The first Senate and House of Representatives were instantly assailed by leadership crisis, just as there were commotions in many Houses of Assembly, including Lagos State where honourable members threw chairs. The Senate had three Senate Presidents within two years.

    While the Senate was disposed to electing Dr. Okadigbo as Presiding Officer, Obasanjo rooted for Ewerem, who won the in-house poll. But, he was later removed and Okadigbo took his place.

    There was acrimonious relationship between the Executive and Senate, aptly characterised by threats of impeachment against the president. Okadigbo never survived the heat afterwards. When he was shoved aside, Ayim became Senate President. The only controversy the Senate had to contend with was the alleged N4 million furniture allowance, although the Upper Chamber also suspended some erring members in the spirit of parliamentary discipline.

    The House of Representatives did not fare better. Salisu Buhari looked very promising; matured in outlook, urbane, respected by colleagues and loved by many Nigerians. But, his certificate had a k-leg. The reality of an abrupt end to an illustrious career stared him in the face. Owing up to his unpardonable misdemeanor, he wept bitterly, threw in the towel and left for school.

    His successor, Ghali Na’ Abba, became a thorn in the flesh of OBJ, as Obasanjo is fondly called. They never saw eye to eye. Na’ Abba wanted to assert legislative independence and he had the support of majority in the House. He was committed to the principle of separation of powers, non-interference in parliamentary affairs by the executive, and defence of the constitution and rule of law. He believed that the Executive should be held accountable to the people.

    Due to these principled positions, he was branded a confrontational element unwilling to properly collaborate with the President and national leader of his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). He never succeeded in impeaching Obasanjo and Obasanjo never succeeded in removing him as Speaker. But it was a cat and mouse relationship.

    While the House of Representatives experienced leadership stability for another four years after Na’Abba’s exit, the Senate remained unstable. In the House, Bello Masari avoided previous pitfalls and strengthened his leadership by being humble and promoting inclusion. He tended to imbibe the idea of either “we collectively survive or sink together.”

    The Senate Presidency had to rotate to all the states of Southeast. When Adolphus Wabara had to vacate the Number Three position in controversial circumstance, the Senate made Ken Nnamani Senate President. Thus, in eight years, the Senate had five presiding leaders and the House of Representatives had three.

    After Olubunmi Ette was deposed as Speaker and Dimeji Bankole came on board, the House of Representatives started having leadership stability. After Bankole came Aminu Tambuwal, who contrary to the wish of his party that Munika Akande should be Speaker, sought help from the opposition to assume control. The same style was copied by his successor, Yakubu Dogara, who became Speaker without the endorsement of his party, unlike his successors, Femi Gbajabiamila and Tajudeen Abbas, who were anointed by party leaders.

    The Senate Presidency of Mark for eight years was marked by stability and reduction in executive/legislative tension, unlike during the tenure of his sucessor, Bukola Saraki, who was also battling for survival in the court.

    However, there is more cordial relationship between Tinubu’s Presidency and the current leadership of the National Assembly in the spirit of ‘Renewed Hope Agenda.’

    Unlike European and American parliaments, there is a high turnover of parliamentarians in Nigeria. They are trained to acquired skills. In four years, they have garnered experience. But, the re-election bid of majority often collapse.

    Governors and senators, until recently, are hardly friends. There is an inexplicable rivalry, the effect of which normally makes federal lawmakers to lose renominations. Many governors perceive senators as threats to their second term ambitions and succession plans instead of seeing themselves as leaders working for the progress of their states.

    In the last 25 years, the National Assembly has passed oustanding bills into laws. Notables are the Procurement Act, Fiscal Responsibility Act, Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Act, New Police ACt, Niger Delta Development Commission, the New Electoral Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and tge Not-Too-Youbg-To-Rule Act.

    Piecemeal constitutional reviews have been attempted. None has led to the resolution of the national question, devolution and decentralisation of power for the purpose of fostering federalism.

    Yet, in two instances, the National Assembly lived to expectation. In 2007, majority of federal lawmakers resisted the third term agenda and insisted on the constitutional and orderly transfer of power.

     Also, in 2010, the Doctrine of Necessity was invoked and former Vice President Goodluck Jonathan became Acting President when ailing President Umaru Yar’Adua was on prolonged medical leave. On some occasions too, Senate President and House of Representatives Speaker have waded into Federal Government/Labour feud to prevent constant strikes. But, the National Assembly deserves more credit for its highly revealing and painstaking oversight functions on the Executive and its many agencies.

    From 1999 to date, the salaries and other entitlements of members of the Senate and Representatives have been shrouded in secrecy and controversy, making critics to insinuate that they receive a jumbo pay at the expense of the country.

    It is gratifying that in the current administration, there is amity between the Executive and the Legislature. It should not be taken for granted. The Senate and Representatives cannot afford to be rubber-stamped or robot.

    In the past, resolutions of the National Assembly were flagrantly ignored. It is not tidy in a democracy; it is an affront on the people’s representatives.

    Nigerians want to see a more vibrant National Assembly dedicated to unity in diversity, promotion of the federal principle, war against corruption, self-sacrifice, protection of common man and defense of the national interest.

  • Averting a minimum wage debacle

    Averting a minimum wage debacle

    Every country has a benchmark for paying its workers. What is a minimum wage in Country A may not be so in Country B; the same scenario plays out in the case of states.

     The fixing of the minimum wage depends on the resources available and the ability to sustain the payment over the years. This is the crux of the debacle that has greeted the minimum wage debate in Nigeria.

    Considering how far the pendulum has swung so far, dialogue remains the only way to find a solution to the debate. The lingering stalemate was just a phase of the entire process. The goal should be a win-win, based on renegotiation with more clarity of thoughts and openness in an atmosphere of mutual trust.

    As the Federal Government, Labour, and the Organised Private Sector (OPS) resume residual negotiation on the minimum wage discussion, failure can be averted, if the two sides mutually embrace reality.

    The main issue is not what the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) wants the government to offer but what it can afford without creating strains on the efforts at meeting other items on the national expenditure list. The ability to pay would determine the sustainability of the proposed wage.

    There are two dissenting voices from opposite directions – Labour and governors. Unless the positions are harmonised, government and Labour cannot move forward on the issue.

    As a democratic, President Bola Tinubu has opted to widen consultations on the wage proposal before sending an Executive Bill to the National Assembly. His position followed the submission of the report by the Tripartite Committee on Mimimum Wage.

    Although the committee has recommended N62,000, as agreed by the Federal Government and private employers of labour, the NLC has kicked against it, insisting on N250,000.

    Instructively, there is a division in the government. The Federal and the 36 states’ governments are not on the same page over the proposal. While the Federal Government is pushing for N62,000, a hundred per cent increase, judging by the subsisting N30,000 minimum wage, governors have doubted the ability of states to pay the money. Also, local government chairmen, under the aegis of the Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON), have said they cannot meet the demand, unless there is a revenue adjustment to channel more resources to the councils.

    The argument of governors is that states are not equally endowed. Some are rich and many are poor. Even increased allocations to states in recent times have not led to improved service delivery. Despite the increased allocation, many states cannot pay the N30,000 wage agreed with Labour in 2019 under the Muhammadu Buhari administration.

    Besides, some governors have argued that in a federal system, wage or salary determination should not be based on a uniform formula, despite the mistake of nationally adopting a uniformity of emolument for elective office holders.

    After their meeting in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital, Southern governors suggested that each state should be allowed to negotiate the new wage with labour unions.

    They noted that the ability to pay and the cost of living in each state should be considered before a decision is taken on an agreeable sum to be adopted as the benchmark.

    Labour’s demand for a pay rise is legitimate in the light of current economic realities. The economy is on crutches. Indeed, the decision by the Federal Government to remove fuel subsidy and refloat the exchange rate has unleashed a cost of living crisis, underscored by increases in the prices of goods and services.

    The cost of living is soaring while the quality of living is declining. Prices of goods and services, including foodstuffs, house rents, air tickets, school fees, transport fares and hospital bills, are moving up in geometric proportions. The value of the currency has decreased. Households are in turmoil over their inability to adjust to the economic trends. Dependents suffer.

    Labour is bitter that income and resource distribution are skewed and the lopsidedness is to the advantage of the few in the corridors of power. They are uncomfortable with the real or imagined vulgarian lifestyles and opulence of some public office holders in a country where the poor cannot afford three square meals per day.

    The gap between the rich and the poor widens daily. The current salary structure cannot meet the modest needs of families. From the point of view of NLC, a salary increment is inevitable. But it is not the end of the matter. If the salary is increased without a surgical operation on the economy, workers will only feel a momentary impact. In a country where there is no regular electricity and domestic fuel consumption is conditional on importation, the huge cost of people’s welfare, including civil servants, is burdensome. Even the ease of doing business is suspect in the light of an atmosphere where businesses are constrained by various factors.

    Read Also: 2,659 jostles for NNPC foundation opportunities

    To the NLC, workers are being shortchanged in wealth distribution. Yet, Nigeria cannot function maximally without the input of its workers to productivity, as demonstrated by its recent two-day nationwide strike when electricity supply was cut, hospitals were shut, schools were closed and gates leading to airports were barricaded, thereby grounding air travels.

    However, private workers, artisans, peasants, self-employed citizens and other Nigerians have urged Labour to pull the brake. Relative to the general population, workers only account for a tiny fraction. Their argument is that if the budget is exclusively committed to salary payment for federal, state and local government workers, what would be left to service other items of expenditure – schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and environment – would be too small.

    The Federal Government has defended its offer of N60,000.00 per month, based on economic considerations and other non-monetary incentives it has offered to workers and other Nigerians. The arguments look a bit convincing.

    Government’s incentives include N35,000 wage award for all treasury-paid federal workers; N100 bill for the procurement of CNG-fuelled busses and CNG conversion kits; N125 billion for conditional grant and financial inclusion to MSMEs, N25,000 each to be shared to 15 million households for three months; N185 billion palliatives (loans to states) to cushion the effects of fuel subsidy removal; N200 billion to support the cultivation of hectares of land to boost food production; and N75 billion to strengthen the manufacturing sector.

    Others are: N1 trillion for student loan for higher education; 42,000 metric tonnes of grains from strategic reserve; distribution of 60,000 metric tonnes of rice from the millers’ association; salary increase of 25-35 per cent on all consolidated salary structures for federal workers; 90 per cent subsidy on health costs for federal civil servants registered on the NHIS; and light rail in Abuja to relieve transportation cost till the end of the year.

    At its next meeting, Labour, which had rejected what the Federal Government and OPS had agreed upon, may demand more concessions or impress it on government to shift grounds. But a hardline approach would be counterproductive.

    Some economic experts have also warned about the consequences of adopting an unrealistic and unsustainable wage increase. The first is that that government would have to borrow to pay. This would be illogical.

    The second is that employers in the private sector may be pushed to the wall and might resort to laying off their workers to stay afloat.

    President Tinubu’s decision to further consult or dialogue with the NLC provides an opportunity for his administration and Labour to thoroughly reevaluate the report of the Tripartite Committee. The NLC, which walked out of the previous meeting, will return to the negotiating table.

    If the Federal Government, the 36 governors, the OPS, and NLC could take a holistic look at the Labour’s request, a reasonable and logical agreement may be arrived at in national interest.

  • Rivers of trouble (2)

    Rivers of trouble (2)

    A political crisis, once it breaks out, often escalates. Such is the fate of Rivers State, where political leaders and elders are enmeshed in conflicts. It is an ill will that will blow nobody any good. The costly crisis would have been avoided if politicians had spared some thoughts and weighed the consequences of their actions.

    One crisis breeds more crises. The beginning is known, but nobody can accurately predict its end, the scape-goat casualties, the economy of warfare, and its psychological effects on the victims.

    A predecessor-successor crisis is not new in the state. After the distinguished medical doctor, Peter Odili, handed over to Rotimi Amaechi, communication broke down between him and his boy. The experienced politician never openly fought with his stooge on the pages of newspapers, but there was a hushed up cold war.

    Following Nyesom Wike‘s appointment as minister by former President Goodluck Jonathan, there was the parting of ways between the former Chief of Staff and Governor Amaechi, who later left the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the All Progressives Congress (APC). It was purely on a political difference.

    The then Governor Wike and his predecessor, Amaechi, who later became a minister in the Muhammadu Buhari sdministration, became foes.

    The trend of crises between governors and their predecessors never constituted a threat to public peace. But today in Rivers, there is a threat to law and order.

    As goes the saying: where two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. In the last six months, tension has engulfed the oil-rich state polarised by the protracted feud between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Wike, incumbent Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Put succinctly, the Southsouth state is at war with itself over the discord between the godfather and his estranged godson.

    At a time Fubara and Wike should deepen their collaboration for the development of Rivers, their needless quarrel has given peace the wings to take a flight.

    This is worrisome. In order of economic importance and prospects, Rivers is next to Lagos. If the pattern of public disruption persists, it may constitute a serious threat to national business, besides its own economy going to limbo.

    In the course of the strange battle, the legislature has been at the receiving end. The law-making organ is being crippled and bastardised. The legislature is the first and most important organ of government in a democracy. But the arm has not been allowed to function effectively in the course of the costly crisis.

    The House of Assembly was bombed. Later, it was completely brought down. Much later, the maze was relocated to the Executive Chambers, the domain of the Executive. Also, the residential quarters of the lawmakers was not spared. The governor erroneously thought that it was his property. He threatened to demolish it when he paid an emergency visit to the place, without prior notice to the occupants.

    Majority of the aggrieved lawmakers have also threatened to impeach the governor, making him to gird his loins. Fubara is not sleeping on guard. But the steps he has taken so far have exacerbated the slippery political ground across the state instead of reducing it.

    There have been claims and counter-claims about arson and assassination attempts. Commissioners and other aides have abruptly resigned, reabsorbed and called it quits again. The House of Assembly has split into two; a case of three lawmakers claiming superiority over 27. Democracy is on sickbed in Rivers because the gates to the state’s parliament are shut against the people’s elected representatives. The hand of the executive is heavy on the legislature. It is hampering the doctrine of separation of powers.

    While governors of other less endowed states are scratching their heads and working assiduously to expand their revenue bases, implement developmental projects and erect lasting legacies, political leaders in Rivers, who are swimming in a pool of money, are locked in a needless superiority war that has diverted their attention from the legitimate business of the state.

    The predecessor-successor rift was never anticipated. Under Wike, Fubara was a loyal civil servant. Like other permanent secretaries, his career target was probably to become the Head of Service. But he was catapulted to the driver’s seat by God’s grace. It fulfilled Wike’s succession agenda. The transition was smooth. But the romance ended there. The cordial relationship was replaced by politics of hate, intrigues and bickering within three months. Old allies are now up in arms. Sadly, there is no end in sight to the acrimony.

    A new dimension to the crisis is the regression to ethnic rivalry. Leaning on the tribal pillar, some elements are fueling the fire. But Fubara, though a product of zoning or power rotation, is not the governor of an ethnic group but of all Rivers indigenes and residents.

     The lesson is instructive. Godfather-governors may need a realistic appraisal before making cardinal decisions on succession in the future to prevent a similar scenario and avert a crisis that may take its tolls on effective governance.

    The protracted rift has now graduated into clashes over antagonistic claims about tenure expiration and extension across the 23 local government areas of the state. The two sides of the dissension, observers say, are incongruous. The supporters on both sides see the dispute as the continuation of the feud between the two top political leaders.

    Predictably, the state slid into violence during the week. Rivers almost became a war zone before policemen moved in to halt a likely chaos. There was bloodletting on the streets. Two people – a policeman and a member of a vigilance group – were murdered. The next day, the death toll rose to three. A former student leader closely linked with the protests was murdered by unknown persons. They are not kinsmen of Fubara and Wike. Their bereaved families are left to mourn their dead alone. Whatever the solutions the warring parties might bring to the table in the days or weeks or months ahead cannot bring back the dead. Lives have been wasted.

    The police are still looking for the killers, who are likely to be known by some people but may not be apprehended, thereby rendering the investigation futile.

    The police command had to divert attention from chasing criminals to mounting surveillance at council secretariats where youths were on the prowl. The protesters threatened fire and brimstone.

    It was a harrowing experience for the few men of conscience in the state.

    Barely a year ago, the two warring sides were one; aptly united by their collective dedication to retain PDP in power in the state in post-Wike era. The parting of ways was curious and sudden. The consequence is that instead of focusing on proper governance, a lot of energy is being dissipated to manage the crisis.

    Rivers has curiously chosen the path of hullabaloo. It is a very rich state comprising many idle able-bodied youths who, instead of going to work, chose to invade council secretariats in a protest against or defence of the two warring lords. The protests may have been sponsored. The carrot was big to the extent that the rented crowd refused to go home.

    The barbarism of partisan political leaders is underscored by their unwillingness to allow the court to give the final verdict on the disputed matter before tacitly encouraging youths to take the laws into their hands.

    Read Also: Fubara replaces Rivers Traditional Rulers Council chairman Sergeant Awuse

    Yet, neither side could be said to be legally right. In the past, a conflict like the current one was usually resolved by actors embracing a political solution. In other states, the approach still works.

    However, despite President Bola Tinubu brokering reconciliation, the peace deal still collapsed. Its terms were being implemented initially. It rekindled hope about an amicable resolution. Suddenly, the beat stopped. Those responsible for the implementation of the peace proposals pulled the brake. Other terms were rejected in a matter of weeks. Mutual trust and confidence broke down completely. Cracks widen on the wall. They cannot be mended. Things have fallen apart. The centre cannot hold.

    The crux of the matter is that Fubara and Wike are competing for space. They are locked in battle over the soul of the Rivers PDP. The governor is leaning on the power of incumbency at the state level. The performing minister is the apple of the President’s eyes at the federal level. The state, having become divided, the governor is targeting the councils for the expansion of his personal structures. He inherited those structures before the outbreak of the crisis. Now, he is fighting to keep them.

    Now, the battlefield has shifted to the councils. The local government affair is a delicate issue when the law or the constitution is invoked. The conflict of interpretations heralds trouble. Nigeria has to decide if the local government system should be an autonomous tier under the federal constitution or administrative units created by states for ease of administration at the local level.

    In Rivers, after three years, the tenure of council chairmen, vice chairmen and councillors has expired. In anticipation of the expiration, no concerted effort was made by the governor to conduct council polls for ease of legal and legitimate power transfer at the grassroots.

    According to the 1999 Constitution, a democratically elected council is fully guaranteed. The court has affirmed this clause on many occasions. But politicians, particularly governors, are clever and ever willing to violate the provision or gloss over it. Under the constitution, there is no room for caretaker committee for the local governments.

    But, how valid is the contrasting argument for tenure extension? The 27-members of the House of Assembly, led by Speaker Martins Amaewhule, claimed to have extended the tenure of the chairmen. The factional three-member Assembly, led by Speaker Victor Oko-Jumbo, brandishing an injunction, said the extension was fake, illegal, null and void. Oko-Jumbo said the extension by 27 lawmakers cannot stand.

    The House of Assembly can more create local governments, suspend erring chairmen and exercise control. But the court has to now rule on the contentious issue of whether the House of Assembly can actually extend the tenure of chairmen under the 1999 Constitution or the state law.

    Although Fubara had insisted that the tenure had expired and hurriedly inaugurated caretaker committees, the new chairmen could only set shops outside the council secretariats, which are currently a “no-go zone.” The police that are keeping the peace there have said the premises would be under lock and key until the court delivers its judgment in the case.

    Amaewhule and his group also scored a point in the court. While Oko-Jumbo claimed that the 27 have ceased to be PDP lawmakers, the court said they never defected to the APC. The raging controversy has continued. The question is: who is the authentic Speaker? Which of the two Houses of Assembly is the authentic legislature?

    Instead of waiting for the court to show the way, the combatants on both sides resorted to hooliganism, crippled governance and gave the state a bad name.

    Even some elements rejected the intervention of the police in an attempt to restore law and order. They asked Police Commissioner Disu to pack and go, insisting that having served in the state for many years, their pranks and tricks were easily detected by the cop.

    Observers are building scenarios. The court is the final arbiter. But it may not be the end of the matter. The court ruling will create victors and vanquished. It will not be a win-win solution. Blames will be apportioned. Fines have to be paid. There will be vengeance.

    If the verdict goes against pro-Fubara lawmakers, certain things have to be reversed. The conflicts will continue. If it is against pro-Wike lawmakers, the crisis will fester.

    Would it not have been better for the combatants to embrace political solution characterised by dialogue, sacrifice, give and take, reconciliation and forgiveness instead of setting their state on fire?

  • Abiola: 26 years after

    Abiola: 26 years after

    For once, Nigeria, a plural country forcefully amalgamated by the British in 1914, sought to become a nation on June 12, 1993.

    The man who achieved that feat was Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola, a detribalised Yoruba endowed with an irrepressible national outlook. He came as the last man standing after other prominent political figures had been banned, unbanned, banned again, emasculated and frustrated by the chameleonic military leadership that midwifed an endlessly meandering transition programme for civil rule.

    Abiola came with a message of hope when hopelessness pervaded the national horizon. As a businessman and philanthropist, he had endeared himself to most Nigerians as a generous and trustworthy man. His entry into the electioneering brought a big torch that lit up the obscure political field. He secured the votes of millions across all the ethnic groups that trusted he would transform the country from the ravages of stratocracy.

    It was a significant feat that eluded more qualified founding fathers who operated on the tripod of tribalism, ethnicity, and mutual suspicion.

    Nigerians attempted to draw the curtains on military rule. Soldiers, having overstayed their welcome in the corridor of power, violated the country, converted the treasury into a private purse, divided the people and abolish the prospects of popular rule.

    Citizens exercised their democratic rights to vote for change and liberty after a series of laboratory experiments by the military. However, the monumental achievement was mismanaged by the reluctance of the military that midwifed a transition programme that was designed to fail. The annulment of the June 12, 1993, historic election won by the symbol of unity amounted to the criminal banishment of political rights and seizure of a collective passport to take a genuine flight to the horizon of democracy.

    The popular mandate given to Abiola became his undoing. He was never a man to run from battle. The next assignment foisted on him was mandate protection. IBB, his long-standing friend-turned foe, knew him inside out. On his previous birthday, the military president had eulogised Abiola, saying a great attribute of the businessman’s life was the resolve with which he always pursued the goals dear to his heart. Not willing to underrate the millionaire business mogul, IBB staggered under a curious influence, saying he was not only in office but was also in power.

    After the cancellation of the poll’s result, no goal was dearer to Abiola’s heart than a de-annulment. It also aligned with the quest for self-actualisation. A bloody civilian, though, he fought without a gun. His civilian armies were on the streets protesting. Nothing more.

    Outside the country, he campaigned against the bad habit of the military, their sit-tight culture and disdain for liberty. Propagandist Information Minister Uche Chukwumerije of Abacha’s military junta yelled at him, insinuating that Abiola was the first Aare Ona Kankanfo of Yoruba land to desert the battlefield.

    The business mogul may have committed the error of returning home. He attempted to declare himself president at Epetedo. Seized on the streets, he was hounded into detention like a criminal. He never returned alive.

    Abiola, the Bashorun of Ibadan and Aare Ona Kankanfo of Yoruba land, thus a generalissimo, lived up to his billing as a warrior. Harassed, abused and blackmailed, he refused to abandon the battle. He rejected the obnoxious bail conditions and the middlemen mounting pressure on him to trade the struggle for personal survival.

    He was resolute. Some of his supporters wavered in their spirits, but the majority queued behind him, thereby sustaining the struggle for six years. Abiola’s battle ultimately became the battle for reshaping Nigeria.

    He died in detention on July 8, barely a month after the demise of Abacha who ordered his detention. His dream of abolishing poverty may have died with him.

    Almost 26 years after his demise, the nation-state is still battling to resolve issues about the ballot box debacle. The masses still groan. Elections have remained problematic. A new twist is the penchant for rejecting valid results. There is the citizens’ do-or-die disposition towards elections, thereby casting doubts on the real outcome of electoral contests by uncritically resorting to protracted litigation while hiding under the clause of political rights.

    While Abiola failed in his bid for legitimate power, the opportunity landed in the palm of military confederates in 1999. The meaning of the Titanic struggle was beyond the ken and comprehension of the new helmsmen at the centre.

    The challenges of nation-building stared them in the face. They lacked the democratic experience, skill and strategy to confront them. They governed under a constitution that lied against itself through the preface: “We the people.” Since the provisions of the 1999 Constitution also endorsed a unitary system, they were comfortable with the military-imposed document. They thus demonstrated a hypocritical commitment to constitution review. An expensive national conference was set up in Abuja. Its report never saw the light of the day.

    The journey to a difficult future commenced. Problems continued to multiply. They piled up. Relief from the subsisting dilapidated economy was a mirage. Security was at a low ebb. Nigerians continued to live in darkness. Towns and villages depended on streams for water in the countryside. Roads became death traps. Employment was given to a privileged few; children of the political class and their cronies.

    Democracy, in the real sense of the word, became a nightmare. Even civil rule was consistently threatened by the assault on the ballot box. Nigeria was positioned far from prosperity. Corruption loomed large. Nothing worked.

    This is the mess that President Bola Tinubu, an associate of Abiola, is now trying to clear. If Abiola had ruled, would Nigeria have been like this today?

    Even the circumstances surrounding his death are still in the realm of conjectures. Who killed Abiola? Or what killed him? It remains a puzzle. The answer is elusive.

    What is most striking is not what has changed since 1999 but what has lingered. While the Third Republic was botched, the Fourth Republic was not erected on a solid federal democratic foundation. That stagnation was what Abiola made a determined effort to challenge.

    Read Also: From Kudi Abiola Corner to Dobale for Democracy

    He had made a false start in the early eighties. The secretariat of the defunct National Party of Nigeria (NPN) was shut against him. Party leaders said the presidential ticket was not for the highest bidder. He retraced his steps to the world of business, religion, and philanthropy. By the time he returned in 1992 as the SDP presidential candidate, he had tried to purge himself of conservative tendencies.

    Abiola also put his house in order. He was a Yoruba man of tall stature. He apologised to the Southwest progressive elements, particularly the disciples of the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who he had opposed in the Second Republic. Led by the late Chief Adekunle Ajasin, the political family resolved to back his new vision.

    Abiola also became the sole candidate of the downtrodden. Of course, he too was conscious of his humble beginning as a man who rose from grass to grace. When fate liberated him from poverty, he could not still detach himself from the crowd of the poverty-stricken.

    More than any other Nigerian, living or dead, Abiola permanently filled the consciousness of all those who savoured his unprecedented generosity. The beneficiaries cut across ethnic, religious, professional groups and traditional institutions. He was the toast of private and public educational institutions for his generous gifts of cash and equipment.

    Abiola instituted scholarships for uncountable indigent students. He donated generously to homes, mosques and churches, voluntary organisations, towns, cities and even international organisations. He was also the pillar of sports in Africa.

    He soon discovered a new role for himself. When he led Africa’s quest for reparations, he became the champion of the cause of the black man whose forefathers were misused as hewers of wood and fetchers of water in slavery in Europe and the Americas.

    Abiola’s campaign slogan, ‘Farewell to poverty’, signalled an imminent end to the want and misery of the poor who were knocked down by the neo-colonial military administrators.

    He adorned the cap of a hero. He refused to trade the people’s mandate for big contracts and additional economic gains.

    Yet, he became a novice who yielded to the tricks of his enemy, the military, which sought to extend their rule by cajoling him to give baseline support.

    When Abiola dared the power-loaded military Head of State, General Abacha, he made up his mind about its repercussions. Despite being removed from the public glare and held incommunicado, his spirit did not bow to the wish of the oppressors. It was a lesson in determination, consistency and dedication to principle.

    Abiola outlived his principal tormentor, as it were. Till the end, he was full of hope for a brighter future. All personal tasks had been accomplished. But because he had not got there as the people’s leader, he lacked self-actualisation.

    It was the end. He died a martyr with his ghost hunting his alleged killers.

    However, Abiola’s memory has endured. His pedigree, grace, act of giving, mettle of speech, forceful character, and above all, his love for the people made him a special breed and reference point in national history.

  • Kudirat: Memory of a martyr

    Kudirat: Memory of a martyr

    Before she shot into the limelight, there were many other women of substance and valour who stood for the emancipation of the society – Mrs. Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, Chief Margaret Ekpo, Mrs. Olayinka Rosiji, Mrs. Wuraola Esan, Hajia Sawaba Gambo, Iyaloja Abibat Mogaji, and Mrs. Jolubu Kolade.

    All of them played crucial roles at various levels, leaving legacies of political emancipation, women liberation and empowerment.

    Alhaja Kudirat Olayinka Abiola may have been inspired by these outstanding mothers of the nation when she chose the path of valour which circumstances forced on her.

    She never anticipated that role as a housewife in a comfort zone. Yet, in contemporary times, Kudirat, wife of the late business mogul and philanthropist, Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola, winner of the cancelled June 12, 1993 presidential election, had no rival. She was the most outstanding woman crusader for justice, equity and fair play during the dark days of the military.

    It was a delicate period when the soldiers of fortune positioned themselves against the country, whose sovereignty they were meant to protect, defend and preserve.

    Her life was on the line. She was conscious of the looming danger. But she apparently believed that no sacrifice was too much to make for the good cause she stood for. She braced up for the odds. Her priority was the de-annulment of the historic poll her husband had won. But it never happened. Kudirat was assassinated while fighting for popular rule.

    The poll had made her husband a national property, the custodian of the popular mandate conferred by Nigerians in a bid to liberate the country from its neo-colonial captors and oppressors.

    It was an untimely death. Abiola was detained after winning a historic election. There was no free flow of communication between the wife and husband. Kudirat had a hint about the impending doom, having been alerted by diplomats from friendly countries that agents of state were after her life. On that fateful June 4, 1996, she had an appointment to keep at the Canadian Embassy. There were pressures on her to leave the country. But she was not inclined to deserting the battle.

    Kudirat left her Ikeja residence with hopes. But she never got to Victoria Island for the appointment. At Oregun/Seven Up Junction in Ojota, she was gunned down by assassins.

    A cenotaph has been erected at the site to remind Nigerians, both present and future generations, how her innocent blood was shed by blood-thirsty soldiers who loomed large on the country for years.

    Two years after she was assassinated, her husband also died mysteriously in detention, in the hand of his tormentors. He was said to have been served a cup of tea.

    It was the end. The essence of the June 12 struggle appeared to have vanished. The poll result was not upheld. The symbol also died. It was a double tragedy. When civil rule was restored in 1999, power was transferred from the military to military cronies, lackeys, confederates and majority of those who scuttled June 12.

    Kudirat was one of the numerous wives of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) presidential flag bearer. The annulment changed her status and forced her into the pro-democracy movement. Having traversed the vast country with her husband during the hectic campaigns, Kudirat was confident of victory. She felt the pains of the masses and their expectations about a new lease of life.

    To her chagrin, the election results were cancelled on frivolous excuses. The reasons adduced for the annulment were obviously illogical. No basis could be found for it in history, law and politics. It was one big story of national betrayal by those who took the country for a ride. The entire transition programme towards that historic election was designed by the Evil Genius, military President Ibrahim Babangida, to fail. It ended in a fiasco.

    Kudirat was not afraid of the bullet. She stood firm, unlike some other women who would abandon their husbands in the period of tribulation. It is not during a peaceful period that strength and resilience are tested. It is during a difficult time that the human capability is put on the weighing scale.

    Kudirat developed a steely determination that stunned the military gang. During her husband’s absence, she filled the void. When her husband was put in solitary confinement for attempting to claim his presidential mandate, she protested. She confronted the military dictators, not with guns, but with her fidelity to the cause.Her leadership motivated other pro-democracy activists to spring up and seek the actualisation of the election.

    In 1994, when the struggle got to a head, Kudirat was actively involved in sustaining the oil workers’ strike, which succeeded in crippling the nation’s economy and weakening the military government.

    She was subjected to harassment. She had frictions with the courts over her stance before her eventual release on bail. Despite the harassment, she continued her campaign. She and the late Chief Alfred Rewane offered special funding for the pro-democracy activities, which unsettled the military.

    When protesters were detained, she would promptly visit police stations to secure their release. On one occasion, the late Rev. Tunji Adebiyi carried a letter from Lagos-based National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) leaders to the late Pa Adekunle Ajasin at Owo, Ondo State. A stop-and-search team of policemen conducted a search on him at Maryland, Ikeja, and the “incriminating letter” was found on him.

    In excitement, the police Inspector leapt for joy, saying the “heroic” act of apprehending a NADECO operative would fetch him promotion. The Divisional Police Officer (DPO) was in the same mood of excitement. They took Adebiyi to the nearby Ikeja police station.

    Read Also: EEDC threatens to disconnect Govt Houses, army, others over debt

    Kudirat stormed the police division. Charismatic and courageous, the Amazon understood that the policemen wanted to use the arrest to impress their bosses and get promotion. But Mrs. Kudirat Abiola urged them to exercise some patience, assuring them that they would get better promotions under an Abiola presidency. Her persuasion led to Adebiyi’s release.

    Kudirat knew she was vulnerable. She was aware of the danger her life was exposed to. She was planning to get a visa to leave the shores of Nigeria when she was killed. The sad incident happened a few days to the third anniversary of the June 12 election.

    Kudirat was born in 1951 in Zaria, Kaduna State. She was the second senior wife of her husband. Her children are Yushau Olalekan, Hafsat Olaronke, Abdul Muman, Hadi, Moriam, and Khafila. At the prime of life, these children became orphans.

    The killing of the Amazon later became the subject of an investigation and trial. The assassination was allegedly ordered and carried out by six men. Kudirat died in her car. Her driver also died. Her personal assistant, who was later accused of complicity in her death, was in the car but was unhurt.

    Her husband remained in detention after her death. The tragic news got to him in incarceration. He was helpless. In agony,  he bore the burden with philosophical calmness. Abiola later died in suspicious circumstances. The mystery has not been uncovered.

    At the time of her death, an anti-military Radio Democracy had been created and it was based in Norway. It was backed by the American, British, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian governments to help end military dictatorship in Nigeria. The radio station’s name was changed to Radio Kudirat. In 1998, a street corner in New York was renamed Kudirat Abiola Corner, despite protests by the Nigerian military government.

    In October 1998, certain persons were charged with her death. It was a protracted litigation. The judicial process was slow. At the end, nothing came out of the trial.

    Twenty-seven years after, the killers of Kudirat are still at large. But history will be kind to her for remaining steadfast in the face of danger until she paid the supreme price.

    She is remembered for her dedication and commitment to the cause of liberty. She was a source of courage to the pro-democracy forces. Her life of sacrifice offered inspiration to other fighters for justice.

    Ironically, the fruits of Kudirat’s struggles were enjoyed by many other characters that opposed June 12. As power landed on the palms of many of them in 1999, they never showed any remorse. They continued with their business as usual, wreaking more havoc than Abiola would have cleared.

    Subsequent polls have been problematic. There is need to restore the sanctity of the ballot. An electoral reform is an unfinished business. The starting point should be the setting up of an electoral offences tribunal for the trial of electoral terrorists to serve as deterrent to riggers, manipulators and other felons of democracy.

    For Kudirat, the name continues to haunt the conscience of her killers, their sponsors, the anti-democracy elements disguising in the borrowed robe of democracy, and the desperate usurpers of power at the detriment of the people. Kudirat lived well and died well – for a good cause. That is the mould heroines are made of.

  • Tinubu: Leadership in tough times (2)

    Tinubu: Leadership in tough times (2)

    Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown and shoulders the burden of leadership in a country that has been battered, mismanaged, deprived, and emasculated; a potentially great ‘nation’ gasping for breath across the critical sectors due to bad luck and lack of direction.

    The neck of the incumbent shrinks due to the heavy load he applied to carry. The hurdles to cross are many. The road to recovery is lengthy and laced with thorns. The right medications for multiple illnesses are available. But the right physician is being resisted. Political foes and other unpatriotic elements are at work trying to thwart efforts at rebuilding the faulty edifice. There is no demarcation between the time for governance and the time for politicking. Time is also not a friend. It waits nobody.

    The people, having conferred the mandate, are impatient after the poll. They want instant results from the magician they have conjured. No further explanation would be tenable. A decade-old puzzle must be solved in a day, in the twinkle of an eye. It is the irreducible criterion for justifying the claim to power.

    The solutions, now rightly and properly applied, are accompanied with pain. It is not punishment but a necessary appeal for sacrifice. Although the pains are temporary, the intended beneficiaries of reforms perceive them as the continuation or aggravation of the pre-existing conditions. The good intention is grossly misunderstood. The import of the long-term benefits is never internalised.

    Ardent critics are not looking at what has changed for the better. They are only focusing on what remains to be achieved and amplifying the implications of an unfinished business. They know that the pains have to be endured and there is light at the end of the tunnel. But they are regressing to the pastime of raising the alarm and fabricating fables against noble intentions.

    Those who mean well for Nigeria, those who aspire to lead with fidelity, patriotism, candour and sense of responsibility face these dilemmas.

    Being in competition with small minds and forging ahead in the service of the people demand staying courageous, remaining focused, taking decisive actions in national interest, being above board and remaining committed to the goal of salvaging society, even if it inevitably involves stepping on toes.

    Actions that men of history took and later attracted commendations from future generations were hardly popular with those who lacked a realistic appraisal of their agenda for the transformation of society. But their names are written in gold after achieving positive results, serving as models and reference points in moral value, resilience and statesmanship.

    Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, President of Nigeria, would be in this mould of giants of history with the passage of time. He is on a rescue mission at a critical time the highly heterogeneous, far-flung nation-state is struggling to recover from long years of illusion under successive misdirected leaders.

    But he also has to pay the price of leadership, including the endurance of mistrust and sabotage, the endless distractions by those afraid of innovative approach to governance and the antics of ethnic and religious bigots.

    The current government inherited a country in huge debt; a country fretting under the scourge of terror, unemployment syndrome, infrastructural deficit, power shortage and heavy fuel importation. It also inherited a country torn apart by ethnicity and religiosity. The solutions to these symptoms were captured in the historic manifesto: ‘Renewed Hope Agenda.’

    As Nigeria counts its gains and losses, 25 years after the restoration of civil rule, it is indisputable that the Tinubu administration would be considered as a major gain. The President is taking far-reaching decisions, which the unwary would misinterpret for selfish reasons. Nigeria is made to face the reality of the fact that if its dream of a greater tomorrow is to be realised, it may be necessary for it to pass through the furnace, once and for all, and reinvent itself, clear the Augean stable, do what the Asian tigers did to rise like the phoenix and secure a better future for those yet unborn.

    One of the steps this administration has taken was the removal of subsidy. It is very challenging. But the alternative is to promote business as usual and allow a few barons to continue to milk the country dry to the detriment of the majority of Nigerians. In the process, government has been able to save billions. States get richer through a better allocation from the federal purse.

    What remains is for majority of states, which are pretending as if their finances have not improved, to emulate the few states where their governors are creatively deploying the higher resource allocations to fund accelerated  development in their domains.

    As palliatives have floundered, government should realistically channel more resources into sectors that offer qualitative social services. If the burden of expensive school fees for students at the secondary and tertiary levels is lifted from parents; if free and quality health services for all is guaranteed for the aged, expectant mothers, youths and children; and if public transportation is made easier by putting a larger number of buses on the road; if the increased allocation from the centre is complemented by honest leadership; if the nation enjoys expanded rail services, Nigerians would understand these as expanded dividends of democracy.

    It is gratifying that the Federal Executive Council (FEC) parades performing ministers and ministers of state overseeing the various ministries. They include Nyesom Wike in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Dave Umahi in Works, Fesyus Keyamo in Aviation and Aerospace Development, Wale Edun in Finance, Dele Alake in Solid Minerals Development, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo in Internal Affairs, Doris Anite in Trade, Industry and Investment, and Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) in Justice, to name only a few of them. The onus is on them to sustain their  achievements.

    Read Also: Soldier killed in home state Abia after surviving five years fight against terrorists

    President Tinubu is also focusing on infrastructure battle nationwide. Attention is on the Lagos-Calabar coastal highway, the East-West road, the remaining part of Lagos-Ibadan Expressway and the proposed Lagos-Sokoto road. Yet, countless other road projects, reconstruction, rehabilitation and even patching are going on simultaneously across the six geo-political zones. What is required is a sustained tempo on the projects throughout this first term.

    The President has paid excellent attention to the economy. It is the crux of the matter. New monetary and fiscal policies are being pursued to stabilise the economy, strengthen the Naira and enhance production.

    Productive activities are key. If government can ensure regular power supply and resuscitate the dead refineries, the manufacturing sector will bounce back and news industries will also spring up to generate more jobs for the unemployed. The strengthening of the currency against the dollar depends on the level of productive activities. There is no short-cut.

    Security has remained a priority. The administration has invested huge resources to protect lives, businesses and property. Though the battle has not been completely won, bandits are being dislodged from their hiding places. To fully win the war, all Nigerians should be involved. At a time of anxiety like this, the battle against insecurity should be a collective duty involving, not only the Armed Forces, but also all the people across communities where intelligence gathering is still in short supply.

    It is good news that the student loan scheme has taken off. It will greatly assist indigent students in their studies and prevent drop-outs. This is a federal scheme. If states cannot follow suit, they should broaden the scope of scholarships and bursaries to “students of origin,” as it is their custom.

    The robust agricultural policy of this administration was designed to enable the country become self-sufficient in food production, thereby boosting food security. There is capital flight, owing to food importation. More emphasis should now be on agro-allied industries. Farmlands should be peaceful. Bandits should be flushed out so that farmers can concentrate on tilling the ground in anticipation of bountiful harvest.

    Many other achievements, which are deliberately ignored by critics, could be credited to President Tinubu. He has come across as the National Leader of Nigeria; a father figure, detribalised, a promoter of equity and inclusion for the purpose fostering a sense of participation and belonging across the six geo-political regions. He is accessible, he listens and accords respect to stakeholders, and never claims to have a monopoly of wisdom. On a number of occasions, he has moved swiftly to correct mistakes through reversals. He is a democrat.

    Nigeria is being repositioned on the path of federalism. The evidence is the government’s inclination towards devolution or decentralisation of policing power, rail power and the push for local government autonomy.

    Above all, the President is a believer in the rule of law and due process. An anti-corruption war is being waged with vigour and without any interference and preferential treatment. Court orders are given special respect and the Bar and the Bench are pursuing their own reforms for internal cleansing.

    There are more opportunities to do great exploits. The next three years should be characterised by speed, more dedication, a better coordination of government activities, a better evaluation of policies and programmes, an improved communication with the public for enlightenment and feedback, and an utmost fidelity to the agenda for salvaging Nigeria.