The Nation Newspaper

Category: Saturday

  • Path to justice sector reforms

    Ordinarily, President Muhammadu Buhari’s submission at the opening of the 2018 Annual General Conference of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) on the relationship between the rule of law and national interest as well as security should not generate needless controversy. No society, democratic or otherwise, allows personal liberty to supersede considerations of national interest and security. As the President rightly, even if controversially, said: “However, let me remind you all, my dear compatriots that the law can only be optimally practiced in a Nigeria that is safe, secure and prosperous”.

    Although he did not give specific details, the president said “Our apex court has had cause to adopt a position on this issue in this regard and it is now a matter of judicial recognition that where national security and public interest are threatened or there is a likelihood of their being threatened, the individual rights of those responsible must take second place, in favour of the greater good of society”.

    Yes, law can only be practiced within the context of a safe, secure and prosperous country. But can sustainable safety, security and prosperity be achieved without the guarantee of the supremacy of the rule of law as a bulwark against descent to arbitrary rule? Nothing in history suggests that this is so. A fundamental difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that in the former, the interest of the extant regime is conflated with national interest. In a democracy on the other hand, it is the constitution as interpreted by the judiciary, an independent arm of government that determines what constitutes a threat to or subversion of national interest.

    The executive cannot at once determine what constitutes a violation of national interest and security, pronounce as guilty those it perceives as being in breach of national security and interest as well as subject those so accused to prolonged imprisonment without trial in utter violation of court orders. If that happens, the bedrock of constitutional democracy, which is the submission of all those within a given territorial jurisdiction including the state to the sovereignty of the rule of law, has effectively been removed and nothing can sustainably continue to stand on nothing as the lawyers sagely remind us.

    Yes, PMB may be naturally restrained and mature in the utilization of the enormous state powers at his disposal. Already, however, the Nigerian presidency is perceived to be one of the most powerful offices in the world. Not every President coming after him can be expected to be a Buhari. We must be wary of creating precedents that more ruthless and Machiavellian occupants of the office in future can cite or exploit to hound perceived enemies and do grievous harm to the country’s democracy.

    PMB’s umbrage at the outrageous and unconscionable elite corruption responsible for the co-existence of obscene wealth for a few and the mass misery and impoverishment of the vast majority of Nigerians is understandable. It is dissatisfaction with this kind of gross inequity and injustice that informed the advocacy in a 1994 public lecture by legal icon, Professor Akin Oyebode, that “it was time we did away with the shibboleth of the rule of law and embrace the seemingly novel notion of the rule of just law or, more plainly, the rule of justice in order to re-establish the link between law and social reality”. This kind of elegant theorizing is in my view of little practical import in a liberal democracy like ours in terms of concrete policy.

    There are two options for us. We can opt for a revolutionary approach to fighting corruption, which will entail terminating the current democratic process and allow President Buhari because of his anti-corruption credentials, to transmute into a maximum ruler for an interim period in order to enable him frontally confront the scourge of corruption without the encumbrance of the rule of the law. Thereafter, we can return to the practice of democracy. After all, is it not possible to argue that elections in which allegedly corrupt persons who have acquired humongous amounts of stolen resources can legally contest and even win, constitute a violation of national interest and security? In choosing such a path, let us never forget Lord Acton’s proven iron law that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ no matter how saintly and well meaning its wielder may be perceived to be.

    On the other hand, there is the possibility of working carefully and meticulously within the context of the extant liberal democratic system to identify weaknesses and initiate far reaching justice sector reforms to gradually turn things around. This is exactly what Vice President Yemi Osinbajo did as Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice in Lagos State between 1999 and 2007. In a comprehensive account of his tenure when leaving office, Osinbajo itemized no less than 30 problems identified on his assumption of office in 1999 and the concrete actions taken to address them through the Justice Sector Reform Programme implemented from 1999 to 2007.

    These reforms were based on the recommendations of the Justice Committee, one of the Transition Working Groups inaugrated  by the then Governor-Elect, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, at the Lagos Sheraton Hotel & Towers on January 25, 1999. Permit me to refer at some length to only three items in Professor Osinbajo’s report:

    1. ERADICATION OF CORRUPTION IN THE JUSTICE SECTOR

    Recommended Extract

    “Corruption is a matter of serious concern not just for the administration of justice but for governance as a whole. It is clear that the ability to deliver on election promises will largely depend on the availability of resources. Where resources have been looted, as has been the experience in the past years, service to the people is impossible…It is therefore critical that institutions and policies are created to eliminate corruption”.

    Action Taken

    “The state Government has addressed the problem of corruption, especially in the judicial system by taking prompt action to remove affected persons from office…At the same time, significant efforts are made to improve the recruitment process, enhance the welfare of judicial officers, establish transparent procedures and cultivate a culture of zero tolerance for corrupt practices. At the point of making judicial appointments, the input of the State Bar Association is sought on each applicant. This allows for better scrutiny of applicants’ records. Those who may have complaints against him/her are also thereby given the opportunity to speak up. Furthermore, all complaints against Judges and Magistrates are promptly investigated by the Judicial Service Commission. So far, 3 judges and 22 Magistrates have had their appointments terminated on account of this disciplinary process”.

    1. APPOINTMENT AND TRAINING OF JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES

    Recommended Extract“The 1999 Justice Committee recognized the fact that the number of judicial personnel was inadequate and that training facilities available to them were poor”

    Action Taken

    “During the past 7 years, over 30 High Court Judges and several Magistrates were appointed into the state judiciary. The process of selection has radically changed. The new policy entrenches merit as the principal consideration as rigorous tests and interviews now precede judicial appointments. Also potential lawyers are identified not only from the ranks of State Counsel and Magistrates but also among other lawyers in various fields of endeavour. This has considerably enriched the state Judiciary and changed the culture of judicial appointments for the better. In the Magistracy, promotion to higher levels now depends on performance in mandatory assessment examinations”

    1. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER (LEGAL AID SERVICES)

    Recommended Extract

    “The government of Lagos State must quickly carve a niche for itself as a serious believer in human rights. Government can actively collaborate with Faculties of Law of the two universities in Lagos and civil society groups to establish Legal Aid Clinics and Centres in the State”.

    Action Taken

    “The Lagos State Government established a full-fledged Directorate for Citizens Rights in the Ministry of Justice in 1999. The Directorate has, among others, the Office of the Public Defender (OPD), and the Human Rights Protection Unit (HRPU). OPD offers free legal advice/representation in civil and criminal matters to the poor and most vulnerable. At the moment OPD operates from 5 centres across the state and has about 40 full time lawyers…To institutionalize the concept of free legal services, the State Government has enacted the Lagos State Office of the Public Defender Law, Cap L82, Laws of Lagos State 2003 which sets up OPD as a statutory body with its own management and staff structure”.

    These are only three out of the over 30 reform initiatives in the Lagos State justice sector reforms contained in the Osinbajo 2007 report. Achieving meaningful justice sector reforms as well as meaningfully fighting corruption requires a well conceptualized and articulated plan and not the erosion of the rule of law or restricting democratic liberties. Critical to achieving this is a Minister of Justice/Attorney General with a capacity for hard work, attention to detail, passion for justice, creative thinking and impeccable integrity; an AGF with the human skills to mobilize the bar, the bench and civil society components to work harmoniously to achieve concrete positive reforms.

     

  • Stuck in the mud

    Manchester United are stuck in the mud. The team needs a new direction out of the woods to justify its high ranking in international football. Ironically, the Red Devils have the right man at the helm to navigate the club out of what I have chosen to call the troubled times, without necessarily pressing the panic destruct button.

    Will Mourinho get a big club to secure his services, if the Red Devils swing the big axe? The fans are behind the manager and it could be the only reason why the Special One’s bluff won’t be called. If the fans were not behind the manager, his days at Old Trafford would have been numbered. Or is the manager talking too much? Could it also be that there is a hidden players’ revolt to warn the manager that they deserve some respect, especially with the way he has treated some of them? These are posers which Mourinho must think through in his quiet moments lest he presses the panic destruct button.

    Mourinho is spending his first season in the dugout without his No 2 Rui Faria beside him. Could this be the reason for United’s wobbly displays in the last three matches? Faria spent close to 20 glorious years at Porto, Chelsea, Inter Milan and Real Madrid. But feelers from the Faria camp suggest that both men may have to part ways in the no distant future following Faria’s ambition to lead another European club’s technical crew. Could it be that Faria’s exit has depleted Mourinho’s bags of tricks? The impact is clear. Mourinho looks lost, isolated and nervy without his mate.

    Close watchers of the Mourinho cum Faria coaching tag-team have seen them as being compatible, with the latter having the ability to intervene when his boss goes off the track, especially on the sidelines. Faria knew when to step in for Mourinho, if he didn’t want to lampoon the match officials. If Mourinho was unable to deliver his sulky, sarcastic one-liners at press conferences, Faria filled in the gap. If his boss was banned or sent to the stands during a game, he stood in.

    Manchester United are struggling under Mourinho’s haphazard management but all is not lost yet because the Special One is renowned for doing the unexpected. Indeed, he operates best under immense pressure. But will the Red Devils’ management give Mourinho the room to rant as he did after his team was roundly beaten by Tottenham at Old Trafford Stadium on Monday night?

    Mourinho told the press in a post-match conference: “Do you know what was the result? 3-0. But what this [three fingers] also means? ‘It also means three Premier Leagues and I won more alone than the other 19 managers together. ‘Me three, them two. So respect, respect, respect.” Vintage Mourinho, but he needs to come down from his high horse and face the task of returning the Red Devils to winning ways.

    But will United’s management say Mourinho didn’t warn them about the dire consequences of not strengthening the squad ahead of the new season? He did. He even mentioned clubs, such as Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea etc, giving their squads depth with recruitment of quality players.

    A few purists have argued that Mourinho’s warning to the management was his defence mechanism to undermine the third year jinx in clubs he has coached. But top commentator Adam Crafton told Dailmail.co.uk that: ”We are three games into a 38-match Premier League season plus three cup competitions. Manchester United took only two points from their first three games 11 years ago and went on to win the Premier League and Champions League.

    ”So this situation need not be fatal but it does feel like the end. Ander Herrera at centre back? His signings Eric Bailly and Victor Lindelof dropped? Marouane Fellaini thrown on as Mourinho appears to have lost all faith in creative talents Juan Mata, Marcus Rashford and Anthony Martial? Mourinho has lost a sense of control and direction for this team. He must regain it quickly but one suspects things might instead worsen.”

    Will Mourinho be sacked? Or what would it cost Manchester United to dispense with the Special One’s services? Would it be worth the trouble since the season is just three weeks old? And with a seeming cheap fixture this weekend against Burnley, it would be foolhardy to continue the talk of a likely sack for Mourinho, with his replacement being Zinedine Zidane.

    ‘They are saying Jose will be gone soon,’ a source told Sportsmail on Tuesday night. ‘Some think he’ll be out if they lose at Burnley. Others can’t see him lasting beyond September. We’ve seen this before and it just feels the same. The club will say it’s supporting Jose but we all saw what happened with Louis. The players are already talking about the possibility of Zidane coming in.’ Hmmm, coaches’ sack begins with statements like this around the club and within the players with no one tough enough to air his views for fear of Mourinho’s axe when things normalise like it would soon for the iconic manager. Those rooting for Mourinho’s sack are being mischievous, not after what he has achieved with the Red Devils, which can only be matched by Sir Alex Ferguson, but over a longer period.

    Mourinho has learned lessons from players’ mutiny against him twice at Chelsea and at Real Madrid. It was evident in the way he walked up to the players to console them after the defeat. He also walked with studied steps, claps and waving at the fans to forget what they saw and look up to better days at the Theatre of Dreams. No prize for guessing that the English press were waiting to slay the enigmatic coach at the post-match conference. and he gave it to them in full dose. If Mourinho didn’t do what he did with the media it wouldn’t have been Jose.

    Former Crystal Palace owner Simon Jordan said in the fallout of the Mourinho press war: “I do not know a journalist that has ever bought a football club, that has ever managed a football club, ever sold a player, ever bought a player, ever picked a team, or ever been first hand in any experience which gives that the opportunity to be able to put certain parts of football to the sword.

    “A journalist’s job to my view is to give an objective opinion, not to write what they think is a fact and to represent it as fact and to create news rather than to report news.

    “I look at some of those journalists and I listened to Henry Winter (on the Jim White show on Tuesday) and at no point did not I think I was ever going to ask a journalist about how Jose Mourinho should manage his football club, in no more order than I would expect Jose Mourinho to tell Henry Winter how to write  a book or to write an article.”

    Should Mourinho always confront the media when things go awry? Former coach Goran Eriksson feels strongly that the Special One should allow his work do the talking. What do you think?

    Asked whether Mourinho  deserves more respect, Eriksson told Skysports News: “Maybe. Maybe not. But l don’t think he should say it, l think that should be automatic. It’s always like that, when you are criticised as a coach and l’ve seen it many times in England, outside England, and wherever. It’s better to keep quiet.

    “Don’t try to defend yourself because the results defend you.  It’s only by result you can defend it and that’s in the paper. Read it, don’t talk about it.  Especially when you start to argue with the press. You will never win. You will always lose because if you are the journalist, you have the journalist, you have the last word; you write it.

    “So keep quiet, put your head down and go on working and show people in the next game we will play good football and we will win.  I don’t want to start the only way to answer now l’m talking about me and how l was. Don’t start to talk about showing me respect.”

    “Respect is what everyone knows in football. What l have done.  I know what l have done.  I know what I have done. I know what I’m good at and what l’m not good at and every manager is the same.  So when you’re criticised swallow it.”

    Mourinho replaced Dutchman Louis van Gaal as manager of Manchester United ahead of the 2016-17 season. He is tasked with the revival of the Red Devils.

    Since the retirement of Sir Alex Ferguson in 2013, the club has endured a difficult period but restored a bit of pride with three pieces of silverware:  the Community Shield, the League Cup and the Europa League. And has qualified for consecutive UEFA Champions League.

     

     

  • Democracies, leaders and performance

    Confidence in ability to deliver as promised is a mark  of leadership in any political  system. Especially those called  democracies in which power is periodically renewable  ritually  at elections. A leader  who delivers as promised  can beat his chest on  a platform of credibility and indulge  in claims of  capability  to deliver, which  would be hard  to fault. That really is the basis for seeking reelection and continuation of tenure according to constitutional limits. Leadership performance  and its  attendant claim  on a qualification to lead  in  any democracy  is the kernel of our discussion  today.

    It  is not difficult  to see the catalyst  for  today’s topic given US President Donald  Trump’s  chest beating statement  this week that if he is impeached the US Stock  Market  will  crash  and Americans will  be poor. In a week  when two  of his closest  aides were ripped  apart in the courts for tax fraud and financial  sharp practices  one would have thought the noose of  impeachment was tying fast  around the American president’s neck. That  boast  however  was not the boast  of a drowning leader. It  was not  an empty boast either. It  was a boast rooted in American  political  culture  that once a president delivers the economy  in positive terms the  markets would rally  and  become bullish. And  before Trump  made his now famous boast  the markets were said to be on their longest bullish run in 10  years. This    is  in  spite  of  the travails of the US president in calling  the media fake  news, shouting there was no Russian meddling in his election, and calling the Mueller Probe into Russian  hacking of the 2016  election  that brought him into office, a witch  hunt.

    Donald  Trump’s  bravado  may be called over confidence  or hubris by those who  don’t see eye  to eye  with him but  that  is their business  and not our concern  here.  Which is that a leader who performs by recognizable and acceptable standards  deserve  accolades and approbation in  any  political  system  and if and when they seek  reelection they  should  be rewarded  with  power  to continue in  office  for  sheer  salutary  reasons.  Today therefore  the ebullient  and tweeter  crazy US president provides a yard stick  to compare leaders  who  perform in the democracies we shall  consider today  namely Nigeria, China  and Russia. The  choice of these nations is  based on their leadership  styles  and the fact that these are leaders who  have tasted  power  and are familiar  with its uses and abuse  and  over the years  have built  a reputation  as insiders in the corridors of power. Which  is something the boastful  but economically successful  US  president  cannot claim  or boast  about.

    Nigeria’s President Muhammadu  Buhari  is a tested  leader  who  has ruled Nigeria  both  as a military  leader  and  as  an elected democratic  president. China’s President Xi  Ping is a leader  who has consolidated  power in China such that  his thoughts and vision like  those  of  Mao  and Deng  have been  inserted in the Chinese constitution  as part  of the Ideology  of the ruling Communist Party of  China.  Russia’s President Vladmir  Putin is a leader  who has been in and out of power as PM and President  and is respected by Russians because he is trying hard to stand up to the US  and EU  and is  reviving  nostalgic memories  of the old and mammoth  Soviet Union  that  stood up  to America’s  might  during the Cold  War which  he has reinvented  in a new  way in  invading  Ukraine  and seizing Crimea  and foraging into Syria. We  shall  now  examine  how and  if  in terms of leadership  performance these leaders can  boast in their respective nations that in spite of whatever  constraints they  have faced, they  can claim like Donald  Trump  that in their absence their economies    will collapse. Certainly  the leaders of China and Russia can  claim  to  be indispensable to  their  nations economic  development  without  much  controversy.

    That  leaves  us with Nigeria  where  the president  has just returned from vacation  and graced the Muslim Sallah festivities in his  town  and trekked  home thereafter  prompting the presidency to state  that  the trek  meant  he is fit  for his  office  and therefore  for reelection.  Which  to  me is an  understatement that  misses  the point  and the importance  of  re election.

    Certainly  the president looked fresh. What  was important  however was his  stated  resolve  to  prosecute  the war  on corruption which was the cornerstone of his  election in 2015  with    more vigour.   And  it  is  his  progress  on that account  that  should make him  know  if he can  boast  that without him  the Nigerian economy  will  collapse. To  some extent  he  may boast  like Trump but  largely  he cannot  even  as the  2019  presidential  elections draw  so  dangerously  close.  This is because  economic  matters in Nigeria  have been  submerged under  a big flood  of insecurity, uncertainty  and  a  serious clash between  the Nigerian government, [ the  executive ] and the Nigerian legislature  led  by the Senate President  Bukola  Saraki  who  has defected from  the ruling party and had  gone on to  say  he would make a better president than  the incumbent  president. Yet  the incumbent president was the first  to congratulate  this Senate  President  at the outset  of the Administration  when  the foundations of the present defections from the ruling party  were laid. Did the president  get it wrong that time? He  certainly  did and such inability to read    correctly  the manouvres  and stratagem  of a political  opponent is a serious lapse  that has  boomeranged  into a huge challenge to the reelection prospect  of Nigeria’s president.  Certainly  the president cannot boast  of being indispensable to  the Nigerian economy  when  he cannot  put his house , the ruling  party in order.

    He  literally  went  to  sleep  with fire on his thatched  roof  when he  congratulated the Senate President on his dubious election in the Senate. Even  as  his party members seethed  with rage    then  at the  obvious  senate  ambush  which  has now boomeranged  into defections  and a direct  challenge to  the reelection  prospect  of the president by a leader  who  has benefitted  most from being treated  with  kid  gloves by an unwary  or overconfident president earlier on. Once  again  long live the Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.

  • Remove NFF from sports ministry

    The Presidency made an hitherto hydraheaded problem orchestrated by the Sports Ministry look so simple with the decision to abide by the tenets of FIFA’s statutes, which we willingly adopted in inaugurating the Sani Lulu-led NFF via an election in 2006. The election was witnessed by FIFA observers as part of the conditions for authenticating the process.

    It became the norm for the 2010 edition, although corrupted by the diabolical intervention of the Sports ministry, with promptings from the Presidential Task Force (PTF), culminating in the detention of the body’s President Lulu, Vice President Amanze Uchegbulam, Secretary-General Bolaji Ojo-Oba and chairman of chairmen Taiwo Ogunjobi. The quartet spent the 2010 Christmas Day and New Year’s Day in Kuje prison. They were charged to court, where they were acquitted in 2017 and 2018, but the 2010 elections were held without them. The reason for this hounding was to prevent Lulu from having a second term. That has been the trend after every World Cup competition.

    In 2006, FIFA further got the Federal Government’s words (like it has happened this time) that domesticating the electoral process would form part of the laws governing the game, according to international best practices. In fact, the election which produced Lulu officially knocked off the practice of having government nominees on the NFF board from where the President is picked. The election eliminated Sports Writers Association of Nigeria (SWAN), Police etc from being members of the NFF board.

    The ease in which the FIFA crisis was resolved gives one the impetus to also suggest placing the NFF under the Vice President’s office, with a permanent secretary superintending. That way Sports ministers will have more time to develop other sports, which are in decadence due to neglect from the Ministry. Between 1989 and 1994, when Clemence Westerhoof reigned as the Super Eagles chief coach, he had unfettered access to the Vice President Augustus Aikhomu (of blessed memory). The VP’s office not only provided all that Westerhof needed, he also had the VP’s office’s backing. The result of this was that Nigeria climbed to fifth best football nation in FIFA ranking. . Nigeria qualified for her first World Cup in 1994.  Those were the glorious years of our football. Shouldn’t we go back to the past since we have cantankerous ministers in our midst?

    FIFA statutes are binding on over 211 countries. Any contravention is punished decisively, irrespective of the stature of such FAs. Only on Monday, FIFA clamped down on Uruguay, which has been in a crisis since July 30, after the organisation was plunged into chaos following the sudden resignation of President Wilmar Valdez last month.

    A letter from FIFA, reported in the local media, said the body had set up a “regularisation committee” aimed at restoring order to the AUF (the Uruguay Football Federation). The FIFA committee will be responsible for managing the affairs of the FA till February 28, 2019. It will revise the organisation’s statues and conduct new elections.

    The Uruguayan government had its reservations, but it has abided by FIFA’s decisions since the country is neck deep in campaigns with Argentina and Paraguay to host the 2030 World Cup. Thank God the Nigerian government has told FIFA who they will support, irrespective of the tantrums from the few grumblers. The Uruguayan authorities or ministers are not citing the supremacy of their Constitution the way our sports ministers do. They have accepted FIFA’s decisions, more so as CONMEBOL, the main South American soccer body, says there is “a lack of assurances” in AUF’s electoral process. The authentic players’ union and referees’ body in Uruguay are in support of FIFA’s decision, with Marcelo de Leon, the President of Uruguay’s Referee Association, informing Radio Sport that the intervention was requested by his colleagues, professional footballers and players of the national team.

    Several Uruguay players used their social media channels to share a letter in support of FIFA’s decision, saying it will bring “transparency, democracy and plurality to AUF.” They asked for a corruption probe to examine decisions made by the AUF in the last 20 years, according to the reports on FIFA’s and Uruguay’s FA’s websites.

    It is instructive to note that FIFA isn’t issuing deadlines, threatening Uruguay with sanctions or bans. All the parties are on the same page – respect for the tenets of FIFA’s statutes. They should never be in conflict with the country’s Constitution, which is sacrosanct.

    What brought us to our knees until the Presidency rescued the game was the lack of political will by Sports ministers to complete the process of legalising the NFF Bill, for the simple fact that they want to enjoy the caveat, which gives ministers the powers to ‘intervene’ in the running of the federation. These ministers hide under the guise of getting the federation to account for government money, as if there are no agencies assigned with the task of getting government bodies to account for money.

    If these ministers expended the type of energy and show of force in which they hound the NFF board members around in fast-tracking the NFF bill, which we are told is at the last stage of being given to President Muhammadu Buhari for assent, our game would have grown past its kindergarten stage.  These ministers lay the landmines for our failure at the World Cup by insisting on dishing out government cash themselves rather than paying into NFF’s coffers. This disturbing trend makes Nigeria a laughing stock at the Mundial, whenever it is reported that ministers pay players and officials their entitlement or sit in the room to witness the payment.

    A video, which went viral recently, has a top sports ministry chief sitting like a palace chief while the girls of one of the national teams are kneeling down, one after the other, to collect cash, which was said to be a gift from the top shot. The questions raised by those appalled by our style are – couldn’t such cash be transferred into the players’ domiciliary accounts, especially as most of them work in Europe? Can’t those who don’t have domiciliary accounts have the cash or its equivalent in naira paid into their domestic bank accounts? Doesn’t the government have accountants to do the physical disbursement of cash instead of the ministers? Is this the way other countries pay their players and officials? Is it appropriate for the head of the ministry to leave his busy schedules at home to accompany Nigerian delegations outside the country for weeks? Can’t the minister delegate functions?  I digress.

    Most times, Sports ministry buffs start to meddle into the NFF affairs whenever FIFA’s $8 million cash is being expected, so much so that they are prepared to allow the country to be banned than give the outgoing NFF board a chance to account for what it got. Till date, no person at the NFF has been jailed for corruption, yet they are the most vilified with allegations of sharp practices in handling government cash.

    It appears the government needs to consider moving the NFF under the Office of the Vice President since it is taking forever to repeal Decree 101, the instrument being used to outmuscle NFF chiefs anytime the government releases cash to the parastatal.

    For instance, we heard of the case of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) mistakenly paying $150,000 into the AFN’s accounts instead of $15,000, which the Nigerian federation acknowledged it received. A probe panel was inaugurated to find out what happened to the balance. Till date, nothing has been heard about the panel’s report. Instead, we are being told that Nigeria has agreed to refund the balance in bits. If such a thing happens in NFF, ministry officials will take them to the EFCC, which is the right thing to do. But the double standard here is the refusal of the ministry chiefs to report those likely to be fingered at the AFN to the EFCC.

    The Buhari administration has done well in keeping the head of the Sports ministry for three years. Sadly, this longest reign has brought untold hardship to several sports, so much that basketball has two leaders. One of the basketball federation’s groups has gone to its international body, FIBA, for an interpretation of its laws. In this confused setting, our female basketball players were reported to have fought themselves, leading to the removal of the team’s captain. No sanctions so far. Perhaps, those in charge of basketball want to handle it internally, which ought to be the case. Had it been in football, the musclemen in the ministry would have come out with all guns blazing, calling for the removal of the NFF leadership.

  • Exceptions to political vagrancy

    In the aftermath of the historic victory of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2015 presidential elections, there was a mad rush of scores of leading members of the dislodged former ruling party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), from their former political abode to the perceived new venue of sumptuous pecuniary dining. This trend has continued in the last three years despite the reputation of the President, General Muhammadu Buhari, as a no nonsense, tight fisted, corruption hating and fighting crusader.

    In the previous 16 years from 1999, the flow of political vagrancy, the rampant defections of political actors from one party to the other largely for selfish reasons than those of ideology or principle, was mostly from opposition parties to the PDP. The excessive centralization of power and resources in Nigeria’s largely unitary federal system makes it almost compelling for most members of a political class, dependent on the state for primitive accumulation and economic empowerment, to be members of the ruling party at the centre.

    Indeed, the success of the opposition APC in dislodging a ruling party from power at the centre for the first time in the country’s history was partly due to this culture of vagrancy, which saw a not insignificant faction of the PDP defecting to the opposition shortly before the election. The phenomenon of political vagrancy throws light on certain aspects of Nigeria’s political culture. One is the desperation of political actors to hold public office at all costs and by all means since state power is the most important source of material accumulation in our rentier economy.

    Another is the absence of any clear cut differences of ideological or even philosophical orientations beyond superficialities among the major political parties, which makes it easy for political actors to traverse diverse parties without moral compunction. Again, there is the lack of internal democracy within parties, which gives those who believe that they are denied a competitive level playing field in intra-party competitions, a plausible ground for jettisoning one party for another and casually returning to their former parties in the same cavalier manner they left. This is all in pursuit of personal interests. The APC’s new resort to direct primaries may be an antidote to this but that is a matter for another day.

    There have, however, been some notable exceptions to political vagrancy in Nigeria’s political evolution. Perhaps the most important factor in the sustenance and survival of the current democratic dispensation, for instance, was the stout and steadfast refusal of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu to play the political vagrant in the aftermath of the devastating loss of the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD) to the PDP in the South West with the exception of Lagos in the 2003 elections. It was a testy and difficult moment. Tinubu was the last man standing in the AD. All his colleagues – Olusegun Osoba, Lam Adeshina, Bisi Akande, Niyi Adebayo and Adebayo Adefarati – had been dislodged in Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti and Ondo states respectively.

    It was only a matter of time, the PDP behemoth believed, before the diminutive Lagos helmsman would cross over to the happening party which at the time believed it would be in power for at least 60 years. But Tinubu chose to say no to vagrancy. He rallied his former South West governor colleagues to stand firm in the defense of progressive ideals in the South West. Aided partly by the exceptional ineptness and lack of vision or a sense of mission of the PDP South west governors, the progressives regained political vibrancy and electoral vitality in the 2007 elections. Through the courts they recovered stolen mandates in Osun,  Ekiti as well as the neighbouring Edo state.

    Tinubu remained at the centre of various experiments in party formation – Action Congress (AC), Action Congress of Democrats (ACD) and Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN)- all within the progressive social welfarist and federalist tradition but never considered the PDP an option  despite what is widely percieved as South West tactical contribution to Jonathan’s victory in 2011. A key component of the ruling APC, the South West progressives are today major participants in a democratically elected government at the centre for the first time in Nigeria’s history. The easier path would have been for Tinubu to succumb to political vagrancy in 2003 and migrate to the seemingly invincible PDP. He chose the narrower route of staying in opposition. That is a key reason why opposition survived in Nigeria and was gradually strengthened and able to successfully challenge and triumph over the ruling party in 2015.

    Chief Obafemi Awolowo was one of the most ideologically consistent politicians ever in Nigeria’s political history. He was the founder and leader of the country’s most disciplined and ideologically clear political parties – the Action Group (AG) and Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) after Aminu Kano’s Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) and Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) in the first and second republics. He ardently and earnestly desired to be President of Nigeria but would not compromise his ideological and philosophical beliefs to achieve this goal even though his UPN went into a tactical alliance with a faction of the conservative northern political class in 1983.

    In 1977, leaders of the Middle Belt in the Constituent Assembly met with Awolowo at his Apapa Park Lane residence and promised to support his presidential bid if he would appoint persons from the Middle belt as Finance and Foreign Affairs ministers. According to Mvendaga Jibo who was at the meeting, “To our utter amazement, Awolowo flatly refused to make any such commitments”. Desperation for office was not in his dictionary. Ironically, however, Awolowo’s party, AG, was believed to be the instigator of the first act of political vagrancy in Nigeria’s history.

    After the 1951 elections under the Macpherson constitution, the AG was believed to have exploited ethnic sentiments and alleged pecuniary inducement to prevent the popular National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) from forming the majority in the Western Regional House of Assembly. Some members of the NCNC including five members of the lbadan Peoples Party (IPP), which was in alliance with the NCNC,  defected to the AG on the eve of the convening of the new legislature in Ibadan on 7th January, 1952. This enabled the AG to form the regional government and utilizing its majority to prevent Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe, leader of the NCNC, from either heading the Western Regional government or even being elected to the federal legislature in Lagos from the Western Regional House of Assembly.

    Of course, I cannot understand why the great Zik would want to be Premier of the Western region when an Igbo, Dr. Michael Opara was Premier of the East and Alhaji Ahmadu Bello Premier of the North. But I digress. In the run up to the inauguration of the Western Regional Assembly, according to Alhaji Adegoke Adelabu, the great Penkelemesi, member of the IPP and NCNC as well as leader of opposition in the Western region, “We were daily progressively reduced to 42, 37, 33, 30, 38, 26, 25”. This depletion of the NCNC ranks he attributed to the fact that “our opponents had no scruples as to whether recruits belonged to their faith or not, as they had no worthwhile faith except feeding fat on the spoils of office”.

    In his last battle cry against political vagrancy, Adelabu declared “I advise all those who seek material gains and the spoil of office to move over into the other camp whilst there is still time. So far as I am concerned, if Dr. Azikwe and myself alone are left, I will go on fighting to my last breath. I will be happy”.

    President Muhammadu Buhari is another notable exception to the virus of political vagrancy. Even though he was in the political wilderness of opposition in the 16 years before his election, he never for once contemplated joining the ruling party. His previous contests for the presidency were on the platforms of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and Congress for Progressive Change (CPC). If wealth accumulation was his aim, migrating to the PDP would have been PMB’s best and wisest option.

    If he had done so, it would have been impossible for PMB to be a critical part of the APC merger and without his presence in the party it is doubtful if the victory of 2015 could have been achieved. How do we ensure a substantial increase in the number of principled and ideologically constant politicians in our polity and a continuing depletion of the tribe of  unprincipled political vagrants? That is the big question.

  • Premium Times, SARS and rule of law

    LAST Tuesday, Acting President Yemi Osinbajo directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Ibrahim Idris, to overhaul the structure and operations of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), a police unit unfortunately more famous for rights abuses than success in fighting robbery and kidnapping. Just one day after, Mr Idris announced a number of measures to restructure and refocus the anti-robbery squad. The measures were of course largely cosmetic, considering that they neither go deep enough nor offer fundamental understanding and revitalisation of the controversial squad. One proof that Mr Idris does not intend a fundamental reform of the squad is the arrest and detention of the Premium Times reporter, Samuel Ogundipe, by the police, with SARS deeply involved, for alleged offences unrelated to robbery and kidnapping. It was clear all along that the squad had achieved notoriety, and the police were content and frequently eager to deploy that fearsome notoriety for objectives that were in many respects unconstitutional and less than salutary and patriotic.

    Mr Ogundipe’s arrest came on the same day the acting president gave the directive on SARS. In a statement issued by his spokesman, Laolu Akande, Prof Osinbajo said: “Following persistent complaints and reports on the activities of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) that border on allegations of human rights violations, Acting President Yemi Osinbajo, SAN, has directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to, with immediate effect, overhaul the management and activities of SARS and ensure that any unit that will emerge from the process, will be intelligence-driven and restricted to the prevention and detection of armed robbery and kidnapping, and apprehension of offenders linked to the stated offences, and nothing more. The acting president has also directed the IGP to ensure that all operatives in the emerging unit conduct their operations in strict adherence to the rule of law and with due regard to International human rights law and the constitutionally guaranteed rights of suspects. The operatives should also bear proper identification anytime they are on duty.”

    The directive is unambiguous. In fact, one of the sentences contained in the directive to the police is poignantly specific. It orders the reformed squad to restrict itself to the “prevention and detection of armed robbery and kidnapping, and apprehension of offenders linked to the stated offences, and nothing more.” Nothing in the allegations against Mr Ogundipe, not to talk of the charges filed against him in court, suggests robbery or kidnapping. Yet, SARS played a leading role in his distress. Indeed, many analysts who grudgingly welcomed the directive to reform and restructure the squad showed deep scepticism about both the capacity of the police leadership to carry out the ordered reforms and the willingness to remedy the damage the squad has done to policing in Nigeria. The sceptics were even more afraid that going by the appointments made into police leadership over the years, the law enforcement agency did not seem able to demonstrate the emotional and intellectual capacity to reform the entire Force, especially the squad they love to describe as dreaded.

    Less than 24 hours after the presidential directive to restructure and revitalise SARS, the police hierarchy immediately announced wide-ranging measures to demonstrate their compliance. They did not give themselves time to study the problems they were being asked to manage and reform, and they also took no time to empanel some of their best brains — surely they have them — to meet minds on the abuses Nigerians had complained about, and which the presidency latched onto to order fundamental remediation. Instead, more officiously than substantially, the police hastily centralised the operations of SARS under a commissioner of police answerable to the IGP in the mistaken belief that one of the squad’s weaknesses was the lack of high-level supervision. The police hierarchy then listed a number of measures that do nothing but tinker with the structure and operations of the squad along lines that had proved nugatory in the past years.

    The cosmetic police measures, more than anything else, indicate that it will be business as usual. The treatment meted out to Mr Ogundipe, the arbitrary freezing of his bank account, the hostility of the SARS operatives who interacted with the Premium Times editors, and the intimidation of the detainee and his media establishment all point to the fact that fundamentally nothing has changed or will change in the structure and operations of the police to elicit the new police envisioned by the acting president. The problems of the police are deeply fundamental, and involved the anomalous and inoperable political structure of the country itself. Neither the acting president nor the police boss has suggested in words or actions that they acknowledge this problem. Even as far as tinkering goes, the police, as currently constituted, are not properly managed, supervised and funded to deliver the change the country desires.

    The directive on SARS is unlikely to deliver more than a short-lived cosmetic change. Mr Idris cannot give what he does not have, and his men are too far gone to help him or help nudge the Force in the right direction. The police will continue to expose a few of the bad eggs in their midst, but they have proved incapable of asking themselves why the corruption and brutality in SARS and the wider police establishment subsist, or why these maladies have proved difficult to tame for so long. Even the presidency has been incompetent to ask itself why the police have been unamenable to change, why the military have nurtured a culture of brutality over the decades, as the 2015 Zaria killings illustrate, and why the Department of State Service (DSS), especially under its immediate past director-general, perpetrated appalling abuses right under their noses.

    This is, however, not to say that Premium Times could not have managed the story that pitched them against the police better. Publishing the bromide of the IGP’s official report barely a day after it was submitted to the acting president seems to be sailing near the wind. Premium Times could have paraphrased the outcome of the investigations, intentionally omit some of the details, and attribute items of the report to sources within or close to the police hierarchy. It is not clear whether it was altogether a wise idea to slam everything on their web site.

    Nevertheless, the media in Nigeria must be grateful that Premium Times baited the police and helped to expose their dilatoriness, not to say their incompetence and lack of professionalism. When the smoke of battle clears, the media are likely to embark on rigorous self-examination to help them determine whether in the circumstances and chronology of events surrounding the IGP’s interim report on the DSS invasion of the National Assembly, the news reports and journalistic investigations, complete with evidence of bromides of official letters, were well handled.

    Given their customary haughtiness and lack of vision, the police are unlikely to embark on that beneficial and extraordinary self-scrutiny.

    Even though Prof Osinbajo has understandably not taken far-reaching measures on SARS as an ailing subset of the police, he must be commended for broaching the topic and doing something about it, no matter how ephemeral, and regardless of the vacillations of the past. Given his law background, it is doubtful whether he does not appreciate that it will take more than a directive and a few suggestions to get the police performing its role in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution. He must know that very fundamental measures are required to birth a new and effective Police Force.

    The presidency of which he is a ranking member has done little to midwife the change required in that law enforcement sector. After all, the long-standing complaints against SARS and the campaigns of the #EndSARS warriors that lasted for many months did not receive any serious attention until early this week, probably against the run of play.

    Worse, who can forget that the police themselves feigned ignorance of the issues advocated by critics of SARS, even as they attempted to blackmail the public for demanding an end to the high-handedness and arbitrariness of the police and the anti-robbery squad? Hopefully both Prof Osinbajo’s directive and the desultory response of the IGP will constitute the first tentative steps in getting an elected government to respond appropriately and sensibly to the yearnings and aspirations of those who voted them into office.

  • Power struggle, corruption and democracy

    There is no doubt  that  a serious power  struggle is going on in Nigeria between  the legislature and the executive in Nigeria’s volatile  presidential  system  of democracy. It has become  a do  or die affair even though either side claims to be fighting for  or upholding the rule of law  but there  is more than meets the eye in either claim. Undoubtedly  it has  become   such   a dangerous development  that any  meeting of the legislature is  bound    to be  prone to violence from within, as opposed to the violence from without recently when armed masked men prevented law makers from entering the National  Assembly, which in itself  was  a coup  against  not only the legislature   but  Nigeria’s  democracy. Yet  in this dangerous power struggle   one cannot but recall  the statement of  late Anthony Enahoro, Action Group  legislator   who proposed self government for  Nigeria in the colonial days and proclaimed that  ‘this is the beginning of a chain  of events, the end  of which  no  one knows’.  Certainly one can say the same for this   approaching  political  tornado  heading  in the direction of NASS, Abuja    in the  show down  between  the Nigerian government  and the Senate over   the    looming  removal  of the Senate  President    and  his   refusal  to quit,  as  well as    the maintenance  of the rule of law.

    Inevitably  too one can  recall  the AG crisis of 1962   in  the Western Region House of  Assembly   Ibadan  which  led to the treason trial  and jailing of Chief  Obafemi Awolowo  and his release  by the Gowon  regime in time for him to be Minister Of Finance  during  our civil  war. The  rest is now history  but  the rumblings  in NASS in  Abuja  and at  Aso  Villa   nowadays  show striking  similarities to  the crisis in Ibadan  that  consumed the rest  of  Nigeria.  It   was  a   crisis    that   has railroaded our elusive   search  for  real  democratic  dividends  as we saw   instead  mirages of unfulfilled  promises  from Nigerian  politicians in search  of the el  dorado   to provide  food,   shelter   and  security for  Nigerians    but ended   up   mostly   lining only the purses  and   pockets  of their close,  friends, relatives  and cronies.  It   is  a  sad,    ominous   and disturbing   spectacle, this struggle  for  power  from  within the same   ruling  party  that  has now become a national  concern  to all peace loving Nigerians. It  is an ill wind that  bodes  no  good  and   I  pray  fervently  that  sanity  will  prevail  in the coming weeks or days. For  now I urge  all  politicians and our leaders to remember  the Chinese  saying  that says –  count  no  man  lucky,   until  he is  dead. All   the same   it    is with  this in mind  that I discuss  today’s topic    on  our     titanic   separation of powers’     power struggle   this week   with   illustrations      from  Brazil     and  Turkey    to  show  the consequences  of the  use  and abuse  of  power in these democracies and the lessons therefrom.

    Starting with Brazil the news was that  Brazil’s  former  President Lula da Silva  has been  nominated  and registered as the  presidential  candidate    for his party  at  Brazil’s  next election  this year,  even though  he  is in prison  serving time after  being jailed  for  corruption some time   ago. In  Turkey  President Tayyip  Erdogan  has  called  tariffs against  his nation by US President Donad Trump an ‘economic   coup‘ even  though  he  has refused  to release  an    American   pastor  that  the US president  has asked him  to release or face the consequence,   regardless  of  the fact  that  both  nations  are allies in  the  North  Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO.  I want  to highlight events  in  both Brazil  and Turkey  to  drive home  the import  of the Chinese proverb  that  says – count no man lucky  until  he is dead –  in the case  of  Brazil’s Lula   and   in  Erdogan’s     case to show that  internal  vindictiveness  and retaliation over  a failed coup  can lead to unexpected  and disruptive  economic chaos  for  a leader  whose selling point  in successive elections  he had won in  Turkey  had  been  on the mantra  or claim  of building  a buoyant economy. Again,  count  no man  lucky  till  he is gone  is  our  rallying cry in  this piece.

    Also ,    in the case of Brazil’s Lula  he was a very  successful  socialist president   –  2003  – 2011-  who  led  a workers party to  win elections  in  2002   in  Brazil  and served two  terms,  ending  up anointing  his Chief of Staff  Dilmar  Roussef   as his successor . Lula  was so  popular  and loved   by  Brazilians  for  bringing the    FIFA  World Cup   and     Rio  Olympics   to  Brazil  in   2014  and  2016  respectively. But  he launched an anti  Corruption campaign called  Operation Car  Wash  based on corruption in   Petrobas   Brazil’s oil   giant   like   our NNPC. Eventually  he  too was accused of taking an apartment as a bribe  or kickback  for a contract  and was jailed  in  2017.  At  the  height  of his trial  which he alleged  was political his successor   Dilmar    a woman  made him   her Chief  of Staff to shield him from  prosecution but that has not saved him. Today  even though he has been  again nominated for the presidential  election, he  too knows that as  a convicted person  he cannot  stand  and has realistically  nominated someone else to replace  him. Certainly  in Lula’s case in Brazil as elsewhere  in   any  democracy    in  this wide world, no  condition is permanent.

    Again  with  Turkey’s strongman President  Erdogan   it  is as if  he has become a modern Sultan  of  Turkey  in the mold  of past  Sultans of  the old Ottoman Empire  -which   once  ruled Europe,-   of which  modern  Turkey  is indeed but its carcass. Erdogan  has  used  the failure  of a coup last year  to purge Turkey of his political  opponents. He  has  asked the US to extradite  and old ally, a Muslim cleric living in the US to  face trial  in Turkey  for masterminding the  coup  for which  he has sacked and jailed  thousands of   civil  servants,  and  military  personnel.  But   the US has  refused  insisting the cleric has been a  law  abiding  US resident .  He  has  even  threatened nations having Turkish  schools  for Turks  abroad  like Nigeria  to close  such schools  because  of the coup  and was  roundly   ignored. So  between   Lula   and Erdogan  it is a case of  a fall  from grace to grass  for  one and   a case  of  blinding   and    arrogant  use   of    power  for the other. Yet  for both  you can still  say  loud   and clear  –  count no man  lucky till  he is dead. Once   again  long live the Federal Republic  of  Nigeria.

  • Before FIFA bans Nigeria

    Nigeria appears to be the only country where thunder strikes on one spot severally. We don’t learn from history. Otherwise, how can we be contending with any likely FIFA ban, having suffered such punishment in the past – precisely in 1996, when the late Gen. Sani Abacha’s regime stopped the Super Eagles from defending their Africa Cup of Nations title, which they won in Tunisia in 1994. They beat Zambia, which was returning to the game after the air crash in which their entire soccer team died. Also in 2010, Nigeria was punished when former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan was advised wrongly to call FIFA’s bluff by an irritant Presidential  Task Force (PTF) committee. Now, we have an August 20 FIFA deadline to put our house in order.

    What has made the deadline interesting is that the world soccer ruling body spared the country’s U-20 girls by stating: “The Nigerian team currently competing in the FIFA U-20 Women’s World Cup France 2018 will still be allowed to continue to participate in the tournament on an exceptional basis, given that the tournament is underway.”

    A ban will stop our teams from featuring in any international competition, including the 2019 AFCON qualifier against Seychelles and the U-17 AFCON Zonal qualifiers in Niger. Both are taking place next month.

    FIFA’s compassionate exception to the U-20 girls is what those pushing for Nigeria’s ban have not considered. Sadly, the girls were edged out of the competition 2-1 by Spain. They must have been traumatised by the needless wrangling at the Glasshouse, which is being orchestrated by the Sports Ministry. And it showed in the way they behaved after the loss, quite unlike in the past when they would be weeping and showing so much emotion over their ouster from the competition by a country they beat 2-1 two years ago in the same competition.

    If FIFA bans Nigeria, the kids of the poor would be grossly affected. They are the ones who form the nucleus of our national teams. No elite’s child plays football. They are the ones in ivy schools across the globe. Besides, those canvassing the ban for self interests won’t be relevant if there are no players to play the game.

    Most of them were unknown until they played for Nigeria. Playing for Nigeria provided the window for them to acquire fame and wealth, which rubbed off on their families. Today, the Kanus, the Odegbamis, Mikel Obis, Atuegbus (Andrew and Alloysius, both of blessed memory), Okalas, Iheanachos, Olisehs, Okochas, Georges (Finidi and his late brother, Igeniwari who was shot at the Liberty Stadium in Ibadan in a fracas after the Challenge Cup match between Enugu Rangers and Stationery Stores FC of Lagos), Nwakalis et al are grateful to their kids for the new dawn in their families.

    In the case of the Okosiemes, their father Cyril was a national team invitee and was a goalkeeper with Bendel Insurance FC of Benin City. CY’s ( like he was called) son, Ndubuisi, played for the Flying Eagles and the Green Eagles. His daughter Nkiru played for the Super Falcons. That is the power of the beautiful game where families embrace it. CY Okosieme died a few years ago a happy man.

    In both instances, the government of the day couldn’t understand why FIFA’s or CAF’s rules should be superior to our Constitution, forgetting that we  voluntarily accepted to abide by both bodies’ rules and regulations, irrespective of what our Constitution provides for. FIFA’s laws are not ambiguous. Part of the body’s rules forbids taking soccer matters to court. There are several levels of seeking redress in the event of infringement on FIFA rules by member nations.

    Nigeria isn’t a first-timer with FIFA. We are tagged the next generation of world beaters, if we play to our potential. It is the meddlesomeness of some of our policy makers that has kept us oscillating on one spot. Otherwise, having won several U-17 World Cup editions, coupled with  and a supersonic performance at our debut World Cup appearance in 1994, where we ranked the fifth best country at the Mundial, we shouldn’t be caught in the web of FIFA sanctions but be seen as a country grooming a likely FIFA president. Therefore, such matters as interpreting FIFA’s rules should come to our administrators as second nature except they want to be mischievous as in this instance.

    “In line with art. 16 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, the Bureau of the FIFA Council decided that if by Monday, 20 August 2018, at 12:00 (CET), the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) offices are not handed back to the legitimate NFF executive committee under President Amaju Melvin Pinnick, who was duly elected on 30 September 2014, the NFF will be suspended with immediate effect for contravening art. 14 par. 1 i) and art. 19, as well as art. 14 par. 1 a) of the FIFA Statutes,” the FIFA statement said.

    “The suspension would be lifted only once the NFF, under President Amaju Melvin Pinnick and General Secretary Mohammed Sanusi, confirms that it has been given back effective control of the NFF and its offices.”

    “Furthermore, the Bureau decided that if the suspension of the NFF takes effect, the Nigerian team currently competing in the FIFA U-20 Women’s World Cup France 2018 will still be allowed to continue to participate in the tournament on an exceptional basis given that the tournament is underway. “

    Are these laws new to our administrators? No. If they didn’t understand what they provide for, why didn’t they seek legal advice instead of pouring odium on the country, with this fresh warning from FIFA?

    Such levels of seeking redress by the aggrieved starts from the country’s available platforms, not civil courts. If the complainant isn’t satisfied, he or she can head for the Court of Arbitration of Sports (CAS), which is the designated body for such matters. CAS’s verdicts are final, like our Supreme Court’s pronouncements. A former Nigeria international, Sylvanus Okpala, got CAS’ verdict, which compelled the NFF to pay him his outstanding allowances. This writer wasn’t surprised that Okpala sought redress at CAS, having played professional football in Portugal until he retired.

    The NFF four-man delegation met with Acting President Yemi Osinbajo at the Aso Rock Villa on Wednesday morning. The Glasshouse chieftains did a presentation of all that transpired and why there is a logjam that has been taken to the civil courts by one of the aggrieved parties, contrary to the tenets of FIFA’s statutes. It is expected that the government will resolve this impasse before the August 20 deadline set by FIFA in the interest of the teeming  fans, who watch the game, especially matches involving Nigeria men and women.

    Nigeria’s population  is said to be close to 200 million. Football and its allied services provide jobs for many. They include stadium attendants, doctors, coaches, physiotherapists, grounds men, players, nurses, ambulance drivers etc, who will become destitute, if Nigeria becomes a pariah nation in FIFA’s calendar.

    Shouldn’t the existing system be allowed to entrench the process of self – financing and accountability that saved us the shame of reading about our players boycotting training in Russia, like it happened in 2014? In the past, we bore the shame of having foreign coaches we hired sue us in the Court of Arbitration of Sports (CAS) and FIFA, seeking payment of their entitlements. That has changed. Plans for the next competition, the Africa Cup of Nations, slated to hold in Cameroon, like it is done in other climes.

    The first fallout of the likely FIFA ban is Victor Moses’ surprising retirement from playing international matches for Nigeria. Moses citied leaving the stage for younger ones to blossom, forgetting that these younger players need the experience of the stars to graduate onto the big stage.

    Moses said he had been to two World Cups in 2014 and 2018 just as he cherished winning the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations diadem for Nigeria in South Africa. Moses has a right to quit the game. But his reasons are farfetched as he may have been disillusioned with the administration of soccer in the country, which currently enmeshed in needless controversies.

    We have seen big players pull out of international assignments like Moses but later changed their minds. I believe strongly that if Nigeria escapes the FIFA hammer, Moses will rescind his decision, especially with subtle pressure by his team mates, NFF chieftains and Nigerians who are close to him. I feel that the talented player has some issues bothering his mind like it happened to Lionel Messi in the past for Argentina, where the Argentine President had to persuade him to return to the national team after meeting with the star.

    But if Moses insists that he has seen his best days with the team, then a proper send forth game should be played for him, where he will play for both sides and have the opportunity to say thank you to all his admirers. Such tapes further encourage the players to give their best to the country, knowing that they would also enjoy such ceremonies which can be shown to their grandkids. It is about time we honoured players of Moses’ stature when they quit the national team. It should be part of our culture. This isn’t for footballers only. All sportsmen and women who have distinguished themselves deserve a worthy pull out and, possibly, national honours. That is the way it is done in countries where sports is a way of life.

  • Beyond Lawal Daura

    At the end of the day, the sacked Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Mr. Lawal Daura, may have done our democracy, the polity and the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari a great deal of good by his inexplicable decision, on Tuesday, August 7, to deploy about 100 mostly masked operatives to lay siege to the National Assembly barring access into the premises for hours.

    The real motive and influencing actors behind Daura’s action remain, so far, in the realm of conjecture. Was he acting out the script of members of the ruling party who ardently desired a change in the leadership of the National Assembly particularly the Senate? Could he bizarrely have been a willing puppet in the hands of a desperate Senator Bukola Saraki and his supporters who needed to win a substantial degree of public sympathy at all costs? Only a thorough going probe can unveil the truth. For now, Daura has borne the brunt as the man at whose desk the buck stops at the DSS. The only rational conclusion was that  the decision was solely that of Daura without consultation with higher authorities. This certainly should be a poignant lesson to all those tempted to utilize the agencies they head for purposes indefensible by law at the behest of forces that can so easily deny them if thing go awry.

    By moving decisively to terminate Daura’s appointment in defence of constitutionalism, democracy and the rule of law, Acting President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), sent a strong signal that the Buhari administration could indeed act to check lawlessness or disregard for duly constituted authority. His National Assembly misadventure was obviously only the last straw that broke Daura’s professional back. He had been accused of several earlier infractions that simply beggar belief.

    If Daura’s dismissal from his very powerful and influential office demonstrates to other officers both within and beyond the top security hierarchy of the administration that no one is above the law despite PMB’s legendary patience and willingness to give his appointees a long rope, it would have served a useful purpose. We can recall, for instance, the tolerant stance that the President adopted towards Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, when he was informed on an official visit to Benue that the IG had flouted presidential orders to relocate to the state to check killings arising from herdsmen/farmers clashes. Those who think the administration possesses infinite patience to indulge impunity and that they can graduate from lower levels of lawlessness to ever spiraling heights of arbitrariness will surely be nudged to have a re-think.

    It is also not impossible that the seeming indifference, even complicity, of civil society elements including the media, intelligentsia and Civil Society Organizations to Daura’s alleged serial violations of the rule of law may have fuelled the sacked spymaster’s contempt for the law, democratic tenets and constitutionalism. When he raided the residences of Supreme Court justices or refused to release detainees on court orders, for instance, there was largely silence from these quarters. The conventional wisdom in public discourse when a few voices raised questions about the dangers of not fighting corruption within the framework of the rule of law was that such a notion was a luxury as corruption had to be vigorously and frontally tackled.

    The problem is that until the extant 1999 constitution is changed, it is only the law courts that can validly determine who is guilty of corruption or not. Anti-graft agencies under the control of the executive cannot just label individuals or groups as corrupt and unilaterally go ahead to indict and punish them. This indulgent posture of mainstream civil society may easily mislead those in positions of state authority to the conclusion that arbitrary and extra-judicial ways of fighting corruption enjoy popular support.

    One notable exception was frontline human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) who never ceased to advocate strenuously, for instance, for the release of illegally detained persons by the DSS under the watch of Daura. This, of course, is not to exonerate or say that those senior lawyers who seem to have made it their trademark to defend virtually all allegedly corrupt persons in the courts of law and employing all the tricks in their books to prolong the trials of their clients undulydo not frustrate the efforts of fighting corruption within the law. But that cannot be an excuse for the resort to arbitrariness or self-help by a government fighting corruption. In any case, it would appear to me that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) has substantially taken care of these sorts of issues with some high profile cases successfully brought to a closure with indictments and prison terms following.

    Another factor that could have encouraged Daura in his National Assembly misadventure is the perceived widespread opprobrium with which the body is held by many Nigerians. He may have calculated that Nigerians hold the legislators in so much contempt that nobody would raise a finger at his atrocity. Yes, it is true that we may dislike, even absolutely condemn the way the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Senator Bukola Saraki and Honourable Yakubu Dogara, respectively, emerged as leaders of the National Assembly at the beginning of the 8th session as this column has severally done. Saraki has gone further to compound matters by defecting back to his former party, the PDP, without giving any indication of his willingness to relinquish the office of Senate President. The National Chairman of the APC, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, has forcefully pointed out the absurdity of the Senate being led by a member of the minority party in the chamber.  Indeed, as it were both the Senate President and his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, would now both come from the minority PDP. It is an unpleasant scenario.

    What we have on our hands, however, is in my view a matter of morality and not legality. Once the ruling party could not get its acts right at the commencement of the 8th cycle of the National Assembly due to the ill advised indifference of the President and the inexplicable impotence and lethargy of the erstwhile party leadership, the dynamics of balance of political forces within both chambers determined the outcome of their leadership contest. The challenge for the Oshiomhole-led National Working Committee (NWC) of the APC is to find a way of achieving its desired reconstitution of the leadership of the Senate to reflect the numerical strength of the parties in a manner  that is not inconsistent with the tenets of the constitution.

    No less galling, and justifiably so, to millions of Nigerians is the humongous allowances of between N13.5m and N15m that the legislators take home monthly in a badly impoverished country like ours. On this issue, I believe that the President can utilize the powers of his office to obtain all necessary information on the allowances of the legislators and lay all the facts before the public. He would thus be using the ‘bully pulpit’ of his office to mobilize public opinion in forcing the legislators to drastically cut down on their opulence.

    But to persistently denigrate the credibility and integrity of the legislature as an institution, in my view, does not bode well for democracy.  True, the notion of Separation of Powers as well as checks and balances is not meant to constitute a constitutional gridlock against the smooth running of government. But it would be a sorry day indeed in which the legislature becomes a rubber stamp to the executive at the national level. In the final analysis, the fate of any errant legislator rests with the electorate to determine through free and fair elections.

    The unfortunate Lawal Daura affair also brings to the fore, once again, the perceived immersion of security agencies in politics on the side of Any Government in Power. This, of course, has always been the case even before the commencement of this civilian dispensation in 1999.  This is one area where the ruling APC can initiate positive change to bequeath to the nation a security architecture that enjoys relative autonomy from the suffocating grip of any incumbent government.

    Really, the excesses and over zealousness  of some of the security and anti-corruption agencies can only be of negligible political value to PMB. Whatever may be the  challenges the ruling APC is facing and the perception of its level of performance as regards its change agenda, PMB still retains sufficient popular goodwill because of his own personal moral qualities to comfortably win the next election. The security agencies should not compound his problems through unsolicited partisan zealotry.

  • Moralising the gale of political defections

    In the past two weeks and more, Nigeria has been inundated by defections as politicians continue their jostle to be relevant and achieve strategic placements within and across party lines. The defections have been fairly osmotic, with the solvent political gladiators moving more from the burgeoning All Progressives Congress (APC) to the breathless, diminished and somewhat disoriented Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Similar movements were observed in 2014, before the 2015 elections, as angry and displaced politicians moved cheek by jowl from the then ruling PDP to the impressionable and hesitant APC. Few are surprised that the annual peregrinations have now begun in earnest.

    There will always be defections, perhaps not on the scale witnessed before the 2015 polls and this year’s, but the defections will in all likelihood continue to be anchored on extraneous and sometimes flimsy reasons rather on solid and ideological factors. As long as poverty subsists and overwhelms, and the country’s political and economic structures are not radically reformed and transformed, the attitude towards public office and politics will remain fundamentally narrow and predatory. Politicians will, therefore, subordinate the more ennobling task of public service to the demeaning and amoral search for pork and greener pastures.

    It was important that both the ruling party and President Muhammadu Buhari correctly gauge the mood of the country and examine the factors that predispose Nigerian politics to the constant display of amorality witnessed in the past few weeks, and earlier in 2014. Instead, the APC has been scurrilous in its dismissal of the defectors, and the president has on his own embraced grand moralisations, even viewing the defections as God’s pruning hook to sanitise and sanctify the ruling party. It is not clear that they have accurately depicted a process that has become, to many, sickeningly familiar, for the defections, while sometimes and even often objectionable, are not a moral issue. Going by the scale of the defections, they in fact indicate deep fissures within the polity and the grating mismatch between the yearnings of the electorate and the ambitions of their representatives.

    Speaking at a rally in Bauchi organised to support the candidacy of Lawal Gumau who is campaigning for the Bauchi South senatorial bye-election, President Buhari alluded to the defections as God continuing “to fish out the bad eggs among us.” In a statement credited to his spokesman, Femi Adesina, the president said: “The work we are doing is because of God, our country and you. I want to inform you that with the knowledge we have garnered over the years, we won’t allow you to be cheated. Like we promised, what will determine a good future for the country are security, strong economy and to stop corruption. We campaigned on these things, you voted for us and we will never forget…”

    The problem the president did not address is why God should pay special attention to his party above the others, or view his party as more righteous than any other. It is always problematic infusing religion with politics in a secular country, and where even atheists reserve the right not to be discriminated against on any ground. The president can speak of ideology, if he has one, propound political theories of his choosing, assert his party’s rights anyway he deems fit, sell his party’s manifestoes and programmes in glowing terms, and love his party to unfathomable end. But to insinuate that God is not at work in other parties, or to suggest that after the defections only the righteous would remain in the APC, is stretching the controversy beyond polemical limits.

    It is not surprising that the proselytising approach to politics adopted by the president has triggered unsavoury, excessive and unconstitutional responses from law enforcement and security agencies. Shortly after Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue State defected from the APC, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) swooped on the state to initiate probes and investigations. Some of the probes are believed to have resulted in the unconstitutional measure of freezing the accounts of the state. Not to be left out, the police, as is their custom, and presuming to be only interested in forestalling the breakdown of law and order, aided and abetted a futile attempt to impeach the governor. They incongruously provided cover for some eight Benue State lawmakers to work on the impeachment effort, and barred the majority from gaining access into the legislative chambers. The desperate attempt has miscarried, but not before indicating clearly that the federal government is unable to have a proper understanding of the defections saga, not to talk of adopting the right approach to building a great and enduring democracy.

    The Senate President, Bukola Saraki, is undoubtedly Machiavellian, and his politics often lacks substance and is destitute of ideology. Most other defectors to the PDP are hewn from the same morally and ideologically barren rock. But there is no denying the fact that the APC has itself been ideologically inconsistent, administratively incompetent, and in large parts ethically indistinguishable from the PDP. For the past three years, it has not propounded or provided any new insight into the concept of the rule of law, or of justice both within the party and outside, or of the rights of the people and the obligations of government. Indeed, the jury is out on which of the two leading parties is more ethically challenged.

    With the president unable to develop a proper understanding of the dynamics of the defections, and with APC leaders downright peevish about politicians migrating from their fold, it may take much longer for Nigeria to put an end to the political opportunism that undergirds and frequently convulses Nigerian politics. The feisty new chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomhole, has averred that ideological politics would curb defections and opportunism. At least he is original and thoughtful. But even then he may have oversimplified a problem that is evidently rooted in the complex and malformed structure of the country. In fact, apart from the calls for restructuring, indications are beginning to emerge that Nigeria may be faring much worse under presidentialism than it fared under parliamentarianism. What these suppositions imply is that without a fundamental rearrangement of the country, and with increasing poverty and incompetent leadership, the spectre of defections and opportunism will neither end nor be minimised.

    It is unlikely that the president will change his perspective on the defections, even though he has in the same breath contradistinctively welcomed defections into his own party. In addition, no one should expect the APC to be less strident about denouncing the defectors as it goes to extraordinary lengths, like the president, to welcome defectors from the PDP. And it would be overly sanguine to hope that the APC, which could not even summon the discipline to implement its manifesto on the so-called true federalism, would develop a blueprint to sanitise Nigerian politics and structure it for the long visionary haul. With the situation remaining very desperate and confused, with the country unable to produce great leaders across the hobbled parties, and with Nigerians themselves yielding supinely to the execrable politics that has impoverished the country and turned it into a continental laggard, there seems to be little hope that politics in these parts would ever be sanitised or regain scrupulousness.

    But rather than engage in a war of words with the PDP, the ruling APC must make greater efforts to deconstruct the defection phenomenon within the context of Nigerian politics. The party needs to eschew its simplistic understanding of the crisis; and it needs to ginger its leading apparatchiks, particularly the president who wields inordinate influence over the party, to adopt a saner, more sensible and level-headed approach to reorienting Nigerian politics. It must not think it can bludgeon the opposition and defectors into submission; nor should it sanctimoniously hope that in the end it can ethically outlast and outperform the PDP. It is a chimera. For 16 years, the PDP carried on recklessly and superficially as if another day and era would not come, as if it could self-perpetuate endlessly. It is truly tragic that the APC, sensing that they cannot play the sublime politics evinced by their manifesto, appears to be treading the same thorny and sanguinary path that ultimately doomed their predecessor.