The Nation Newspaper

Category: Saturday

  • Ikoyi cash haul and controversial whistle-blowers

    Ikoyi cash haul and controversial whistle-blowers

    It testifies to the federal government’s slothfulness in the anti-corruption war, and particularly the whistle-blower policy, that the identity of the principal character that facilitated the unearthing of the cash hidden by the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) at an apartment in Ikoyi is now well known. He is Stephen Sunday, and he is angry, fumes at being maligned, and feels cheated and misused. It is, however, not only the government that is mistreating him, according to his angry complaint last week, even two lawyers are fighting over him in an unseemly, controversial way. The two lawyers are Yakubu Galadima and No Limit Legal Partners. As if the situation could not be much worse than it already is, the identity of Mr Sunday’s two other whistle-blowing collaborators have also been publicised. They are Bala Usman and Abdulmumin Musa.

    While Mr Galadima acknowledges the existence of three whistle-blowers, but was chary of disclosing the identity of the third, No Limits Legal Partners happily divulged the identities of all the three whistle-blowers. Both lawyers were pushed to going public because they suspected the government was trying to renege on its policy of paying five percent of the value of any stolen public funds to any whistle-blower who gives actionable intelligence to the authorities. As the lawyers go for broke, the whistle-blowers themselves have abandoned all sense of decorum and caution, unmindful of the consequences to their personal safety of being unmasked. Mr Sunday gives interviews and, according to some reports, even openly fought one of the whistle-blowers who advocated a different approach to getting the stashed NIA money.

    There is no evidence to show that the government is as organised and farsighted as it claims. If they were, they would not allow the situation to degenerate to the sordid level that has become evident, with the possibility of endangering a policy that is widely acclaimed as sensible, timely and rewarding. They would have taken advantage of the open brawl between two of the whistle-blowers to find out whether there is any truth in the allegation that one of them schemed for a burglary or armed robbery to criminally gain access to the cash. Instead, the government has cynically suggested that many more people were coming forward to lay claim to the five percent compensation. From all indications, the compensation may be delayed further.

    To demonstrate the government’s inability to implement the whistle-blowing policy faithfully, its range of reactions to the policy has been desultory and peevish. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) openly celebrated the multi-millionaire status of the whistle-blower, asserting, apparently without substantiation, that Mr Sunday, whose name it did not disclose at the time, was already rich. This was the trigger that provoked all the brouhaha that later enveloped the payment imbroglio. In reaction, the lawyers to the whistle-blower insisted that his client(s) had not been paid, challenging the EFCC to give proof. To arrest the controversy, the Finance minister, Kemi Adeosun, explained that the payment was being processed, and listed a number of steps that had to be taken to ensure that the right amount and persons were paid.

    While that controversy was still raging, reports suggested that the sanity of the whistle-blower was also being questioned. And after crazily shuffling him between the EFCC and the Department of State Service (DSS), Mr Sunday was eventually dumped in a psychiatric hospital with no evidence of anything more than the hysteria he displayed when he noticed the refusal of the government to fulfil its obligations towards him. He is out of hospital now, and is still hysterical, insisting that he would not relent until he is paid. As expected, he no longer cares about his safety. Meanwhile, he and his lawyers acknowledge that there are two other claimants to the prize with whom he is willing to share the fortune.

    But to add fuel to the fire, head of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Itse Sagay, justified the delay in paying the whistle-blowers with a logic the Finance ministry would find befuddling. Estimating the commission on the stashed cash to be some N850m, Prof Sagay suggested that Mr Sunday, whom he said had probably never seen one million naira in his life, could run mad should that huge sum be given to him. He supports and advocates payment in tranches, regardless of what the original whistle-blower policy might be. It may make economic sense to pay the whistle-blower in tranches, but if that is not contained in the policy, it would be wrong of the government to change the rules halfway into implementation. The government may wish to be sympathetic, and there is much to be said for that, and act with motherly care; but whether the beneficiary runs mad or not is really not the business of the government. They should pay him or them first, and only care later. Rules are rules, and the law is the law.

    The reluctance, if not outright refusal, of the government to promptly abide by its own rules has led to a lot of complications over the N13bn Ikoyi cash haul. Now there are at least three proven claimants to the huge commission and two legal outfits pursuing the same objective of forcing the government to redeem its pledge. Some even estimate that there could be many more claimants, with the list being elongated as time goes on. By allowing itself to be distracted, the government inadvertently opened itself to allegations of acting mala fide and even endangering the entire policy. It is a crying shame. While no one disputes the government’s right to ensure that the right procedure is followed in paying out the commission, it is sadly also clear that the suspicion is well founded that the government is reluctant to pay because the N850m commission is huge.

    But there is a redemptive side to the sad story the controversy over the delayed payment has become. Had the government been careful and altruistic, it would have secretly ordered investigations into how the three claimants got wind of the cash stash. Was there any internal NIA collaboration? How did the three men, one of whom allegedly advocated burglary to gain access to the money, discover the cash? Could they, or one of them, in fact be fronts for operatives of the NIA? And if it is true that one of them advocated for forceful entry into the NIA safe house to seize the money, could he have criminal background? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Instead, the government threw the psychiatry red herring before the public, and then in panic promised to pay the claimant(s) in tranches.

    It is unlikely there will ever again be  the discovery of such a huge cash stash. But regardless of this, it may be time for the government to look for ways of refining what is otherwise a very good policy designed to discourage and minimise corruption. It has irresponsibly failed to put in place policies and security measures to protect whistle-blowers. Now is the time to establish that framework. It has also not demonstrated finesse and efficiency in paying commissions to those who facilitate the discoveries, whether huge or small. It must now summon the discipline to do so. It must also, finally, put in place watertight plans to discretely investigate the backgrounds of whistle-blowers themselves. The process is as important as the outcome.

    Meanwhile, the federal government must urgently remedy the nonsense it has made of the Ikoyi cash haul. It does no credit to its image as a serious government fighting corruption that it gave out contradictory signals and even made cynical statements about the cash haul. If they are not to discourage future whistle-blowers and kill the policy piecemeal, they must find the discipline and good sense to urgently repair the damage done to this extraordinary policy.

  • Many sides of Maina

    Many sides of Maina

    Abdulrasheed Maina popped up about seven years ago when senior citizens needed him most. Those were days when gaunt, weak and shrivelled figures of pensioners were making their way to verification centres. Their story was common, a staple of the media in those days. Many of them died in penury and agony, many too sickly and weak to present themselves for verification. Some rode on wheelchairs or on the backs of their children or grandchildren or benevolent neighbours.

    In a country where tragedy often strikes and deadens people’s sense of horror, many still managed to be horrified by the plight of retirees. Not merely because of the manifest challenges they face on their way to the verification queues but also because government officials whose business it was to manage pension funds and save the pensioners hassles were the ones helping themselves to the cash trove. It was reported in those days that fake names were often on the pension books, and that public figures who had access to pension cash often did everything imaginable and unimaginable to defraud the retirees.

    It was in those odious days that Mr Maina showed up charged with the task of cleaning up the rotten pension system. Then president Goodluck Jonathan set up a task force on pension reform with Mr Maina as its chair. And, boy, what did the Borno State-born civil servant find? It took him only a few peeks into the system to see how billions of naira was ending up in the pockets of unscrupulous individuals.

    Mr Maina was an instant hit, and could have won any election in Borno or Abuja. He was a champion, a crime buster and problem solver. That was his best side.

    Other versions soon became visible. For no sooner had he discovered the leaky taps and leeches of the pension system than it was alleged that Mr Maina himself had creamed off a sizable chunk of what he dug up. A stir in Dr Jonathan’s government attracted the police and senate’s attention, and Mr Maina became a puzzle, a mystery, a subject of investigation. He disappeared into the proverbial thin air, supposedly chased by both the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and international police, as reports had it that he was actually living large in some choice destinations far beyond the borders. That was the fugitive.

    But there are other Mainas, such as the returnee, the reinstated, the promoted and the glorified.

    Returning to the country, Mr Maina was given a hero’s welcome, moved two steps up the civil service ladder and crowned with a director’s office in the ministry of interior.

    Everything about Mr Maina attracted attention, and so did his return and reinstatement, only that this time it was disgust and outcry that trailed him. The questions were many. Who facilitated the fugitive’s return? And why? Why was he reinstated and promoted, and by whom? Whither the integrity and anti-corruption war of President Muhammadu Buhari?

    The stench of the Maina saga was more than President Buhari could stand, so he ordered his sack and a quick investigation of the matter.

    Mr Maina has fled, again, but not before he said he had dirt on a large number of highly-placed individuals who shared the loot. His family has rallied to his defence, saying he is actually a miracle worker, not a thief. The family has also said the Buhari administration brought him back to help in the anti-graft fight.

    The presidency has not responded to Mr Maina’s family’s claim as vigorously and convincingly as it should. That may not be admission of guilt, yet, after all, Mr President is not known for speaking up or acting promptly even in the face of serious and unfavorable public perceptions. It took him an uncomfortably long time to relieve Babachir Lawal and Ayodele Oke of their positions, after the one, secretary to the government of the federation at the time, was accused of some dirty contract deals, and the other, a spy chief, could not come up with a cogent explanation for a dizzying pile of cash found in a Lagos apartment.

    President Buhari has ordered Mr Maina’s immediate sack but he has to do more than that. It is plausible that some members of his cabinet could plot and execute certain acts without the president’s knowledge or approval. But Mr Maina’s reinstatement and promotion should not be one of those acts. Why? It hurts everyone, but it hurts the president and his administration the more. In the thick of the Maina saga, some reports said a minister in President Buhari’s government tried to knock the EFCC off Maina’s trail.

    This is not a matter the president should hope time will sort out eventually. He must quickly determine the culpability or otherwise of his lieutenants in the matter and act appropriately. In the case of guilt, a slap on the wrist will not do. Everything depends on it. The senior citizens will hope that justice is served. People who believe that the years of rot under the unprincipled PDP government should end with the enthronement of the APC will be happy to see the guilty get their comeuppance. So will those who, in 2015, voted integrity rather than perpetuation of recklessness.

    Not doing more than just sacking Mr Maina can potentially pull down, brick by brick, the sturdy structure President Buhari laboured to build over the years. And should that happen, Mr Maina would have shown his most devastating side yet, that of the undertaker, the vanquisher.

  • Of culture and structure

    Of culture and structure

    In chapter three of his classic, ‘Class, Ethnicity and Democracy in Nigeria’, which focuses on the failure of Nigeria’s first republic but has enduring lessons for the country’s contemporary politics, Professor Larry Diamond opens with quotes from two of the country’s nationalist leaders that are relevant to current debates on constitutional re-engineering or restructuring of Nigeria. The first is an excerpt from Dr. Nnmadi Azikiwe’s inaugural address as Governor-General of Nigeria in 1960. In Azikwe’s words then “Parliamentary government has been attempted in Nigeria and we have proved more than equal to the task…What remains for us to do now is to dedicate our lives anew to the fascinating task of nation building. The past is gone with all its bitterness and rancor and recriminations. The future is before us and great events await the leadership of the wise and brave”. Dr Azikwe’s statement reflects a confidence in both the parliamentary and possibly the regional structure of the time. But we cannot overlook his emphasis on the leadership of the ‘wise and brave’. That is not a function of structure but culture.

    The second quote by Professor Diamond is by Chief Obafemi Awolowo at a speech delivered to the Seventh Congress of the Action Group on 19th September 1960. In the words of Awo “It is imperative…that the parties in power for the time being should…faithfully adhere to the principles and practice of liberal democracy. If by any unfortunate mischance or deliberate premeditation, democracy and the rule of law were murdered, stifled or repressed, reason and moderation would of necessity cease to rule the hearts of many a well-meaning and devoted Nigerian”.

    This column is still firm in the view that our challenges are larger in our attitudes and values than our political structures and constitutional orientation. Dr Azikwe’s quote above demonstrates a fervent belief in the virtues of parliamentary and liberal democracy. He was right. The structures were excellent. But Awo from the quote above was more focused on the behavioral attitudes of the leadership. At the end of the day it was this negative mindset that spurred the abandonment of  ‘reason and moderation’ that Awolowo warned about.

    In his latest book covering about 320 pages, twelve chapters and five informative appendices, titled ‘Nigerian Law on Socio-Economic rights’ Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) offers in my view insights on how the present constitution can be exploited to advance the cause of the underprivileged and dispossessed in Nigeria. It is not impossible that the distinguished senior advocate may not agree with my reading of his work. But that book, which I intend to take a more detailed look at later in this column, offers revealing perspectives on both the strengths and weaknessesd of the extant constitution. In my view, Mr. Falana’s book should have been more appropriately entitled ‘A Political Economy of the Nigerian Constitution’.Incidentally a section in professors Toyin Falola and Julius Ihonvbere’s book on‘The Rise and Fall of Nigeria’s Second Republic’ focuses on  the political economy of the 1979 constitution. Unfortunately, in dismissing the 1999 constitution, many analysts including some of our most profound legal minds appear to be completely oblivious of its political and legal antecedents.

    What Mr. Falana’s book demonstrates is that socio economic rights can be effectively pursued within the existing constitutional framework. Of course, the renowned human rights lawyer is nobody’s apologist. He should be as opposed to the present constitutional order as anybody. Falana suffered along with Gani Fawehinmi  of blessed memory and others in the military gulag. But his book convinces me more than ever that a lot of good can still be done under the present constitution to promote the public good in the interest of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of the people.

    Let me return to Professor Larry Diamond’s book again on the intricate relations between culture and structure in Nigerian politics. In his difficult to fault words “The repression, violence and fanaticism of political competition in the 1950s signified – despite elite protestations to the contrary – a weak commitment to democratic values in Nigeria”. Can we confidently and honestly say that there is any stronger commitment to democratic values in Nigeria today? If the resort to the presidential system, contrary to expectations, did not change our value orientation as a people, will a regression to the parliamentary system and regionalism do the magic? This cannot be anything but wishful thinking.

    For those fixated on a return to the past, let me quote again a studied and dispassionate scholar on Nigerian Politics, Professor Diamond, “Constitutionally, Nigeria had a federal structure at Independence, but it was a structure fraught with tensions and contradictions. The number, size and boundaries of the Regions gave rise to several interrelated difficulties”.The creation of states may have been abused under military rule particularly under the Babangida and Abacha regimes, but it was still a development that advanced federalism in Nigeria. How many states will be willing today to be collapsed in a regional structure romantically and unrealistically advocated by a few? The viewpoint of this column remains consistent. A change in structure without a transformation of values will yield no positive result.

  • Waiting for Argentina

    Injuries have been very unkind to key Nigerian and Argentine players ahead of the November 14 clash in Russia. It has taken the spark out of the game, with key players such as Lionel Messi and John Mikel Obi, waiting for the Mundial for a likely showdown. Messi’s absence isn’t because of injuries. Messi is out of the game in partial fulfilment of his contractual obligations to his European club, Barcelona FC of Spain. Barca’s coach wants Messi to rest for the daunting European tasks. Will you blame the coach? He who pays the piper calls the tunes. A sigh of relief for Mikel, but it won’t be an easy game, considering the presence of Di Maria, Aguero et al in the Argentine side. Di Maria’s goal cost Nigeria the gold medal in the final of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

    Both countries want the game, going by the stories that the Argentines rejected offers from Ukraine and Azeberjian that are better placed on FIFA ranking than Nigeria. Nigeria got the Argentines’ nod because  of our players’ exploits with their European clubs. Besides, the Argentines have had remarkable experience playing against Nigeria, especially this golden generation of players in Argentina.  The Argentines still point at Nigeria’s 3-2 victory over them at the Atlanta’96 Olympic Games as one of their saddest moments. Will you blame them? We had such great players as Nwankwo Kanu, Austin Okocha, Daniel Amokachi, Emmanuel Amuneke, Sunday Oliseh, Taribo West, Uche Okechukwu et al.

    On November 14, the Argentines won’t be seeing Samson Siasia on the bench. Siasia has lost thrice to the Argentines. He got his pound of flesh against them in Nigeria with a 4-1 whiplash at the National Stadium in Abuja.

    The November 14 encounter best suits Nigeria because we have been crippled by injuries to key players, such as Ogenyi Onazi, Simon Moses, Odion Ighalo, Victor Moses and recuperating goalkeeper Carl Ikeme. This setting has made it mandatory for Coach Gernot Rohr to field new players who have been warming the bench when the big boys held forte.

    Eagles’ biggest test for Rohr will be goalkeeping where I expect the manager to field the two goalkeepers at the appropriate time in the game for them to prove their mettle. Perhaps field one goalkeeper per half. Most pundits believe that one of the weakest points in the Eagles is in goalkeeping. They want Vincent Enyeama back. A good choice if he is fit, irrespective of fears of leadership tussle between Eneyama and Mikel.

    Rohr will try Mikel, Oghenekaro Etebo, Wilfred Ndidi and Alex Iwobi in the midfield. Etebo and Iwobi will be replacing Simon Moses and Onazi, who are injured. The Argentines have a galaxy of intelligent midfielders, such as Di Maria. The Argentines have very fast strikers, who have been scoring goals for their European clubs. One is excited that Troost Ekong and Leon Balogun are fit. It will be nice to see how they battle it out with the sleek Argentine side.

    Rohr should know that the Argentines are not formidable at the rear, which explains why their coach is ruing the absence of Manchester City defender Otemandi. Unfortunately, Nigeria will be missing Victor Moses, Odion Ighalo and Moses Simon in the attacking section. Perhaps, Iwobi and Iheanacho can trouble the Argies.

    Feelers from Russia suggest that the weather is at near freezing point, but that shouldn’t trouble our players who play in Europe and are used to such unsavoury weather conditions.  This is the first reward for the players with this game in Russia. I hope that NFF chiefs will seize this trip to scout for training grounds, camping centres and hotels where they hope to keep the team next year.

    Based on FIFA ranking, Nigeria shouldn’t beat Argentina. But it is a different game with shocking results, where ‘’minnows’’ upset the big boys. A win for Nigeria will boost the players’ confidence. It will throw up new options for Rohr to plot his World Cup strategies. Victory for the Eagles will increase the competition level for first team shirts.

    Nigeria appears to be a team of 11 players. Only Grade A matches, such as the one against as the Argentines, can push our boys to give their best as the world waits for the fixtures on the Russia 2018 World Cup to be drawn on December 2.

    I hope NFF chieftains can organise more top grade games for the Eagles before the Mundial to help the coaches blend the players properly. NFF’s men must ensure that the Eagles play a send-off game in Nigeria before the World Cup to give Nigerians the chance of seeing their ambassadors to the Mundial against a big football nation – Brazil, Germany and Spain. Interestingly, Rohr has pleaded with NFF chiefs to get a send off game for the Eagles in Nigeria. that is how it is done. Other climes renowned for soccer always get their teams to play the last preparatory game at home. Such games precede a buffet later at night with the head of government of such coun tries. The reception will further strengthen the players’ resolve to do well at the Mundial.

    Indeed, when countries head for the World Cup, they do so with great ceremony. It is always a spectacle to behold countries with national airlines land in World Cup venues with the airplanes emblazoned with these countries’ flags and colours. When will Nigeria join the party of countries which celebrate their arrival at big sporting event now that we seem to have found the key to qualifying for the World Cup?

    It is always shameful seeing Nigeria’s delegation arrive in competition venues in batches. Our administrators like it because it hides their ineptitude. But the message is sent when our big stars are part of such batches. Our stars’ arrivals are always captured in lousy dressings unlike their contemporaries who arrive in neatly cut designer suits in one delegation. 

    2018 marks Nigeria’s sixth appearance at the Mundial. Are we arriving in Russia in batches? Will the Eagles be wearing all manner of apparels as if they are going to the beach? What has happened to our national dresses which show who we are? We seem to be destined to arrive in Russia in foreign airlines, but we can still get attention if our players deck our national attires. When will Nigeria have a national carrier? That is discussion for another day.

     

    Thank you Emenalo

     

    Michael Emenalo has quit Chelsea honourably, with the owner Roman Abramovich and board members acknowledging his laudable contributions towards lifting the club to new heights after 10 years.

    Emenalo came with Avran Grant, a former coach of Chelsea. He remained after Grant left, working behind the scene to recruit the right players and give the owner quality advice which have made Chelsea the brand that it is today.

    In his 10 years at Chelsea, Emenalo fought battles with new managers, who wanted to annexe his behind the scene jobs to their coaching assignment. He  won all the battles, twice against the Special One Jose Mourinho. The owner stood by Emenalo, who earned his trust and confidence. With Emenalo’s help, Chelsea have won the Premier League title three times, the FA Cup, the League Cup, the Europa League and the Champions League while he has been at the club.

    Stories from Chelsea’s Cobham training ground last week suggested a rift between Coach Antonio Conte and David Luiz. Emenalo’s exit is said to be a fallout of the rift. Emenalo has left Chelsea with dignity, not trying to destroy what he built simply because Conte wants to do his job. It is quite cheery that Chelsea’s owner has acknowledged this quality in Emenalo with this statement on his exit.

    The statement states: ‘’ It is with regret that the owner and board of directors accepted Michael’s resignation this week. He has had a tremendous impact on the club over the past 10 years and this is evident in everything we have achieved. We are sorry to see him go but understand his desire to move on and explore new challenges.’’

    Emenalo told the media in London that: ‘’ After 10 years here, 10 wonderful successful years, but very demanding years, it is a very difficult thing to decide to step aside. It is entirely my decision and it has come about for very simple reasons. I need an opportunity to get to see my young kids grow and also to step back and reflect on the work that I have done here and the things that we have been able to accomplish together in this great club.

    ‘’It is something I have been thinking about for quite some time now and it is something I have discussed with my family and they understand the reasons and timing for wanting to step aside,’’ Emenalo.

    Thank you Emenalo.

  • Maina and the EFCC-DSS turf wars

    Maina and the EFCC-DSS turf wars

    Until President Muhammadu Buhari cuts the Abdulrasheed Maina Gordian knot, the controversy over his reinstatement will continue to expand until it consumes more public officials. Hopefully, the president will summon the will to cut the knot soon. For a controversy that began almost surreptitiously, it is indeed baffling that the jobs of top government officials are on the line. Mr Maina, Chairman of the defunct Presidential Task Force on Pension Reforms, had been sacked by the Goodluck Jonathan government in 2013 when his committee got embroiled in the financial malfeasances it was supposed to curb in pension administration. Since then he had been bidding his time, a virtual fugitive from the law after he was declared wanted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Suddenly, a few weeks ago, the country woke up to discover that Mr Maina had been recalled, reinstated, transferred to the Interior ministry, and promoted. On top of these measures, his campaign posters littered Borno State where he was suspected to be interested in vying for the 2019 governorship race. It was not only Borno State that was disquieted, even the federal civil service was ill at ease over his surreptitious and defiant reinstatement, not to say promotion. After a media storm broke out in consequence, inter-agency turf wars between the EFCC and the Department of State Service (DSS) also followed immediately. Soon, the dual inter-agency wars expanded to become a tripartite war with the office of the Head of Service dragged in. And by the time details of Mr Maina’s reinstatement became public knowledge, reports soon indicated that more than three agencies were involved. There was, in fact, a fourth, the Interior ministry, and a fifth, the Justice ministry.

    At the last count, the heads of the affected agencies and ministries were hardly on talking terms. The public always knew that many of the agencies under President Buhari had a difficult relationship with one another. But no one knew the scale, nor how disturbing it had become, nor how fraught with terrible repercussions the rivalries really were. Now, tempers are much more inflamed, and reconciliation almost impossible. For what began as a mere inter-agency rivalry, with its disconcerting administrative connotations, quickly metamorphosed into a deeply emotive and personal animosity. More damagingly, the rivalry now laid bare the divisions that have bifurcated the Buhari presidency in unprecedented ways. Roughly speaking, the Justice and Interior ministries are on one side together with the DSS and possibly one or two close aides of the president; while on the other side is the EFCC together, it seems, with the public, particularly the media and civil society organisations.

    Had the war broken out privately and fought behind closed doors, reconciliation might conceivably be possible and even easy. But it is being fought garishly in the open, before gleeful, giggling public, and to the immense satisfaction of interested stakeholders adamant about bloodshed. How the president hopes to forge reconciliation is hard to see, especially with the Head of Service, Winifred Oyo-Ita, becoming collaterally riled by the expanding nature of the conflict. As the war intensifies, with occasional lulls in the fight, the character of each of the combatants comes out in sharp relief. The DSS has maintained its cynical posture, its comments intermittently laced with deep and mystifying sarcasm. When the EFCC was quoted as saying it had no knowledge of the presence of Mr Maina in the country, the DSS scoffed that “Maina had been in the country for some time and it would be absurd for someone who should know to claim ignorance of his being around.”

    The Interior ministry, hitherto unused to the brutal jousting of the armed agencies, has waffled and quibbled to no end, sometimes clumsily and unprofessionally passing the buck to other agencies, despite being in the thick of the conspiracy that saw the reinstatement of the luckless pension reforms boss. The ministry simply suggested, armed with relevant letters, that the Civil Service Commission transferred Mr Maina to the Interior ministry. After first claiming that it based its actions in the whole saga on court judgements, the Justice ministry, the originator of the offending reinstatement and transfer letters, later indicated that the time to speak was yet to come. It probably hoped that the controversy would die down if more information was not released. That has not happened because the Head of Service, fearing the matter would sooner rather than later come to a head, had taken the precaution of alerting the president to the dangers and damage Mr Maina’s recall could cause the presidency. The warnings obviously went unheeded.

    Mrs Oyo-Ita’s letter indicating the appropriate steps she said she took on the controversy has leaked to the public and triggered a fresh firestorm of its own. The letter seemed to indict the president as well as question the ethics of a few agency and ministerial heads involved in the recall and reinstatement saga. The leakage, rather than the wordings of the letter, has pitted the Chief of Staff to the president, Abba Kyari, against Mrs Oyo-Ita. No one knows how the bitter peripheral quarrels around the president will end, for those arrayed in battle against Mr Magu of the EFCC are many and powerful, regardless of standing on shaky ethical grounds in the unfortunate affair. The turf wars began almost immediately the president’s team was constituted, and Mr Magu was nominated for the EFCC job. The Maina reinstatement is simply one battle in a fratricidal war that seems fated to endure till the closing days of the Buhari presidency, whether in a four-year tenure or eight-year tenure.

    Few analysts will confidently suggest that Mr Magu’s EFCC can easily triumph in the ongoing turf wars, especially given the small support he enjoys in the presidency where he has tended to operate like a loner. The armada against him in the presidency may not be anchored on the ethical high ground, but they have the number, closeness to the presidency, and a more coherent and strategic vision of what they intend to do with the enormous power and influence at their command. They have apparently sacrificed Mr Maina a second time, but will protect him for as long as it seems possible and feasible. To save their heads, if it comes to that, they will even offer his scalp to the EFCC. But they are unlikely to relent or to forget how Mr Magu irreverently put them on the spot. They will bid their time to return the favour if the president does not pre-empt them by finding the courage to do a total clear-out.

    Mr Magu has spoken confidently of the immutability of his position on the Maina saga. But like he has always done, he has not spoken discretely and diplomatically in a manner that would not offend his enemies or alert them to the danger his appointment to the EFCC throne constitutes to their offices and existence. If he is yet to be confirmed by the Senate, and is hardly loved in the presidency, at least among those closer to the president than he is, it is because he thinks wisdom is incompatible with the strength of his position, the ethical high ground he occupies. For a very sensitive and public post as the EFCC, it is to be assumed that there would always be some tension among presidential appointees, particularly those who are less than straightforward in their financial dealings. But in this case, the animosities between Mr Magu and other presidential aides have reached a boiling point. If the president won’t do it for them, and the appointees themselves are reluctant to quieten the storm, perhaps the uncompromising Mr Magu can find a way to lower the temperature.

    If the turf wars were not deliberately programmed by the presidency to help check power aggrandisement by a few individuals or groups within the presidency, then the combatants must all recognise that the public impression about the presidency is quite unflatteringly one of dissonance, disorganisation and paralysis. This impression is unhelpful to the image of the president and his presidency. Mr Maina is unlikely to ever come back to his position or even the civil service. He has left quite a lot of upheavals and destruction in his wake. Mr Magu, on the other hand, is unlikely to vanquish his enemies in the presidency. He must therefore find a way of working with them. Because he was not replaced by a fresh nominee when it could easily and plausibly have been done, he is also unlikely to be vanquished by his enemies, regardless of his impetuousness. His enemies must find a way to ignore his provocations, as much as they can try, and even humour him when the spirit seizes them. If the president is to cut the Gordian knot and put an end to the rancour and rigmarole in his government, it will have to be on a spur he himself will in future be unable to explain. Cutting the knot will come in the shape of a total clear-out and entirely fresh replacements. But it is hard for the president’s idiosyncrasy to either instigate or accommodate such a tectonic measure.

  • Enyeama’s needless controversies

    Enyeama’s needless controversies

    Vincent Enyeama must be laughing over the needless controversies surrounding his likely return to the Super Eagles, which he captained meritoriously by leading the team to win the Africa Cup of Nations diadem on February 10 in South Africa. I’m sure he knows he is being appreciated for his good performances with the Eagles. Enyeama must have been following the debate about his return. His recent silence on the matter indicates that he could be ready to play again. But, is Enyeama fit for this assignment? Will he want to destroy the reputation he has built on the altar of another World Cup appearance?

    Enyeama earned his place in the Eagles through his heoric feats in the domestic league and the Challenge Cup, playing for Enyimba FC of Aba. When renowned tactician Adegboye Onigbinde drafted Enyeama into his 2002 Japan/Korea World Cup squad, many reasoned that he wanted to give the goalkeeper the exposure through learning from the older goalkeepers in the camp and those he would be watching at the Mundial in Asia.

    Onigbinde got the opportunity with Nigeria’s last but meaningless game against England in the Group. We had been techncially eliminated from the Mundial, so it was worth the gamble. Ike Shorunmu distinguished himself, first against Argentina (we lost 1-0, courtesy of a Gabriel Baptistuta header). Shrounmu was in goal when we lost to Sweden 2-1. By Onigbinde’s calculations, there was nothing to play for. What made sense to the Modakeke chief was to hand Enyeama a starting shirt in goal against England, irrespective of the presence of the famous David Beckham and his curly free-kicks. The worst that would have happened would be a loss, which didn’t happen eventually with Enyeama in goal.

    Onigbinde listed Osaze Odenwingie as a standby player. He wanted Osaze to have a sense of belonging and also witness the World Cup setting. Osaze became our star player, having broken his yoke at the 2002 Japan/Korea World Cup.

    In a post-match interview with the press, Onigbinde insisted that fielding Enyeama against world stars, such as Michael Owen, Beckham et al, was the elixir Enyeama needed to announce his arrival as one of the future goalkeepers. How prophetic Onigbinde’s decision has been. Interestingly, Onigbinde argued that keeping Enyeama on the bench would have killed his enthusiasm, pointing out that all new players, goalkeepers inclusive, need such big games to hit stardom.

    Ironically, Onigbinde, a Nigerian coach, gave Enyeama the biggest fillip of his game. Yet, he never enjoyed a good relationship with most former Nigerian internationals who took charge of the Eagles, perhaps because of those coaches’ inability to accept the fact that most big stars are brats.

    Samson Siasia had a running battle with Enyeama, which cost Nigeria the ticket to the 2012 Africa Cup of Nations (co-hosted by Gabon and Equitorial Guinea), largely because we drew at home 2-2 against the Syli Nationale of Guinea. Goalkeeper Dele Aiyenugba’s costly mistakes ruined us. But, Siasia’s shocking revealed that he didn’t know the rules of the competition. Indeed, all that Siasia’s team needed was a win of any goals’ margin not a whiplash. If he knew the rules, he would have urged his players to hold on to the 2-1 lead in Abuja, instead of surging forward to look for more goals. This flaw on Siasia’s part was chiefly responsible for Nigeria’s ouster, not Aiyenugba’s fumbling hands. Aiyenugba hasn’t returned to the Eagles. But Enyeama did when Siaisa was shown the exit door.

    Need I restate Enyeama’s acrimonious reationship with former Nigeria international and coach Sunday Oliseh? Enyeama has a good heart because he visits the players in camp in Uyo whenever he is in town.  There can’t be  a better morale booster than that exhibited by Enyeama.

    Enyeama’s encounters with Siasia and Oliseh have been similar. As captain, Enyeama spoke for the group when things went awry. He would have been seen as a weak leader, if he couldn’t represent the players well while discussing with the coaches and chieftains of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF). Without the players, there can’t be coaches and administrators. For insisting on his mates having their dues, he got into trouble with the officials, who didn’t like his guts.

    Shortly before Nigeria’s opening game of the Russia 2018 World Cup qualifiers against Chipolopolo of Zambia in Ndola, the talk was the need to bring Enyeama back to the team. But Enyeama said his sojourn in the Eagles was over. When Carl Ikeme was fielded many doubted his abilities. Ikeme became the hero of the game. His subsequent outstanding performances for the Eagles eased the talk of Enyeama’s return. But it appears it won’t go away.

    The talk resurfaced when Ikeme was diagnosed with acute leukemia. This cancer of the blood ailment puts a big doubt on Ikeme’s continued appearance for the Eagles. Several goalkeepers have been fielded, but it appears Ikechukwu Ezenwa is poised to grab the shirt. This time Enyeama isn’t talking. No need to. He hasn’t hidden his preference of staying out of Nigeria’s international matches. Rohr wants Enyeama, which is expected. But he isn’t playing regularly yet. This raises the poser of his fitness. It is important to state here that Argentina’s first choice goalkeeper Romero is a reserve for Manchester United FC of England. But Romero is still Argentina’s first choice – Argentina’s manager is relying on Romero’s experience, having manned the goalpost in the finals of the 2014 World Cup held in Brazil.

    Enyeama’s experience isn’t in doubt. I feel strongly that Rohr should keep an open mind in getting a new goalkeeper. Rohr could tow Onigbinde’s path and rely on Ezenwa et al. What has happened to the reasoning that the goalkeeper is as good as his defence? Rohr should get other players to improve on their marking style. Our players should be challenged to mark the nearest person as soon they lose the ball.

    Interestingly, a new goalkeeper, Francis Uzoho, has been exposed to the European game by a Spanish side. He has manned the goalpost twice with rave reviews from soccer pundits. Guess what, Uzoho was in the Golden Eaglets that won the gold medal and the U-17 World Cup for Nigeria. He was the reserve goalkeeper.

    Uzoho represented Nigeria under-17s at the 2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup. Only 14, he was an immediate back-up to Dele Alampasu. Uzoho was dumped by the Nigerian system which discourages a seamless transition of discoveries from such cadet competitions to the next cadre, preferring to use and dump players with every competition.

    In 2016, after impressing at a tournament in Barcelona, he joined Deportivo de La Coruña’s Juvenil squad. Age rules meant that Uzoho could only become available to sign a contract with Dépor in January 2017;shortly after signing his contract, he started to train with the first team. Promoted to the reserves ahead of the 2017–18 season, he made his senior debut September 10 with a starting shirt in a 3–0 Segunda División B home win against Real Madrid Castilla.

    Uzoho made his first team – and La Liga – debut on 15 October 2017, starting in a 0–0 away draw against SD Eibar. At 18 years and 352 days, he became the youngest ever foreign goalkeeper to make his debut in La Liga, and the second-youngest player to appear in the league during the campaign, only behind Real Madrid’s Achraf Hakimi.

    One thing is clear, Rohr’s decision to invite Uzoho means he could be the man to solve the goalkeeping problem, irrespective of his age. Spain’s legend Iker Casillas started manning the goalpost for the Spaniards after the 1999 World Youth Championships held in Nigeria, which Spain won by beating Japan 2-0 at the Sportscity at age 19. Casillas is the most capped player in the history of the Spain national team. Following his full international debut at the senior level on 3 June, 2000 against Sweden (at 19 years and 14 days).

    Casillas was an unused substitute at UEFA Euro 2000. He was part of the roster for the 2002 FIFA World Cup, initially as the understudy to Santiago Cañizares. Coincidentally, he became first-choice when Cañizares had to withdraw from the tournament due to injury from a freak accident.

    Why are we always scared to introduce young players into the Eagles? Edson Arantes do Nascimento was 17 when he played for Brazil at the World Cup. Norman Whiteside played for Northern Ireland at the Mundial at age 17 and 41 days. After becoming the youngest player to appear at the World Cup and starting all five of Northern Ireland’s games at Spain 1982, Whiteside would go on to represent his country again at the global stage four years later at Mexico 1986. Why can’t we blaze the trail if we have the players to do so?

    No European club will give a foreigner a starting shirt if he isn’t better than their nationals? If Uzoho got two appreances for the Deportivo de La Corona, it means he earned it. The two appearances for Uzoho in Spain’s elite league, La Liga are better than any local goalkeepers’ 50 outings in the Nigerian league. Uzoho is the youngest foreign goalkeeper to ever play in La Liga.

    Were there other Nigerian goalkeepers who made their names with Deportivo? Peter Rufai signed with established Deportivo de La Coruña the ensuing summer, backing up another African, Jacques Songo’o, for two seasons. The late Wilfred Agbonavbare played for New Nigeria Bank F.C. and BCC Lions FC. In 1990, he moved to Spain where he spent the rest of his career, starting with Rayo Vallecano in Segunda División.

    In his second season with the Madrid outskirts club, the late Agbonavbare appeared in all 38 league games (3,332 minutes of action, 27 goals conceded, second-best in the competition) as the team finished second and returned to La Liga after two years of absence.

    Spain is a breeding ground for Nigerian goalkepers. Uzoho should rest this Enyeama saga. It is about time.

     

  • Culture, corruption and civilisation

    To  show  the sanctity  of  human  rights as well  as its limitation, social  scientists  have always invoked the saying that  ‘your rights end,  where my nose begins. This, really,  is an antidote against anarchy  and     prevent   a situation of limitless or uncontrolled  observance, practice and operations of human  rights in any  polity.  The  aim of such checks and balances  is to promote  political  stability  while enhancing civil  liberties. This  really  is the kernel  of  libertarian  democracy or  western  civilization as we know it today.  However events happening in the western  world today show clearly  that this check  on human rights and civil liberties  have been   derailed   and developing nations which blindly copy western culture at the expense of their own tradition and values,  should  be careful  in  the  way and manner we copy  western culture  and civilization  hook, line and sinker. That  is our food for thought today, in all  its ramifications.

    Just  imagine,  that   in Britain  Sir  Michael  Fallon,  the Defence  Secretary   resigned because a lady  party colleague reported that he touched  her knee   indecently   sometime ago  and the Minister confessed that culture has changed and   norms   that were  in  vogue,  years ago are no longer acceptable  now.  The  PM,   Theresa  May   a lady quickly  accepted the resignation. More  interestingly, the cause  of the resignation, Ms  Hartley  Brewer later  lamented  that  if the resignation was because  of her knee it would be ‘the most absurd reason in the universe ‘for anyone to lose their job. Which  also sounded  like  a remorse or compunction of sorts. Which  means there is some confusion in the new resort to retrospective punishment  for bosses who flirt or oppress female employees   or  colleagues  in their places of work. That,  clearly  is objectionable but  it  has   also has degenerated  into   an  ugly  vendetta  as several  women  have now woken up from  hitherto selective amnesia  to settle  scores  with carefree  former Romeos in high places and  on accounts  of  past  and  long  wounded love in some cases.  Yet  western  civilization  today thrives on these retrospective sexual  abuse   allegations in the choice of PMs, Presidents and the powerful  and mighty in the EU and  the US. The  best  example  is the allegation  that Donald  Trump  won the US elections because he is a misogynist  and that  Hillary  Clinton lost  also  as a consequence of that. Which  is quite bizarre in a civilization where  same sex marriage  is becoming   the vogue and gay  rights observance are replacing old cultural  values. Really  if   men  can now marry  men  and women do likewise  what is the sense in punishing people, men especially for dubious advances to women several  years  ago?  That  to  me is a clear sign of cultural  confusion or befuddlement and the law  should not be used retrospectively and in  such  reprehensible  manner to destroy reputations and activities  which  were the norm at the time of consummation   of relationship  and contact between people  of different sexes. Especially  now  that the vogue is that gay  rights are  assumed  to be civil rights. Surely  the old  lady  senator in the US  who  foretold   long ago  that femininity  or women  rights  would  lead  to  gay  rights was right after all. What  she did not  see then  is  the attendant  vendetta and feminine glee that would attend  such a cultural  development and social  hiatus  as we  behold  today  on a daily  basis  on such  sordid  backward  looking  and vindictive revelations in  the western  news  media.

    A  rather  similar  case of misuse  of rights  and the application  of the law in the pursuit  of civilization  and justice appear  in the aftermath of the suppression of secession   in  Catalonia     by the   Spanish  state  as well  as the case  by  former  Nigerian Oil  Minister Diezani  Allison  Madueke  to be brought  for trial  in Nigeria, a plea  opposed  vehemently  by Nigeria’s anti-corruption organization, the EFCC. In  both  cases the  political  culture and the law are  being stressed and turned on their  heads as it were by  the political  actors  and personalities  involved in both secession  and corruption which  are really  both sides of the same  coin namely  political  and economic corruption. However it is unbelievable   how these  events  have unfolded in terms of the topic  of the day.

    In  Catalonia where  the Spanish  government  has taken over control  of the rebellious  state according to the Spanish  constitution which  says Spain  is  indissoluble,   the former  president  and Chief  rebel  has fled  to Brussels, Belgium  while his cabinet  has been arraigned on charges of sedition, treason and misuse of public funds in  pursuing secession. Yet, in exile, the former President Puigedon  reportedly  seen  in  a café  recently  said his cabinet  colleagues should  not be tried by the government in   Madrid. Most  surprisingly to me thousands are reported to be demonstrating in Barcelonia  against  the trial  of those  who fomented secession  in  Catalonia when they knew clearly  they  were flouting the law  and constitution  of Spain in this regard. This  to me shows  that there is a misconception  in Spain  and Europe  generally  on human rights, democracy  and the rule of law. That showed clearly  in the way Police violence was roundly condemned in Catalonia  when  the Secession referendum went on despite the Supreme  Court  ruling  it illegal. How  else  could the police in Spain  have  controlled  those who flout the law with impunity  without resort  to force, the legitimate  weapon  of any state to enforce its rule  or law? Similarly   thousands  have demonstrated against  the arraignment  of the ring leaders  even though they  are against  the failed secession  bid.

    • Continued online
  • Still on the Ibadan declaration

    Still on the Ibadan declaration

    Was my recent two-part piece, ‘Awo and the Ibadan Declaration’, in which I undertook a critical dissection of the proposals of a cross section of Yoruba leaders and interest groups for the far-reaching structural reconfiguration of Nigeria, an attempt to invoke the name of the great sage to silence those proponents of the Declaration who I reckoned would be hesitant to critique Awo’s ideas as I projected them? That was the suggestion of the highly revered  Yoruba politician , Honorable Olawale Oshun, in his logically  rigorous and philosophically engaging  response to my column on the subject published in this space three weeks ago.

    That was far from my mind. It would indeed have been quite discreditable of me to have attempted that. My preoccupation was not with Awo’s name and reputation as a weapon of psychological intimidation but the utilization of his ideas as stimulation for further reflection on the political and constitutional development of Nigeria.  I learnt much from Honourable Osun’s rejoinder but still remain convinced that Awo would have been most reluctant to abandon wholesale the extant 1999 constitution for a regression to the equally far less than perfect constitution of 1963.

    Now, there is nothing that suggests that Awolowo must be right all the time or that his thought and ideas must be cast in stone and reverenced as unquestionable scripture for eternity. Surely, the sage was no god. To worship rather than critically interrogate his ideas would be totally alien to his spirit of ceaseless intellectual inquiry and curiosity. Yet, such was the clarity of his thought and the depth of his insight that it is difficult to fault some of his key ideas over half a century after he formulated them. As I pointed out, he had punched holes in the parliamentary form of government enshrined by the 1963 constitution and had made a tightly argued case for a shift to the presidential system with an admixture of features of the French model long before the coming into being of the 1979 constitution.

    Yes, Awo wrote his ‘Thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution’ and ‘The People’s Republic’, books in which he espoused his political, economic and constitutional ideas in 1966 and 1968 respectively. But he was alive during the second republic and witnessed the birth and collapse of that experience in civilian democratic governance after 13 years of military rule between 1966 and 1979. There is nothing that Awo wrote in his various lectures, speeches and books after the first republic up to his transition in 1987 that, to the best of my knowledge suggested that he ever contemplated a return to a parliamentary form of government as the best option for Nigeria. From what we know of him, it is unlikely that Awo would have offered himself to serve as President of Nigeria in the 1979 and 1983 general elections on the platform of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) without thoroughly studying the 1979 presidential constitution and coming to the conclusion that there was nothing in the constitution that inherently and incurably precluded great, visionary and productive governance.

    Let me note a pertinent point here. Awolowo undertook a thorough critique of the collapse of the first republic while in Calabar prison on the basis of which he made his constitutional proposals for the future peace, progress, prosperity and stability of Nigeria. Yes, he favoured a shift from the parliamentary to presidential form of government and the breakup of the regions into smaller states to protect the interest of minority interest groups. But from my reading of his ‘Thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution’ in particular, I am of the view that Awolowo did not envisage what would have amounted to an absolute and revolutionary break with the 1963 constitution at the time he wrote and the complete jettisoning of the lessons and experiences – good and bad – of the first six years of independence for a completely new and novel constitutional experiment as happened in 1979. He argued that the failings of the first republic were as much a function of the behavioural lapses of the political actors of the period as they were of any inherent structural defects of the constitution.

    History has proven Awo right. The change from the 1963 parliamentary constitution of the first republic to the presidential constitution first of 1979 and currently in practice in this dispensation under the extant 1999 constitution has not eliminated the behavioural traits and attitudinal dispositions responsible for persistent constitutional breakdowns in Nigeria’s political history. It is not just a question of faulty constitutional structures but equally that of destructive and disruptive political cultures. Nothing suggests that a reversion to parliamentarianism and regionalism today will eliminate the same negative political behaviours that led to the collapse of the first republic and remain well and alive with us till now.

    There can be no short cut to political maturity and instant democratic development through some illusionary  cure-all constitutional miracle. A quiescent and passive civil society that placidly accepts political brigandage and corruption under a presidential system will be no different in a parliamentary dispensation. A timid populace that lazily succumbs to the political tyranny and brazen constitutional infractions of states and local governments will be even more helpless to tame far stronger and more distant regions in a ‘restructured’ polity.

    Honourable Oshun rightly notes and condemns the abuse of power by “the president, the governors and the Local Government Chairmen who have become tin gods exercising power of life and death over the citizenry” under the presidential system. But is the parliamentary system inured from such abuses? Have we forgotten the factors that resulted in the implosion of the First Republic? Let us refresh our memories with the words of the political scientists, Professors Remi Anifowose and Solomon Akinboye with regard to the breakdown of the 1963 constitution: “All available state apparatus (the army, the police and the judiciary), were employed by the power elites against their opponents. The major political parties in the country were engaged in the struggle not only to win and retain power but also to control the centre which was recognized as having all the dominant resources in spite of its weakness politically. Hence, all available means were employed to ‘grab’ power including the blatant rigging of elections, manipulation of census figures, violence, arson, corruption and acts of brigandage. These continued till the army seized power in January 1966 when it became obvious that the political class had lost control of governmental affairs”.

    There is absolutely no basis for the romantic and idyllic depiction today of the First Republic and its 1963 constitution as some sort of sweet paradise lost. The politics of the era was no less ‘short, nasty brutish and solitary’ in Hobbesian terms than that of the second republic. In some ways, there have even been some positive aspects of political development in the country today than what obtained in the first republic. For instance, the way the Federal Government abused its power to subvert and destabilize the Western Regional Government controlled by the opposition Action Group (AG) leading to the abortion of democracy and the onset of predatory military rule with the 1966 coup is not likely to be easily replicated today. No matter how much the APC controlled centre dislikes the guts of a governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State, for instance, or the antics of an Ayo Fayose in Ekiti, the equivalent of a military takeover of an opposition state by the centre as happened in the West in the first republic has become a near impossibility.

    Yes, the present constitution in operation is far from perfect. No constitution will ever be. Yet, its defects are not inherently incurable. If we do not summon the will to fight and check corruption, abuse of office, legislative rascality, over-centralization, executive brigandage and sundry other ills within the present constitutional context, we are unlikely to do so no matter the kind of constitution we adopt.

  • World Cup not a myth

    Nigeria’s quest for a credible outing at the Russia 2018 World Cup is now in the front burner. Suddenly, those who didn’t give the Super Eagles any chance of qualifying from the much touted ‘’Group of Death’’ – Nigeria, Cameroon, Algeria and Zambia, all four countries former Africa Cup of Nations winners –  have invaded the media with all manner of analyses, which seem to be dictating to manager Gernot Rohr about the composition of the squad to the Mundial.

    Credit hasn’t been given to the players. Nor have the coaches got kudos for throwing negative predictions into the lagoon by remaining unbeaten in the group. The World Cup is eight months away, enough time to scout for younger players to compete with those whose positions appear to be our weak areas. Rohr built the squad to this point. He should be allowed to do his job. You don’t give a man a job with one hand and then turn around to dictate to him. Who carries the can when things go awry?

    This will be Nigeria’s sixth appearance at the Mundial, with nothing to show for it beyond what we achieved at our debut outing in USA 1994. We did so well that we were rated the fifth best soccer playing nation. If we had listened to Clemens Westerhof’s pleas to relocate the Eagles from their posh hotel where they were being distracted before the game which we lost 2-1 to Argentina, Nigeria would have been the first African country to play in the semi-finals of the World Cup. This isn’t a patriotic claim. After all, Nigeria whacked Bulgaria 3-0 in one of the group matches, yet the Bulgarians left US in 1994 as the third best team of the tournament.

    The discussions have hit a frenzy pitch, such that these analysts have started naming those to play and those who should be dropped, with the ripple effect being a likely bad blood among the players when they resume in camp on November 5 in Morocco. Nigeria has a meaningless final round game against Algeria on November 10. It is our best chance to begin our preparations for the Mundial. It is heartwarming to note that Rohr wants to field our best, knowing that friendly games cannot be decided now. Most countries that have qualified are waiting for the Russia 2018 World Cup draws slated for December 1. It is only when the draws are made that countries can plot their strategies, using teams in the groups to pick their pre-World Cup opponents.

    Russia will be full of upsets. My hunches tell me that Nigeria will be one of the fairytale countries, given what we are seeing in terms of our preparations. With a game left in the group,  Amaju Pinnick and his men have secured an international friendly game against Argentina in Russia on November 14. We are waiting for FIFA’s approval. But the biggest aspect of the game is that both countries have agreed terms and know the venue. FIFA picks the match officials, which is its prerogative.

    Argentina is a Grade A football nation. The Argentines have some of the biggest soccer stars in the world, such as Lionel Messi, Higuan, Aguero, Di Maria et al. Any game involving Nigeria and Argentina has some landmarks, which the players cherish. Very few countries are bigger than the Argentina, which makes the November 14 game, the biggest fillip for our preparations for the Mundial.

    The first advantage is that it offers both countries to have the privilege to play on one of the designated stadia for the Mundial. It gives the players an opportunity to play under the same climatic conditions as they would find when the World Cup holds next year. I’m glad the two countries are fielding their best players. I also hope that the re sults will help either team on FIFA’s ranking.

    The Argentines offer skeptics the best chance to access our goalkeepers, especially Ikechukwu Ezenwan. I hope Rohr will have the courage to test Ezenwa and another goalkeeper, irrespective of the result. There cannot be a stronger attacking onslaught than what the Argentines (Messi, Aguero, Higuan and Di Maria) have. In fact, the trio of Messi, Higuan and Aguero rank among the highest goal scorers in Spain, Italy and England. So, it is a battle of the fittest for our goalkeeper(s) and defenders. What a way to start preparations. Thumbs up NFF.

    Don’t wake me up from this dream that England wants a friendly game  against the Eagles as part of their preparatory plans. I’m not surprised because most of our big boys play in England. And we represent the best of Africa’s physical approach to the game, although we have the talents to play the attractive brand. Our ability to combine both styles of play is what would have informed England’s quest for a friendly. I hope it holds because if on December 1 we are grouped together, then no dice for this mouthwatering tie.

    FIFA World Cup draws are such that there must be one European team, one South American team, and two from any three continents in each group. So, you can see why the English (European block) want the Eagles. You can appreciate why the Argentines (South American block) have agreed for a game on November 14. Argentines have not forgotten what the Cameroonians did to them at the Italia’90 World Cup. Cameroon beat Argentina 1-0, courtesy of Francois Omam-Biyik’s goal. The Argentines had the revered Diego Amando Maradona playing in a country where he was a demi-god.

    The Black Stars have qualified for three FIFA World Cup tournaments; (2006, 2010, and 2014). In 2006, Ghana was the only African side to advance to the second round of the FIFA World Cup in Germany and was the sixth nation in a row from Africa to progress beyond the group stages of the World Cup. The Black Stars had the youngest team in the FIFA World Cup 2006 with an average age of 23 years and 352 days.

    In the 2010 World Cup, Ghana progressed beyond the group stages in South-Africa, and reached the quarter-finals where they were eliminated by Uruguay. Isn’t it true that Ghana, Cameroon and Nigeria are in the league of big football nations in Africa? It is our turn to make the biggest impact at the Mundial by qualifying for the semi-finals. It isn’t beyond us.

    Senegal didn’t need a pilgrimage of World Cup appearances to do well at the 2002 Japan/Korea World Cup. Senegal made its debut at the Mundial in 2002 and qualified for the quarter-finals, with average players – in terms of international exposure. Senegal’s coach then wasn’t one of the best European coaches but his tactics and the players’ resolve to make a name did the magic that shook the world in Japan and Korea.

    Come on Eagles, it is your turn to stun the world in Russia.

     

    FIFA Player of the Year Awards: if it held in Nigeria

     

    Monday’s FIFA Player of the Year Awards held in London was a great spectacle. The audience was defined. The players took the centre stage. They came with their spouses. The dress code was unmistaken. It lit up the red carpet. The media coverage was awesome. The questions bothered on the players. No question was controversial. The players responded well because their questions were friendly.

    As I watched the event run through its 90 minutes course, one foolish thought, yes foolish, ran through my mind. I wanted to know how the red carpet and the main ceremony would have looked like if the event had been held in Nigeria.

    This thought flashed through my mind the moment Cristiano Ronaldo, his expectant girlfriend Rodriquez and his son, Junior alighted from the car. No ceremonies. They were guided in by the ushers. No rowdiness. Ronaldo was the star actor but there wasn’t any trouble when he hit the red card.

    If Ronaldo was a Nigerian player, he would have arrived the place two hours after the event must have started. He would have blamed it all on the traffic and the organisers – for not creating a special route for him. If Ronaldo was a Nigerian, his arrival would have been chaotic. Urchins and roughnecks would have led the way. Security operatives would have had a hectic time pushing them back. There would have been a stampede, which would have grabbed the headlines.

    Guests would have been tear gassed. Bags, phones, jewellery would have been missing. There were no top government officials in flowing dresses in the hall. They were there but their entrance was quiet because the event wasn’t theirs. At the gates in London on Monday, the security operatives were civil.

    If it was in Nigeria, we would have lost count of gunshots. We would have seen the dignitaries coming in with the gun-totting security operatives who would have crowded the red carpet with the top government’s aides, not forgetting his wife and kids.

    The London event lasted 90 minutes. No long speeches. No long recognition of guests. No theatrics. Things went as scripted. No needless praises to sponsors, the Queen of England et al. No formal announcement about the late arrival of the guest of honour or any big shot in the society.  No apologies from a dignitary who couldn’t attend as he had to attend to urgent matters of state.

    Presentation of awards was by the icons of the game, not the heads of government, National Assembly members, ministers, governors, Obas, Obis, Igwes, Otunbas, Alhajis, Mallams, Imams, Etuboms, etc. No sweet talks. No gallivanting by FIFA members or their staff. The FIFA president only came on stage with the winners’ diadem.

    Sponsors of FIFA didn’t have to present any awards. Nor was there any need to ask the Queen, the Sports Minister, the Prime Minister or parliamentarians to do any presentation. Some of these people were in the hall, but they knew the ethics of such occasions. They didn’t need to throw their weight around to be recognised like our leaders do here. Lessons learned, I hope.

  • Restructuring is dead, long live rest

    His Royal Majesty has not always been of mere cer
    emonial importance, if not outright joke. The fate
    of an individual and the kingdom once depended on his disposition or pronouncement. In many cases the king’s word was law. Such was the importance of the monarchy that the royal stool was not permitted to be vacant. In 1272 when the English king Henry III died, so says history, his son and heir-apparent Edward I was away preoccupied with the battle of the Crusades. Nevertheless, the Royal Council proclaimed him king and he reigned in absentia until he heard of his father’s death and returned home.

    In France, in those ancient days, a successor to the throne was announced as the demised predecessor was lowered into the royal tomb. The phrase “The king is dead, long live the king” accompanied the interment and the coronation. The kingdom was too important to be vacant, even for half a day, lest some ambitious claimant seize upon the lacuna.

    Here, in these modern but troubled times, restructuring has assumed a larger-than-life image, with people like former vice president Atiku Abubakar, in their own words, trumpeting the point that there is hardly any future for Nigeria without restructuring. It doesn’t matter to them that some have smelled 2019 politics in the restructuring crusade. The nobles and commoners alike have been so enamoured of the word that it may not be farfetched to assume that even in the markets where we buy our peppers, tomatoes and native seasonings, restructuring could well have become a staple.

    Despite its initial popularity, though, restructuring may have run into very bad weather. The presidency has amply shown that the R-word is not one of its favourites. Not after, it is feared, some have turned it into a campaign weapon, insinuating that the country may break up if not restructured. In fact, presidential spokesman Femi Adesina has lampooned some champions of restructuring who have been in government for decades and have only just woken up to the R-word on the eve of a presidential election.

    Some are also starting to ask for the meaning of the word. Northern governors, for instance, recently sought that clarification not because the region is afraid to stand alone, should it come to that, but because they think restructuring means different things to different people. And if there is no consensus, then there is a problem with the word.

    Southeast leaders seem to be joining the restructuring campaign late. The reason for this is unclear. Were they simply overwhelmed or distracted by the belligerent posture of the Indigenous People of Biafra or IPOB? Were they waiting to see how the secessionist agitation would pan out? But after the python danced in the region, a gyration few enjoyed, the leaders started pushing for restructuring, trying to knock it into every Igbo head that restructuring is indeed better than secession. It may be belated but it is still a smart move. In fact, if they could turn back the hands of the clock, Igbo leaders would have started early to knock restructuring into the heads of IPOB members, something they tried to do with Nnamdi Kanu, the group’s leader, shortly before the serpent started dancing in Abia. In any event, restructuring is at best an afterthought in the Southeast, not the original thought.

    Then, in Ibadan, on October 12, Southwest leaders effectively pronounced the death of restructuring, at least as a word.

    “Restructuring is not our language,” declared elder statesman Bisi Akande. “Go and ask those who are advocating restructuring to define it.”

    Chief Akande’s point was clear enough. The Southwest will not join the clamour for restructuring. That will be music to the ears of the president. But leaders of the region did not gather at the Oyo State governor’s office just to distance themselves from the R-word. Chief Akande conveyed the aggregate position of the Ibadan meeting and it had restructuring written all over it. They want the federal government to concede some of its powers to the states. They want the states to also control a good part of their revenues so those which prioritise agriculture, for instance, and have the land can go ahead and do so. Those which have concrete plans for education should be able to practicalise those plans. In other words, the Southwest wants a return to the glorious days of the regions when it shone brightly not just with its policies but also its structures, some of which still stand till today, to the envy of other regions. This, as Chief Akande pointed out, was the reason they met back in January.

    Of the zones, and as far as restructuring goes, the Southwest appears to be the most coherent, though they want nothing to do with the word itself. If their demands are met, and if they get other states to benefit from the campaign they led, then who cares whether you call it restructuring or anything else. If the Southwest push endures on this steam, then clearly, the word restructuring is on its last legs but its essence is alive nonetheless.

    Restructuring is dead, long live restructuring!