The Nation Newspaper

Category: Saturday

  • Mandates, credibility and duty

    At  long   last  the  Nigerian  Senate  had  its  way  when  the  Attorney  General  of the  Federation   and the Secretary  to the Government  finally  showed  up as demanded  by  the lawmakers to answer questions on the court cases of the Senate  President as well  as well  as some comments of the SGF on  some  expenditure  in the 2016  budget. Before  that the Senators  had  threatened  to  impeach the  President  himself  if  his  officials  failed  to  come to the Senate.

    In  the UK  where  a second  lady  Prime  Minister,   Theresa  May  emerged- after the Iron Lady  Margaret  Thatcher-the   First  Secretary  of    Scotland,  which  just  in  2014 voted in  a  referendum  to  stay in Britain said  the new British  PM  did  not  have  the mandate  of  Scotland to  implement Brexit  as she promised on coming to  office  as the new  UK, PM  this  week.  And  in  Dallas  at a memorial for 5  Police  officers killed  by a black  man who  reportedly  was  looking for  white police  officers because he believed they were killing blacks with  impunity, US  President  Barak  Obama   made  a speech  on race  relations that  should  earn  him a Nobel  Prize  on Peace,  and  mark his presidency  for  posterity,  if  he  had  not  been  hastily    given  that prestigious  award  in  undue  haste  at  the  start  of  his  presidency by  the wise  men  of  Oslo.

    These  three  events  then  form  the nucleus  of  our  discussion today. They  revolve  around  political  mandates  and the use  or  misuse  of  them. They  reek  of  leadership  traits in  actions  that  define the  quality  of  leadership and credibility  in  the  line  of  duty.  And  certainly  there  are  home  truths, and  hard  words  on display  aplenty  for  any  electorate  or  democracy  to  learn  from.  At  least      in   order    to   see or  avert  future  pitfalls  and unnecessary  threats to  the much  needed political  stability  and   tranquility  that  our  political systems  need   nowadays.   Especially    with regard   to  the realization  of  our  societal  goals  of  creating  progress, peace  and  prosperity  for  the global  community in  the many  nations  that  make up  our present  comity  of  nations.

    Starting  with the  visit  of  the  two  high  government  officials  to  the Senate one  does  not  know  whether  to  clap  for  the  Senators or weep  for  them on the kind  of  home truths  the two officials  told  them  on the matters on  discussion during the visit.  The  Attorney  General  told  the lawmakers that  he  could  not  comment  on  a case  in court  because  that  would  be subjudice     and  unethical  as he is the prosecutor  and the case files    are  before  the court. The  SGF  told  the legislators  that government  revenue  has  dwindled  by  50%  because  of falling  oil  prices and  government  will  have  to  scrutinize  and reexamine projects  to  fund  or  execute  in the approved  budget including  the  constituency  projects  of  the senators. This  is like  saying that  government  will  have  to cut its  coat according  to  its  cloth  and  present revenue.   Which  actually  is  just  plain  common  or  political  pragmatism.

    Actually  one should    be  bothered  that  it  required  the presence of these  two  officers  to tell  the  Senators  these  obvious  home truths. Anyway,  it  does  not  need  a political  scientist  or  these  two  key  government  officials  to  see  what  is  making  the senators  blind  to  what  is lost  in  plain  sight  to  them.  This    is because   Senate  is    said  to  be contemplating  constitutional  immunity    for   the   office  of  the Senate  President  even  as  the incumbent  is  facing  two  cases  being  prosecuted  by the  Attorney  General. Definitely  this senate  has exposed itself  to  charges of intimidation in  summoning the key    legal   officer  of  the nation prosecuting  the incumbent  of the office  of  Senate  President . Also  the senate  is tampering with  the rule  of law  and the  separation  of  powers  that  guide  and protect  our  democracy  and that was what  the AGF   told  them  so  bravely and  so  eloquently on his  visit . Really  it  was in  bad  taste  to  have  summoned  these    two  officials  on the issues  at  hand  and the senate  has  cut  a   rather  sorry  figure in  the public  domain  given  the hard  and incontrovertible  facts of governance, law  and order  that the two  officials  reeled  out  to    the   red  chamber  which   actually  received   tutorials  on  the occasions.

    To  a large  extent   then,  the issue  of  the execution  of a mandate  of  Brexit   by   the   new  British    PM   falls   into  a similar  excursion  into  the realms  of  hard  facts   and  home  truths. Very  similar  to  what the  two  high  government  officials  dropped  like  bombs  on our  senate. Scotland  on record in the referendum that  gave rise  to Brexit,  voted  to  remain  in the EU . Just as it  voted in 2014  to  remain  in  the UK.  Also  the new  PM was  for Remain  although  it is mandatory   and imperative   for  her to pursue Brexit  because  that  was  the wish  of the British  people  on  the relationship  with the EU. But  then two former  PMs  namely  Tony  Blair and John  Major  had  predicted  that Brexit  would divide  the UK because  Scotland  would  break  away.  That   really  is the  implication of the Scotland’s     First  Secretary  challenge  that  Scotland  did  not  give  the new PM the  mandate for  Brexit  as  she  has  claimed in terms  of execution  of the Brexit  victory  in  the  EU referendum.  In  effect then Scotland is asking  the new  PM who supported  Scotland’s Remain  vote not  to  be more  catholic  than  the  Pope  in  the implementation  of    Brexit.  The    alternative    therefore  is  to  allow Scotland  to  review  is  membership  of  the UK by  calling for  another referendum  so  soon after  the last  one in 2014. Which  really  is a  tall  order indeed in  terms    of  the  unity of  Great Britain.

    Meanwhile  there is no  denying  that a victim and culprit  of  the Brexit vote  is the new Foreign  Minister  Boris  Johnson  who was the arrow  head of  the Brexit  clamour which claimed  the referendum.  It  was  widely  thought  he  would be PM if  Brexit  won  but  the situation  has changed  such  that the acrimony that  greeted  the Brexit    result  meant  that  he had  to take  cover  and was indeed  lucky  to have  been  given  a cabinet  position.  Even  that  has not  gone well  in  European diplomatic  circles  as  both the French  and  German Foreign  Ministers  have  gone out of their way to  call  the new UK  Foreign  Minister  a serial   liar   given  his  vocal  and active role  in  the Brexit  campaign. It  will  be interesting  therefore    to see   how  the subsequent  and inevitable  diplomatic  meetings   between  the three  nations will  go   and  how  that  will  affect  EU  and  UK  relations  post  Brexit.

    Finally  we  shall  look  at the Obama speech  at  the Dallas  memorial  for the five slain policemen  killed  ostensibly by a black  man who said  he killed them  because  they  were  white  and white  policemen  had  been  killing  blacks. R  eally  President  Barak  Obama deserved  kudos  for  the home truths  he  drove  home on  the incident. He  asked  Americans to  open  their minds to  each  other  and change  the  hearts of stone fanning  racial  hatred  .  He  said  he  knows  what  is  happening  and he  sounded credible  and more  believable than  anyone  I have   heard   speak  on  racism . He  said  it  was a fact  of  life in the US  that  blacks  are  being  killed  more  than  any  other  race  but that is no excuse  for  killing  policemen  because  the police  is the  emblem  of  the rule of  law in any  democracy including  the US. He praised  the  Dallas Police  Department  and  the City  Mayor  but  he  also  weighed  in that something  needs  to  be done urgently  on  gun  control  which  has  become a major  campaign  issue  in the on  going  presidential  campaign  in  the  US.

    To  me  the  Dallas  Memorial   speech  should   define  the  Obama  presidency  as well  as his legacy. Rather  than  the gay  rights issue  which  he called  the major  achievement  of  his   administration. Although  his record  on  the international  scene  is  dismal  as  he  has served  as a president with  no  stomach  for  confrontation  and  the use  of  force  to resolve international   issues. Opting  most  times  for dialogue  and  diplomacy   But  it  was  clear  that on  race  issues   that   he was a very  competent  high  priest  of tolerance and  respect  for  human  dignity in racial  relations. That  is a good  legacy  for Hillary  Clinton  to  campaign  on  if  she wants  to  succeed  him  as the next  president  of  the US.  Not  a foreign  policy  that spawned Islamic  State and made  Russia  take over  Syria from  where  the  largest  migration of people fleeing  war  in  history  was  created.

    Let  me end  by dedicating this  piece to  the  15th  of  July  which  was my  birthday. Once  again  long  live the  Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.

  • Over the bar

    Over the bar

     Let’s live this dream of being the Cinderella at the 2018 World Cup by ensuring that the best tactician is picked to chart our path towards the most memorable outing in the history of the Mundial. We were close to it at our debut appearance at the World Cup, but inexperience stopped us from being the first country to qualify for the semi-finals of the USA’94 World Cup. Did I hear you sneer at this remark? Bulgaria, which Nigeria whipped 3-0 in a group match, became the third best team at the Mundial.

    So, why can’t we live the dream now that the bulk of our players ply their trade in Europe where some of the players who we will confront in Russia warm the bench in their European clubs? I’m a patriot but my patriotism won’t compel me to root for a Nigerian coach to prosecute our 2018 World Cup qualifiers for the simple fact that the assignment involves knowing what is at stake. It is not relying on the Federation to provide information on how our group opponents; it is being proactive in taking tactical decisions that would swing tight games in the Super Eagles’ favour.

    World Cup qualifiers are not blind chase because your group opponents know your strength and will always tackle you with the blueprints prepared on your weaknesses. This is why the Eagles totter during matches with our coaches perplexed, unable to respond tactically. Of course, having not prepared for what they have seen, our caches watch in awe, waiting for one of our marked stars to sparkle and make the difference. Such wishful thinking won’t work against a better prepared side armed with the details of all our players, months before such games are played.

    When the Eagles are flying high, the streets are empty. The over two million viewing centres are filled to capacity. The traders around these places experience bountiful harvests. The blue-chip companies are alive to their corporate social responsibilities to the populace with several mouth-watering packages meant to galvanise the people to identify with the biggest marketing commodity in the country. Suya spots, pepper soup joints and eateries are agog. It is a jamboree, irrespective of when the games are played. Most people prefer to leave the comfort of their homes to watch games in these places as it affords them the platform to freely express themselves without disturbing their neighbours or incurring madams’ angst. Wives are excited during these periods as their husbands’ whereabouts is known – for those who hang out with the boys. For others, their wives rejoice because they watch the matches together. God help them if the Eagles don’t win that game. Wasted food, sadness and the big man sneaking into the room, not wanting to be reminded of what happened. He is easily infuriated. Such is the passion about the Eagles that we must not give the task of qualifying for the World Cup to a Nigerian coach.

    We have already lost grounds in preparing for the 2018 World Cup. A good foreign manager can effectively utilise the two years left to assemble a winning team, given the glut of talents in the country. The task of doing well at the World Cup is a four to eight years project, not the crash programme of two years to any Mundial.

    Sadly, our big stars who excelled in Europe find it difficult to transit from being players into managers. They exhibit those traits of yore. They also can’t take their hands off being scouts. No doubt, many coaches are scouts but most of them allow people do this for them. They also don’t compel players to identify with their scouts; nor do they use it to decide who plays for the team. For these coaches, only the best plays. This is another reason why every World Cup outing for Nigeria always leads to a crisis with the supervising NFF board sacked. At the end, we don’t build on the gains of the previous World Cup appearance. The ripple effect is that we return to the unprofitable template, with nauseating variations that amount to putting the car in the reverse gear, yet we expect it to move forward.

    The first advantage of having a reputable foreign manager for the Eagles is that such a manager’s reputation will open the door for quality international matches. It is easier for the big managers to call up other national team managers for games. With a foreign manager in charge of the country, many of our players in Diaspora would be willing to play for Nigeria because they can find out who the manager is from their friends in other countries, where the manager has worked before. Again, it won’t take a renowned manager anything to call up Manchester City’s new manager Pep Guadiola, for instance, to release Kelechi Iheanacho for the Olympics, with the caveat of allowing Iheanacho play in the club’s pre-season and then join the country’s Olympic Games’ squad. In fact, Guardiola would easily oblige a foreign manager this favour than a Nigerian coach or one without pedigree.

    No less than N30 billion is sunk into motivating people to support the Eagles, whenever the team is performing. Business giants, such as Globacom, Airtel, Etisilat, MTN, Guinness, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nigerian Breweries Plc, Dangote, Nestle, Oando, Mobil, Shell, GTB, First Bank, Union Bank, FCMB, Zenith Bank etc, budget as much as N1.5 billion each to join the train. When the Eagles are flying, memorabilia of our players flood the market. All manner of gift items and stickers litter the country because there is a ready market for the products. The media is awash with different programmes where several incentives are flashed at viewers who watch them. In fact, the country comes alive.

    Our big boys who graduated into coaches of the Eagles failed in the simple task of walking up to foreign managers to seek our players’ release to play for Nigeria. When they are sent to Europe, they visit a few players who meet them in their hotels. The coaches do not go to those clubs’ premises to discuss with managers. A picture of any of our national coaches (Nigerians) being shown around the emirates stadium by Arsene Wenger is a front page picture for any newspaper. The same attention and prominence would be accorded a Nigerian as Eagles coach, if he is seen discussing with Pep Guardiola while Ihenacho and other stars train at the background in Manchester City’s Stadium.

    Most of our coaches are naïve to appreciate this perspective. Such impromptu sessions would help our coaches establish a working relationship with top managers. They could through such meetings arrange to understudy these tacticians in training at their free times. Many a Nigerian firm would bankroll these visits, especially those who have relationship with these clubs.

    Which Eagles star would have the temerity to give a foreign manager conditions why he would play for Nigeria? But Nigerian coaches kowtow to players’ requests, with many doing the bizarre thing of replacing a captain, two days to a crucial game in Kaduna. Did the result of the two-leg ties come as a surprise?

    Even the ex-internationals among the coaches would not visit our players on their clubs’ grounds to interface with our players’ coaches to know why they are always on the bench or are being used sparingly. Most of these ex-internationals return from such visits complaining about being unable to speak with our players in England, for instance. They allege indiscipline and total disrespect for them. Their European counterparts would hire a cab and head straight to the players’ stadia.

    Of course, foreign coaches don’t just barge into these foreign club managers. They make sure that such visits are registered in these managers’ diaries. Where they won’t be available, alternative arrangements are made, which could include change of date, if the national team coaches insist on interacting with him.

    We shouldn’t cling to an imaginary past by sticking with domestic coaches for the Eagles, yet expect a change in fortune. It is clear that our coaches cannot take us to the Promised Land.

     

     #Bring back Okocha

     

    Austin Jay Jay Okocha needs no introduction – his skills, his deft touches and his telescope vision to locate his mates with accurate passes. When Okocha plays, the fans are expectant. He leaves them screaming for more.

    Pundits have argued that Okocha would have been voted the world’s best, if he was European. Easily one of the most talented players in recent times, Germany’s legendary goalkeeper Oliver Khan won’t forget in a hurry how Okocha swept past at least four defenders before leaving Khan sprawling on the turf to score a goal that still rings bells years after.

    Okocha is thinking of returning to the game that gave him fame and wealth. Indeed, his last Nigerian club was Enugu Rangers. And the talk in Enugu is to get Jay Jay to play for the Flying Antelopes. That would be the day. The stadium would be filled to capacity. Okocha’s return will bring back the excitement beyond just scoring the goals that differentiate teams after 90 minutes.

    Okocha won my heart on Tuesday when he launched the Jay Jay Okocha Foundation, a platform he hopes to use to give back to the society. His foundation would help in giving kids and his former mates a new direction in life. Jay Jay, take a bow.

    Okocha said: “I come from a very poor family, I’m not from a royal home but through football, my life changed and I have a voice. What is most important in every kid’s life is education, but some of these kids are out of school and I think I can use football as a tool to help them get back to school,” Okocha said.

    “I will be lying if I say I didn’t know some of my colleagues are suffering. Most of us didn’t have good advisers and were left with nothing after retirement. Another objective of this foundation is creating jobs through football. If I can set up training centres across the country, I will need my colleagues. I believe in empowering people.”

     Gbam! Nothing more to add, Jay Jay Okocha.

  • Global peace, leadership and democracy

    The  travails  of former  British Prime Minister  Tony  Blair on the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and  the Chilcot  Report  which came out on that this week provides  good  food  for thought  on  today’s  topic. With  regard to  Blair’s role in the Iraq War  and his spirited  defence  of it,  one  can  easily  quote Shakespeare’s  Mark  Anthony in Julius  Caesar  that   ‘the evil that  men  do  lives  after  them, the good  is oft  interred  in their bones ‘  – although this time, Blair,   unlike  Caesar,  is still  very  much  alive   to  defend  himself.

    Similarly  the  FBI Report  on Hillary Clinton’s  use  of  her cell  phone for official  duty and the charge  that she compromised  security  in  the  process is worth  looking    today.  This  is even  more pertinent  in that the FBI  boss  said her action  was  ‘extremely  reckless ‘but  security  had  not  been  compromised; a  conclusion which  prompted  the controversial Republican  presidential    candidate  Donald  Trump  to  not  only  cry  foul  but  to predictably  go  on  to say  that the system  has  been ‘rigged‘.

    My  goal  here  today  is that to  show  how  world  leaders  have  behaved  in contemporary times  as  a result  of  the Iraqi  invasion,  for which Tony  Blair  is being   chastised   today  and  in the  light  of  the  global  chain  of  events  set  in motion   by  that  historical  and  important  invasion in  all  its  ramifications. To  say  that  the end  of that  invasion – and  the ensuing  global  blood  letting,  mass   migration  by  those  fleeing  war    and   the    mayhem ensuing therefrom   – is not  yet  in  sight,   could   be  an  understatement.    Indeed   its effect  on the world’s democracies, leadership  and  threat  to world  peace  are  still  unfolding    right  before  our  eyes.

    Here  in  Nigeria  and   to  me  the  horror  of  Boko  Haram  stemmed  from the  Iraqi  invasion   and  the war  on terrorism  arising  from 9/11  that  brought  terrorism  to our  doorsteps  and  ravaged our entire  North  East  with  impunity  and perfidy.  Until  the  advent  of  the present Buhari  Administration which  came on  board in the presidential  election of  2015.

    It may    seem  far –fetched    but  the  present  war on  corruption  embarked  on  by  the Buhari  administration  is a blood  relationship  of  sorts with the   Iraqi  Invasion.  This  is because  of   the sordid  revelations on  massive  diversion  of  funds  for  arms  –  meant   for  prosecution  of  the war against  Boko  Haram  by  past  military  leaders – into their  pockets,  and diversion  of  funds  by  key  members  of  the last  Jonathan  administration  for  campaigns   for  the  last  presidential  elections which  they  lost.  But for  the  fact  that  the PDP  lost  the presidential  elections  of  2015  there  was  no  way  that  Nigerians  could  have known  that  the office  of  the  National  Security  Adviser  was  using  money  meant  to  buy arms  to defeat  Boko  Haram, which  was steadily  killing Nigerians  and pillaging  our  North  East bloodily,  to  fund   the  party in  power.  While  at  the same time the  military  Chief  of  Staff  of  the regime  court  marshaled officers  and  men  who  refused  to  go to war  because of inferior arms  and ammunition supplied them by  their  superiors.  Only  for  us   to find  out  after  a change  of  government  that the same Chief of  Staff  was  collecting budget  allocation  meant  to  buy  planes  and ammunition  in  cash, and  was  using  the money  to buy houses  and  malls  for his family  and sons  in  Abuja.

    So in  effect  then  Tony  Blair’s  actions  and  inactions  pointed  out  in  the Chilcot  Report  have  reverberated  violently  into  Nigeria in  another  dimension  and  in a very  different  context  in terms of  Boko  Haram   terrorism  and  an  irresponsible way and  leadership  available  to  confront  it   till  power  changed  hands  in  2015.

     In spite  of this however Tony  Blair  is a leader  I  hold  in  great  esteem  as a strong leader and I believe  him  when  he said  on the Chilcot Report  that  he  acted  in  good  faith.  Really  I  wonder  how  and  what  his  detractors  expected  him  to  have  done. This  is  because he and George Bush  acted   bravely  and  swiftly  after 9/11  to  hit  back  at Al  Qada  and  that in  a way preserved  world  peace.  Whereas  the Pacifists  and  anarchists in both  Britain  and  the US  would    then    would  have  wanted peace  to  prevail  at  all  costs.  And  that  would have  made   the momentum  of retaliation and deterrence  they  unleashed  against  their enemies to  lapse  into  a vacuum  of inaction through  vacillations on the proper  and lawful  way  to  react . As if  terrorists  give  notice before    bombing  or  ask for anyone’s  permission before  killing  people.

     War, like  change  and an  abrupt  one  like  9/11  or  the Iraqi  Invasion  two  years  later in 2003,  can  not  be planned  and  managed like a corporate  strategic plan as it  is unpredictable  in  nature  and  execution. If  Blair  is to be blamed for acting on false information  on  availability of weapons  of  mass destruction, it  was because as a good  leader  he  has accepted  responsibility.  But   what  of  the military intelligence  chiefs  who  gave him  the information he  acted  on? Or  the  sissy military  top  brass  who  could  not  engineer the logistics and  strategy  to  move equipment  and materiel   to  Iraq  as the Americans  did  so  efficiently  in the first  Gulf  War  under George  Bush  senior?

    Indeed,  the  Chilcot  Report  may have found Blair  guilty on  the excuse for  invasion but  I  have  no doubt  in my mind that history will recognize his leadership qualities  and  patriotism as  well  as  his democratic  sense of  responsibility in  carrying  Parliament  and the opposition along. As  I  vividly  recall,  William  Hague, the Tory Opposition  leader then said  boldly  in  Parliament  that ‘this  opposition  stands  shoulder  to shoulder with  the PM in  ratifying the invasion of  Iraq.

     Great  leaders  take responsibility  and act as, and when needed and their decisions are the stuff  of  history.  Not  the admonitions  of a  red   tape  report like the Chilcot Report which  is just  an  administrative  and convenient  sign  post of observations  of   past  events  and actions.  A  mere  dossier  of  actions    taken by  political  actors  like Blair  who  wield  power  and are  bold  enough  to  accept  responsibility  for  their  actions in  the course  of  their duty.  Public  opinion which  is like  fashion  and  therefore  transient  may  cut,  them  to  size  or  ridicule their  actions. Yet  it  is  history  not  such hullabaloo like  the one roasting  Blair  with the  release  of  this Chilcot  Report, is the final  and  ultimate  arbiter  and judge of  their  actions while in  office.

    Which  brings  us to  the FBI  boss‘s categorization of  Hillary  Clinton’s  handling  of  her e- mails  as  extremely  reckless  and her being  cleared  of any  wrong  doing  in spite of such  strong  language on  her responsibility  as Secretary  of  State. I  know  that  Donald  Trump  has a reputation  for  reckless  language  and has  heated  the political  system  extravagantly  in the course  of  this 2016   US  presidential  election.  But  if  all  that  Trump  could  down load  this time is that  the system  is rigged because the FBI  cleared Hillary in  spite  of her ‘extreme  carelessness‘,  then Trump  has  not  said  anything  out  of place but  the real  truth.  How  can  someone be extremely  careless  like  Hillary,  and not  breach  security  one way  or  the other given  the weight  of  her  responsibility  as Secretary  of State?. Trump  of  course  said that  her  phone  could have been  hacked  and that  too is  a possibility – with  the attendant  danger posed  to  American  diplomacy  and security  consequently.

     Obviously  if  the party in  power  had  not  been Hillary’s  party  and if the President  had  not been  Barak  Obama,  who  is campaigning   for  her,   there  is  no way  that  Hillary  could  have  been  allowed  to  contest  for  the 2016  US presidency,  given   the description  of the FBI  that  her  handling of  her e-  mail  was extremely  reckless. That  is the home  truth  on  this matter  and it  does  not  need  a Donald  Trump  to  bring that to  the attention of the US public  and electorate  because they are  neither  deaf, blind  or  that plain  stupid.  Once  again long  live  the Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.

  • Lagos and Nigeria

    Lagos and Nigeria

    For close to one hour last Sunday, July 3rd, the Lagos State Governor, Mr Akinwunmi Ambode, was on his feet as he spoke to invited journalists about his last one year in office as well as his plans for the state in the immediate future. The venue was the banquet hall of the Government House, Ikeja. Mr Ambode exuded confidence and optimism. He recalled the achievements of his administration towards actualizing his promised ‘continuity with improvement’ in diverse sectors ranging from security, education, health; law, order and justice to massive electrification of the metropolis and roads rehabilitation/reconstruction among others.

    The governor is confident that Lagosians will, in the next one year, witness more of the development dividends they voted for when they opted for him and the APC at the last polls. He promises that there will be even more massive investment in security with the ultimate objective of ensuring that every street in Lagos is effectively policed and safe. This he says will be complemented by an increased aggressiveness in the ‘Operation Light up Lagos’ project and other policies deliberately targeted at making Lagos a 24 hour economy befitting a model Mega city.

    His administration’s Employment Trust Fund, he avers, will also take off fully offering entrepreneurial opportunities to large numbers of jobless youth. He assures that Lagosians will witness even more massive investment in education and health particularly with the creation of a medical park in Ikoyi that will take optimum advantage of the country’s bounteous medical specialists abroad, boost medical tourism and save scarce foreign exchange.

    Governor Ambode’s vision of Lagos transcends the borders of Nigeria. He envisages Lagos as a model African Mega city. He enjoins the support of the media and the generality of Lagosians in ensuring that Lagos plays her destined leadership role in Africa. This mood of confidence and optimism in Lagos contrasts sharply with that of dejection, despair and helplessness in the majority of other states in the country. At least 27 states owe their workers arrears of salaries of several months. A recent study indicates that no less than 15 states are technically insolvent as they will be unable to survive without monthly allocation from the Federation Account. Yet, not only is Lagos State paying workers’   salaries as well as allowances, pensions and subventions as and at when due, the state is also systematically increasing its Internally Generated Revenue to the extent that she is practically able to subsist independent of federal allocation.

    Mr Ambode gives an insight into his administration’s philosophy of public finance. There is absolutely nothing like government money he insists. What is popularly tagged government money in Nigeria is in fact tax payers’ money rightly belonging to the people. The key to the financial buoyancy of Lagos he explains lies in the sense of responsibility and accountability of government in utilizing public resources to deliver identifiable and verifiable services. The consequence is the steady and systematic widening of the tax net as an ever increasing number of citizens voluntarily pay their taxes.

    It is all too easy to attribute the prosperity of Lagos in a vast wasteland of national poverty and stagnation to a favorable geographical location, huge population or other fortuitous factors. The truth, however, is that there is nothing inevitable about the commercial nerve centre’s current financial solidity that contrasts sharply with the national narrative of impoverishment and deepening underdevelopment. Today’s Lagos is the product of deliberate leadership and policy choices right from the democratic restoration of 1999 through to the incumbent Ambode administration.

    Apart from the solid fiscal foundation laid for the state by the Tinubu administration, there has been a positive philosophical and ideological continuity that has seen Mr Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN) and now governor Ambode building constructively on the legacy they inherited. This type of continuity has been absent at the national level in the last 16 years. We will recollect that President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration had the National Economic and Employment Development Strategy (NEEDS).

    Rather than build on this, the late President Umaru Yar’ Adua launched his 7-point Agenda. President Goodluck Jonathan in turn initiated his Transformation Agenda, which had little or nothing to do with the policy initiatives of his predecessors. Governance at the centre has thus been characterized by radical discontinuities with negative consequences for incremental and steady development. This is unlike Lagos which has been carefully and systematically implementing a carefully thought out 10-Point Agenda over the last one and a half decades.

    Lagos State was to all intents and purposes practically insolvent as at 1999. The state’s monthly Internally Generated Revenue was approximately 600 million Naira barely sufficient to pay its workers and grossly inadequate to fund qualitative social services and critical infrastructure. The City-state was widely depicted and perceived as a veritable jungle with decrepit roads, decayed public schools, chronic water shortage, traffic chaos and mountains of refuse on major highways among others.

    The poverty and disorderliness fuelled several bloody inter ethnic and communal conflicts at Mile 12, Mile 2, Agege and Ajegunle. Eight years later, thanks to bold, courageous and imaginative reforms, Lagos State’s Internally Generated Revenue had increased to at least 6 billion Naira monthly and the foundation had been laid for the environmental transformation and radical modernization of infrastructure in the state.

    A man of details and methods, former governor Fashola built impressively on this legacy while his first year in office shows that Mr. Ambode is taking the vision to greater heights to the glory of Lagos. But this story of success in Lagos awaits a replication at the national level. Nigeria awaits a pathfinder that can lay a foundation for developmental democracy which others can build on. Restructuring and decentralization as being vociferously advocated in some quarters may indeed be a necessary condition for liberating the developmental potentials of Nigeria. The Lagos example, however, shows that they do not constitute a sufficient condition for national transformation. Equally critical are visionary and competent leaders capable of navigating the ship of state from turbulent waters of stagnation and lack to more steady weather of ever increasing prosperity, stability and development.

  • After Boko Haram

    Will there ever be a Nigeria without Boko Haram? Will the guns and bombs of the sect ever cease?          Those questions formed the opening paragraph of my article published in 2012 in the days of President Goodluck Jonathan, when the terror group had not started taking territory. At the time, the sect had demonstrated enough mindlessness and thirst for blood to be taken seriously, but probably had not hit upon the grimmer idea of suicide-bombing or seizing territory. Despite its savagery, I felt Nigeria would survive Boko Haram. Perhaps a picture of that survival is starting to appear. Territories captured have been recovered, closed roads are reopening, and Borno State has, for the first time in years, celebrated a peaceful Sallah. Yet, the thrust of that earlier piece was how to manage the post-Boko Haram peace era and deal with factors that bred Boko Haram in the first place, to prevent a recurrence. President Muhammadu Buhari will do well to galvanise his team and the entire nation along those lines.

    I reproduce that piece here:

    Given its rage and capacity to cause maximum damage, not to mention the tough talk of its leaders, will there ever be Nigeria without Boko Haram? Is there any chance that one day the guns of the Islamist sect will stop booming and its bombs silent, the energies of its leaders and suicide bombers channeled to healthy ventures?

    My answer is yes.

    True, the group has terrorised the country enough for everyone to take it very seriously. Oceans of blood were continuously spilled. Their dead victims are gone, never to contribute anymore to the growth of their families or country. For survivors, life will never be the same after their encounter with the sect.  Many may never walk again. Property lost can only be valued in billions, perhaps, trillions of naira. Boko Haram has also caused all sorts of problems for government across the board, the security community and virtually everyone. Relentless terror has taught public officials to have a healthy fear of the group, just as day-to-day life has substantially changed, especially in the Northeast.

    Still, a post-Boko Haram era is possible, whether government succeeds in crushing it or the group, by itself, unravels and ends its atrocities.

    But I have an enduring worry: are we preparing for that peacetime? You can grapple with the tensions and challenges of the moment, even manage to contain them (as the military do), but there is more work to be done. Preventing a repeat scenario of those tensions and challenges is where the ultimate victory lies. That is the peace era, defined not merely by momentary cessation of violence but by the sustenance of law and order and mutual respect for one another. Peace era stimulates creativity, productivity and growth. Is the Jonathan administration merely working towards the end of Boko Haram, or is it looking to evolve sustained peace?

    Niger Delta militancy in the last decade is a relevant scenario. Like Boko Haram, it started with isolated cases of disorder before it got everybody in the region and beyond worried. Before we knew it, not only oil facilities were being blown up, nor were expatriate workers the only targets and victims of kidnappers; local chiefs, grandpas and grandmas and their grandkids were being taken too, to be ransomed at handsome fees. Naturally, business activities declined in the region, to take root beyond our national borders. And then President Umaru Yar’Adua came along, succeeding to get the region’s fighters to lay down their arms and embrace amnesty. It worked. Tensions cooled and, to boot, some of the former militants have been trained in entrepreneurship skills to help them get a life worth the name.

    Yet, and this is my major concern, I do not think government has really come to grips with the issues that remotely caused or precipitated the militancy in the first place. Life in the oil-rich delta is still pretty much unflattering. Several communities are left without power, clean water or any viable means of livelihood. Many areas lack schools of any kind, and where they are available, are unworthy of the name. Regional soils and waters are despoiled, leaving residents with few sustenance options. The Jonathan administration can look beyond the amnesty-induced peace and work towards evolving enduring harmony propelled by capacity-building and growth. The rehabilitated ex-militants represent a tiny fraction of the Niger Delta population, much of which live in abject poverty. Resolving infrastructural challenges will help to check gloom in the region. In other words, the government merely looked to contain the militancy, which it did, but failed to create an environment that will be sustained on growth based on needs met, not on fires put out.

    The Boko Haram matter should be approached from a wider, more comprehensive perspective. So far, government’s response is not flattering. Predominant assessment is that it is not doing enough to halt the sect. The move by the Jonathan administration to stop the United States government from designating Boko Haram as a terrorist group has also worsened matters. But I think that, one way or another, the terror reign will end someday; how that will happen is beyond me. Yet, one question remains: what happens after the guns and bombs of the sect cease? Beyond politics and rhetoric, has the Jonathan administration assessed the factors that gave rise to the emergence, and ferocity, of the sect and mapped out strategies to contain them? Is neglect of the people one of the reasons? Is infrastructural challenge another? What about youth unemployment?

    I have argued in this space that the federal government does not need to create a Ministry for the North to pacify Boko Haram, my position being that such creations are largely political and have very little positive effect, anyhow. The Niger Delta Ministry has changed little in the region. Still, there is a lot a federal government can do to solve problems and stimulate growth in the states. Apart from initiating and executing its developmental programmes, it can inspire the state governments to drive growth and put their people out of misery. To inspire, it must shed party toga. Its intentions must also be transparently genuine and the president must be fatherly and above board. He must be courageous, with an eye on enduring legacies.

    That is one way to prepare for a post-violence era and make way for the emergence of a new Nigeria.

    • First published under the title ‘Nigeria after Boko Haram’ in November 2012

  • An avaricious Senate

    The demand the other day by the Senate for life pension and immunity from prosecution for its principal officers has provided additional proof that the eighth session of the federal legislature is obsessed with little more than materialism and envy. Thankfully, not every Senator backed the pension demand when they broached it in Lagos at a retreat. Some dismissed it with all the energy they could muster, pointing out its frivolity and senselessness. Those who backed the demand seemed determined to convince everyone that the matter was not only divinely inspired but could well be the beginning of a long overdue patriotic movement to right an old wrong.

    Of those pushing for it, Ike Ekweremadu was the weightiest not just because he is a veteran Deputy Senate President but also because in his other life he was deemed important enough to chair the Senate’s ad hoc committee reviewing the 1999 Constitution. Senator Ekweremadu argued that the pension push had nothing to do with any individual, only the institution, and pleaded that it should not be politicised. Then he added, for good measure, that “nobody elected the Chief Justice of Nigeria but he enjoys pension.”

    Stella Oduah picked it up from there, laying out the case that since the executive and judiciary arms of government enjoy retirement benefits, there is no credible reason the legislature should be denied.

    “The executive enjoys it,” she said. “Let us stand by our leaders. They should enjoy this benefit. They act on behalf of us. They are equal to the executive and judiciary and should therefore enjoy the same benefit.”

    There you have it. Both Senator Ekweremadu and Senator Oduah could hardly conceal the spirit and motivation behind their demand, though the latter made some perfunctory attempts to do so. The pension demand is simply about acquiring more wealth enough to last them a lifetime. It is also about jealousy of the most despicable sort, as the comparison with the executive and judiciary arms of government makes clear. If the President and CJN can enjoy it, they argued, why shouldn’t the Senate President?

    Is the pension idea for such high office holders bad in itself? No. Even in more prosperous climes, it is practised. But there is a loftier spirit that powers it, or at the least, inspired it. In some of these other places beyond our continent, the beneficiaries clearly earned it, in some cases, giving up high net worth jobs to serve. Everyone generally agrees too that such pension structures help to kill off corrupt tendencies while in service, knowing the officers will be well looked after in post-service life.

    There is also another reason for the pension scheme. In 1958 the United States introduced the presidential pensions when they found that President Harry S Truman was grappling with financial difficulties as he left office. Congress, their legislature, reasoned that it detracted from the dignity of the office of the US Presidency.

    What do we find in our own case? In or out of office, some of our leaders sit on an inexhaustible pile of cash. Senator Oluremi Tinubu, who opposed the pension demand, pointed out that those seeking the retirement benefit are already swimming in affluence, boasting a fleet of cars and sundry allowances. What genuine argument can be made for shoveling more cash into their already deep vaults every month for the rest of their lives? How can you make such a case at a time when most Nigerians are feeling the squeeze brought on by mismanagement of the economy by previous administrations, especially Goodluck Jonathan’s, a situation worsened by vanishing global oil prices?

    The Senators’ other demand, immunity for principal National Assembly officers, is also ill-motivated. It is not just almost entirely without justification considering the legislators’ unflattering profiles, but also exposes their pitiably envious core. Again, those who push the immunity case argue that the President enjoys it, so why shouldn’t leaders of the federal legislature? This is avarice.

    The argument is flawed but not because in themselves such officers are unworthy of immunity. The case falls flat because it is ill-motivated and ill-timed. Bukola Saraki who heads the National Assembly is being tried at the Code of Conduct Tribunal for alleged assets declaration infractions and other allegations, though he never tires to say it is through and through a political persecution because he is Senate President. He was not his party’s choice for the office, and may well have a point, but isn’t there politics in almost every human endeavour, and, crucially, did he or did he not commit the offence? Dr Saraki himself became Senate President through what many see as a creepy political move, seizing upon a much crucially depleted house to execute his plan. He is now facing trial for an alleged forgery of the rules upon which his election was based.

    The move for immunity clearly betrays a determination to halt and prevent such a trial, a scenario made clearer by the fact that Dr Saraki has repeatedly tried, and failed, to stop his prosecution at the CCT. It is difficult to find any other reason for the immunity demand.

    In any event, the Senate has underperformed in its primary business of making laws. In one year the Senate passed 11 bills out of the 299 it received, while the House passed 85 out of 685. The Senate rather tainted itself with frivolous and self-serving pursuits. On May 17 it withdrew the much criticised Frivolous Petitions Bill flayed by many for its perceived attempt to discourage social media activities in a country rated as the second most vibrant tweeting nation, next to Egypt, and ahead of South Africa.

    In one year we have heard of distinguished Senators clamouring for more pay and glistening four-wheel drives. But then, it all seems eerily familiar in the nation’s highest lawmaking house from which all manner of demons have crept out in the past. We have seen cash-stuffed Ghana-Must-Go bags on the hallowed floor, and watched our esteemed lawmakers literally tear one another apart. We have heard and seen worse things, only that we hoped the eighth Assembly would have dared to differ and key into the change agenda.

    So far, there isn’t any hope.

  • New global checkpoints for leadership and public mood

    From  the shock  of  Brexit  in  the UK  referendum on its membership of  the EU to  the word   of  caution to North  American leaders  by  US  President  Barak  Obama on the electability of  Donald Trump  as US  president  in the 2016 presidential  elections, it is obvious that new global  standards  are emerging  to  judge  governance  and  democracies  globally. Even  in  Nigeria  where  the honeymoon beetween  the   Buhari  Administration   and    the   Nigerian   people is getting  sour   on  the   promised  change, but  for the popular war  against  corruption, it  is  apparent  that  the legislature  is at logger  heads with   the    with   executive  and    the public   mood  is simply   apprehensive on the outcome.  This  is  apparent from  the brickbats from  both sides on the on going  trial  of  the Senate  President  and   his Deputy  as  well  as the language  of  the Secretary  to the government  in  condemning  calls  for a consideration  of  the Report  of the last  National  Conference in the  last Administration  on  the Restructuring  of  Nigeria.

    Brexit  has already  taken   its toll  in terms of  leadership  tussles in  both  the Labor  Party  and  the ruling Conservative  Party  whose leader and  PM  David  Cameron  has  resigned over  the Brexit  result.  More  importantly  the  main  champion  of  the  Brexit  challenge and success Boris  Johnson  has   chickened out  of  the succession  race  for Tory  leadership. Ostensibly  because he   sensed,  and  rightly   too,   that   he will  lose  the  leadership    tussle   as    he  will   be  made a scapegoat  for  the current lamentation  in  Britain in voting  to quit  the EU,   albeit  with  a close referendum  result   of 51%  to  48%  for  Remain.

     As  for the Labor  Party, they  are  virtually  leaderless  as the Parliamentary  caucus  has passed  a vote  of  no  confidence in Labor  Leader  Jeremy  Corbyn.   Although the leader  has refused to resign even  as  contestants  are coming out to  challenge  for  a leadership  position  that is yet  to be vacated  by  the  Labor  leader. Obviously  the  public  mood in  Britain is that  of  resent  over  the vote  for  Brexit but  there is  no denying that the resentment that  led to  the victory of  Brexit  centred  on  frustration  with  the government  and  leadership  of the nation  especially  on  the issue of immigration  and the inevitability  of free movement  inherent in the concept  of a Single  Market  that the EU  represents. In  effect  then the  British  people  can  be compared    on   Brexit  with   the state  of   George  Foreman when  he  recovered from  the knock  out punch  that  Muhammed   Ali  unleashed in the 7TH   round   of  the Rumble  in  the  Jungle  in  Zaire  to  win their  World   Heavy weight Championship  bout.  Foreman  disputed  the count  down  of  ten  because  he has  been  dazed  and  briefly   out of touch  with this world, till  he was counted out mandatorily at  10.  That   was   the state  akin    to  political  stupor   and  quandary  that  the British  found  themselves,  reeling from   the upper  cut they  received from  the Brexit  verdict  on the EU  membership  on  June 23, 2016.

    Since  the Brexit  occurred before  US  President Barak  Obama went on his tour  of North  America  this  week   it  was  pertinent  that  he  should  allay  fears  that the Brexit  roller  coaster  resentment in  Britain  would   not  happen in the  2016  US  presidential  election.   He did  this  with  his usual brilliant  rhetoric that  is nowadays  losing touch  with  the reality  of  his  legacy. Obama  who  had asked the British in vain  not to  leave  the EU   lamented  that  the  world  has  been  seized  with populist  leaders  and ideas.  Such ideas he labeled as nativism, xenophobia and  cynicism.

    It  was not  difficult  to know  that  he   was referring to  Donald  Trump  and his quest  for the US presidency.  When  however the leaders of  Mexico  and  Canada  with  him started  saying  negative  things about  Donald  Trump,   the  same US president  called  them  to  order  and said  they should  be careful  because they will   have  to  deal  with  him  if  he wins the 2016 US  presidential  election. Which  really is the harsh  possibility  that  the Obama  legacy  has dealt  the American  people  and is the albatross that  Hillary  Clinton  has  to  carry  even  though the  US president  who  supports Hillary  and  has been  campaigning  for  her,  has  no  doubt  that Donald  Trump   could defeat  Hillary  in  the 2016  elections  as he said  candidly  in Canada   this week.

    In  addition the  US president  went  on like the proverbial  ostrich  with its  head  buried in  the sand to  say  that globalization  has  come  to  stay. This  is in spite   of   the loss of  US jobs because of globalization and world trade   and which   Donald    Trump   has railed    against. This    certainly  has  made Donald  Trump  popular  with  US  workers     and    the  masses   whose jobs  have been outsourced   to  China and India because of cheap labor  and lower  costs.  Yet  Obama  insisted  that the global  economic integration  of  national  economies is here  and now,  and is  here  to  stay.  That  is what  Trump  has  promised  to  remove  to  bring  relief  to  US workers  and   voters  who  feel  betrayed  by such globalization  and trade  practices.  Such  fears  fuelled  the consummation  of   the   Brexit   victory  in  Britain  and there  is no reason  that such  will  not  torpedo Donald  Trump  to victory  in the US if this is  really   the mind set of  the Hillary political  campaign, propelled  as it  is,  by  the Obama  legacy  and support.

    Similarly  in  Nigeria the incompetence  of  the last Jonathan  propelled  the  Buhari adminstration  to power  on  the slogan  of  change in  2015.  Unfortunately  the  administration  has  not  moved fast enough  to  make  life  better  for  the average  Nigerian. Indeed  the fuel  price  increase  has singularly  made life  worse in terms  of  eking  out  a living  for  the  average Nigerian.  This  is the  bitter  truth.  Yet  the  same Nigerian  has  not  lost  faith  in the leadership of  this  administration  simply  because  of  the war on  corruption  to  sanitise our  polity  and economy.  In  addition  the Nigerian  people  are  with  the government in  the prosecution  of  the leadership  of  the Senate in both  the false declaration  of  assets  case  and  the leadership elections  rule  forgery  case. Nigerians  see  the two  cases  as the sign  that the rule of law is in place and no  Nigerian  no matter  how  highly placed  is  above  the law. Nigerians are  no strangers  to  the  concept  of  separation of  powers and  are  not  befuddled  by  the charge  of interference in the affairs  of  the  senate  by  the defendants. Nigerians  would  love to see the trial  to a logical  conclusion  so  as to mete  out punishment  that will deter  such misdemeanor  in the legislative  chambers.

    In   addition  the government  should  have another  look at  the issue  of restructuring and mind its language in  dismissing  what is not  on  its  programme  for  now to  execute.  For  a Secretary to the Government to  say  that  he cannot find time to  read a Conference Report of the magnitude in question is lazy,  unprofessional, and  shows  scant  respect  for  delegation with  responsibility in managing the affairs  of  state. Journalists   and   Social  Scientists  can talk of  job  for the boys.  It  does  not sound nice on the lips of  a very  high  government  official  like the present Secretary to  the government.

    The  world  has become a global  village and Nigerians know  what  is going  on in the world  and have high  expectations  of  their  leaders and those in  governance  as at  this  point  in  time. As  Brexit  has  shown  no  government  is  above  the wishes of  the people  once  the opportunity  to  make their  choice is before  them. The  times  have  changed and so  have Nigerians   who  expect  their  government  to  put  food on their tables and provide security at all  times to  change  their  lives  for  the better,  as  promised – just  last  year.  Once  again  long  live the Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.

  • Leap off the cliff

    Sport isn’t leisure anymore. It is serious business used by countries which appreciate its power to pull the youth away from social vices, to change people’s perception of their countries, as a recreation platform for its citizens and a veritable means for its populace to improve on their health.

    Sport originates from the people through the communities with the products of such an enterprise emerging as ambassadors for the country in international competitions. All that the government does is to provide the enabling environment for the industry to thrive. Since the ultimate target of the corporate world is the citizen, it follows therefore that sport gets the needed fillip for growth when the athletes become big stars in the world. This seamless setting also ensures that only technocrats are recruited to drive the process, such that it is free of scams and controversies that would chase away the blue chip industries which are ready to provide the financial support for growth.

    But in Nigeria, we only start to take sport seriously when it appears that if we will miss out of big competitions. Unfortunately, soccer, which is our poster sport, is under the stranglehold of government personnel, who have refused to free the sport to achieve its full potential.

    A classical example of failed opportunities for soccer to become a megabucks enterprise was after Nigeria won the gold medal at the Atlanta’ 96 Olympics. Rather than build on that feat, a certain government official refused to allow the Dream Team I play games against Brazil, Argentina and others because he didn’t want the Brazilians and the Argentines to avenge the defeats they suffered in the hands of those talented boys at the Olympics.

    If Nigeria had honoured those international friendlies, 20 years ago, we would have understood the dynamics of sport been a business and not mere leisure, which is how we perceive it here. Top firms offered to host the replays against Brazil and Argentina. The cash and business platforms that the two matches would have attracted, 20 years, ago would have made the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) an international brand, which is solvent.

    That is the prize we have paid with that senseless decision, even though it is only during football matches that creed and ethnicity are thrown overboard by Nigerians. Even the criminals abandon their evil trade to cheer our national teams to victory. It doesn’t matter if Nigerians have to stay up late to watch such matches. Soccer is the opium of the people here.

    Since the draws of the Russia 2018 World Cup to determine the five African nations to represent the continent at the event, many a pundit have  condemned the Super Eagles as the weakest of the four teams who would slug it out for Group B’s sole qualification ticket.

    Optimists like this writer have watched in awe as absurd reasons are advanced for why the Eagles should forget about the Mundial in 2018. Even our group opponents have joined the ranting against the Eagles. Our players and indeed chieftains of the NFF are the voices in the seeming wilderness of our 2018 World Cup prospects urging those sitting on the fence to believe in them. But that is where this writer draws his conviction of Nigeria’s flag being flown at the Mundial in 2018.

    Good students of history will tell you that Eagles are at their best whenever they are written off. The problem is that when we eventually win trophies, the coaches take all the glory, with many of those who won the trophy having to virtually lick the coaches’ boots to secure their shirt. The coaches can do no wrong. Their word is law. And it is where the slide in the team’s fortunes begins. It is the reason we are always rebuilding the Eagles, with every failed expedition. Today, not many Nigerians can beat their chests to say the Eagles will be in Russia. The silver lining is that no names of Nigerians coaches are being bandied as those who can do the job instead of a foreign manager. Samson Siasia, who should be the automatic choice in this lacuna, is engrossed in assembling a winning side for Nigeria at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, which begins on August 5.

    The debate won’t be fierce when NFF throws up names of foreign coaches tipped for the job. Names, such as the late Shuaibu Amodu and the late Stephen Keshi, won’t resonate because they have joined the saints in heaven. The late Keshi’s and Amodu’s names would have been dropped as potential coaches who would make us qualify. Many would have argued that they should be supported. For the departed duo, it would have been another opportunity to collect their outstanding claims, knowing that nothing would change. The late Keshi and the late Amodu have been through this path before.

    Since the draws were made in Cairo on Friday, an interesting scenario has played out. Algeria, Nigeria and now Zambia are seeking to have foreign coaches, not forgetting that Camerooon is being tutored by a foreigner. The Algerians have hired Ghana Black Stars’ former coach, Milovan Rajevac, since he already knows the terrain. Rajevac, a Serbian, could use the style of the Ghanaians to fix Nigeria. True, there is hardly any significant difference between how the Black Stars and the Super Eagles play, except for the fact that the Ghanaians have been more consistent and dedicated to their national team’s assignments. The Ghanaians play flair football, which the Nigerian side can do, if the coaches pick the right players.

    Rajevac became Ghana’s manager in August 2008, quit Ghana on 8 September 2010 and took up a position with Saudi Arabian team Al-Ahli a day later. He left the Saudi club in February 2011 to become the national team coach for Qatar. He was relieved of his duties in August 2011.

    In September 2011, Rajevac was one of the four managers linked with the Egyptian national team, and in February 2014 he was one of four managers linked with the Burkina Faso national team.

    On 15 June 2016, he was officially appointed as manager of Rudar Velenje in Slovenia. He is abreast of the developments in African football but he knows that Nigeria will be a tough challenge now that Nigerians appear to be the underdog in this group. The beauty of Group B is that all the teams are presently embattled, with the Algerians changing coaches three times in one year. It simply means they don’t have a team that can express itself without depending on their key stars. This is the story of Nigeria, except that the Algerians have a better mentality when playing for their country.

    The Algerians begin the chase for the ticket with a home game against the Indomitable Lions of Cameroon. The Lions are the most unpredictable side to confront. They are not in a crisis. They are the only country in the group that has a team already, which should stretch the Algerians till the end of 90 minutes. If the Algerians are not careful, the Indomitable Lions will leave Algiers unscathed. And that would set the pace for which of the four teams would get the sole qualification ticket.

    The Indomitable Lions are dangerous customers when the stakes are high. If they get the result against Algeria in the opening game, then the Eagles have their work cut out for them when they meet the Cameroonians in the second game.

    But can the Eagles beat Zambia’s Chipolopolo in Lusaka on October 3? It is a difficult question even though the Nigerians are more talented than the Zambians. But what the Zambians lack in personnel, they have in doggedness and the innate resolve to “shed blood,” while playing for the country. They have imbibed this spirit since the time that a whole generation of the players died in a plane crash on their way to play a game. Many haven’t forgotten how the makeshift Zambian side almost beat Nigeria in the final game of the 1994 Africa Cup of Nations. Nigeria won 2-1 with Emmanuel Amuneke being the star of that game.

    Are the Zambians still formidable? I don’t think so. They are like Nigeria without a coach, although they are courting “White witch doctor,” Phillipe Troussier. Troussier is a good coach but he would need to ask plenty of questions about how the African game is played since his last expedition as the coach of the Super Eagles in 1997/98. Like Nigeria, the Zambians would totter in the qualifiers.

    Of the four countries in group B, Nigeria is the most talented. Therefore, if we expect to get the ticket, we must depart from the past and take the cue from others. Our coaches are handicapped. It would be suicidal for us to hand this 2018 assignment to them, given the large pool of talents available to us. It true that no domestic coach has won the World Cup but the difference between us and those who won the World Cup is that over there soccer is big business and it isn’t run by government stooges.

    Besides, these World Cup winners have thriving domestic leagues. They have systems that allow for a transition of players from the age-grade sides to the senior teams. These World Cup winners have FA bosses, who don’t require a ministerial approval to appoint a coach.

    The operations of these FAs have been perfected to ensure that tasks such as paying coaches would come from existing relationships with international firms domiciled in their countries.

    Not so here, with government officials making unsubstantiated claims of fraud in the NFF, which most times are trumpeted by those who lost out in elections into the federation.  With this type of reputation, no firm would touch the NFF, a body perpetually stuck in crises.

    This is our best chance to leap off the World Cup qualification cliff – if Sport Minister Solomon Dalung can allow the NFF prosecute this task without undue interference. Basketball federation, cricket federation and rugby federation have foreign coaches who have improved on their teams’ fortunes. Football should be allowed to emulate these federations for NFF to be solvent.

  • Pope Fancis and the gay question

    Pope Fancis and the gay question

    He is a man of God after my heart even though I am no adherent of the Roman Catholic Faith. Pope Francis’ unassuming simplicity, quiet dignity and unobtrusive asceticism make him such a Christ-like figure. On his stepping into the shoes of the fisherman, St Peter, regarded by Catholics as the first pope, he chose to be named after St Francis of Assisi. That decision sent a signal that this would be a Pope committed to the welfare and wellbeing of the teeming wretched of this earth. For, St Francis of Assisi dedicated his life identifying with the poor and underprivileged of this world while himself shunning any form of worldly comfort.  Some christened the new head of the Roman Catholic Church as the ‘Pope of hope’.

    Pope Francis has not disappointed. He has at every opportunity spoken against global poverty, the current perverse inequality in our world and the adverse consequences of a neoliberal capitalism that ceaselessly pursue economic growth and ever increasing profit even at the detriment of the environment that sustains us all. Pope Francis shuns protocol and considerations of security to reach out to children and the poor and disadvantaged in his extensive travels across the globe. Here is a pope who even bends down to wash the dirty feet of poor children, following in the steps of Jesus Christ.

    But then, Pope Francis is also at home with the high and mighty. His speeches elicit standing ovations and prolonged applause whether at the United Nations or at the United States Congress or in Cuba. And here is my problem with the Pope’s style. He rightly reaches out to the poor but also wants to be in the books of the high and mighty. The Pope heads over 2 billion Catholics worldwide. He is the Vicar of Christ on earth.  But if Jesus or the fiery John the Baptist or St Paul, were to address the United Nations or US Congress today, would they be given standing ovations? I wager not. For, they would have spoken blistering truth to power to the utter discomfiture of their audiences. Can it then be that the Pope is so widely venerated   because he says what the people want to hear? Has the church subordinated itself to the values of a world that, like the ill-fated Titanic, is heading seemingly inevitably towards a destructive rock at sea? As perhaps the most powerful and influential religious leaders on earth, should the Pope not be a light on the hill seeking to give direction to a world clearly shrouded in socio-political, economic, moral and spiritual darkness?

    These thoughts came to my mind when I read of the Pope’s recent admonition to Roman Catholics to apologize to gays whom they had maltreated in one way or the other. Incidentally the Pope also asked the Catholic Church to apologize to the poor, women and even children who had been exploited or discriminated against in any way by the church. Speaking on his way back to the Vatican from Armenia, the Pope said “I will repeat what the catechism of the (Roman Catholic) says, that they (homosexuals) should not be discriminated against, and they should be respected, accompanied pastorally”. In 2013, the Pope reportedly reiterated the church’s position that homosexual acts were simple but homosexual orientation was not. But can there be homosexual orientation without ultimately homosexual acts? “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?” the Pope had said.

    Of course, in some ways the Pope is right. It is not the function of any human being to stand in judgement against another. Judgement is ultimately the responsibility of God. And as the Pontiff rightly said again, the church has a responsibility to show love and compassion for all including gays. However, I worry about the moral relativity that informs the Pope’s position. If a religious leader of his stature and influence sits on the fence in this matter, is he not indirectly giving the impression especially to impressionable youth that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality?

    True, in a democracy, nobody should be debarred from expressing their sexual preferences. An individual’s sexual preference is a private matter and not one for public regulation. But while politicians who seek to win elections and thus identify boldly with the increasingly numerous and politically significant people of same sex orientation, the Pope has no such burden. He should be able to declare and consistently affirm the biblical position on homosexuality. This does not mean discriminating against same sex relationships in any way. That does not lie within the province of the church. Despite, their deep differences, for instance, the Republican and Democratic presumptive nominees for the US presidential election, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, as well as incumbent President Barack Obama, ceaselessly express their support for people with same sex orientation. They can afford to do that. For them, it is about political success and democracy. For the Pope, it is a moral issue on which he ought to take a firm and uncompromising stance. There must be a yardstick for deciding what is wrong and right in any society. Where the dividing line between right and wrong is erased, the society can only continue to spiral from one depth of moral degeneracy to even more devastating ones.

    Let me quickly say that I am opposed to the very hypocritical stance of public authorities in many parts of Africa, particularly Nigeria on the issue of homosexuality and same sex marriage. In Nigeria for example, an exceptionally idle National Assembly passed a law criminalizing same –sex marriage in 2009. This is, of course, sheer hypocrisy if not lunacy. Why doesn’t the Nigerian parliament, for instance, also pass a law criminalizing adultery, which in the biblical scriptures is treated as being no less sinful than homosexuality? So is it right for overpaid but under-performing public officers, who seduce and go out with young women including students to rail against homosexuality while ignoring the huge log in their own eyes? As the Anglican Bishop of Remo, Rt. Rev. Michael Fape poignantly put it: “Pope as a Roman Catholic has a right to his opinion. He is not saying the minds of those who are orthodox Christians…Whatever is good (as punishment) for an adulterer, for a robber, a sorcerer, or a murderer is good for a homosexual. They are all on the same level”.

    Criminalizing same-sex marriage only drives the practice underground rather than eradicate it. Containing same- sex marriage just like adultery among married couples goes beyond the scope of legislative or state action. This task must be left to spiritual bodies or Non-Governmental Organizations so inclined to work in that direction. But how can those who need counseling and help in terms of their sexual orientation be helped when an utterly meaningless law drives them underground? In any case, have we taken enough time to study and understand the issue of same-sex relationships from its psychological, sociological, scientific and medical dimensions?

    I remember being at a church service here in Lagos shortly after the 2009 anti-same-sex bill of the National Assembly was passed. The Senator who spearheaded the bill was in the church with his wife and children. The pastor spoke eloquently and at length about the man who had fought so hard against homosexuality and took a firm stand for God or words to that effect. He eventually urged the congregation to stretch forth their hands towards the distinguished Senator mightily being used by God in the National Assembly. Of course, I did not join in any such thing. As far as I know, legislators who receive humongous quarterly allowances and other outrageous perks in a country as poor as ours are no better than the homosexuals they seek to hound out of existence.

    All the same I insist that the pope should, like Peter, whose fisherman shoes he adorns or Jesus, of whose Vicar he is on earth, must stand for something. This is particularly so in the moral and spiritual darkness of our contemporary world.

  • Representation, legislation and leadership

    The  American  people  got independence  by violence in 1776  when  they  revolted  against British rule  and one of  their war  slogans  then  was –‘ No  taxation  without  Representation‘. The  statue  of liberty was  presented to  the American  people  by the  people  of  France   who  helped  the American  people  in their  revolt  against  British  yoke.  The  statue  of  liberty which  dominates  the sky line in  New  York Harbor    is the symbol  of  freedom  for all  peoples  of  the world that  they  are free  and welcome to  America  as immigrants  as  America  was  regarded  and  founded  as  a land  of  opportunities.

     The    statue  of  liberty   was  launched  in its present form  to celebrate  the  100   year  of  US  Independence  in  1876,  celebrated its  140th  anniversary   this  month.   Quite  appropriately  then,    it is in that  mood  that  I  look  at the concept of  freedom  inherent in democracy   today  as well  as the   functional  institutions and leadership in  global  democracies. Especially  at  this  point in time when  it seems the practice of  democracy appears  to  be stifling  the very  cries of  liberty  that gave rise to the   lady wielding a torch   of  freedom    and whose  name – Statue  of Liberty  – has  been  the pride of  the American  people  for  the past 240 years. Until  the present  rancorous and bitter  presidential  election that  has thrown  up  someone like  Donald  Trump  who  sees  migrants  to  the US  mostly  as security  risks.

    Since  Nigeria practices democracy  in  its  presidential  form which  originated from  the US, it  is pertinent to  compare  events and political  situations from   both  nations occasionally  as I  will  do  today. I  note  that   although  Nigeria  does  not  have an imposing   reminder  of its democratic  and  freedom  pedigree  like  the Statue  of  Liberty of the US  it  has  an  effective  substitute. That  is the architectural  master  piece that is our  Legislature in  Abuja as well  as  the great  ambience  of its interior decoration in luscious  green  and red  for the Lower  and Upper   Houses  respectively. The  splendor  and beauty  of  our  legislative  chambers obviously  is an index  of  the  high   premium  we place on    representative  democracy  as well  as elective democracy with  its  tenure  limited  by  constitutional  elections  as and when  due.

    However  an unintended development  has  come  out  of  the legislative splendor  we  put  in  place  to  make  our  legislators  comfortable and  focused  on their  legislative  duties  and  representation  of  the  good  people of  Nigeria whose  representatives   they are  on  the opulent  green  and red  chairs they  sit  on  to  legislate. Our  legislators  seem  to  have lost  touch  with  the mood  and expectations  of the Nigerian  electorate  that  sent  them  to  the Nigerian  legislature. Two  events  critically  bear  this disturbing situation  out.

    The  first  was the warning  given  to  the  government of  Nigeria   not  to  prosecute  the leadership  of  the Senate  on  issues of  corruption   and forgery  of  rules  on the last  leadership  elections in  the Senate.  The  second  was the proposal  to grant  immunity  as  well  as  pensions  to  the leadership  of  the legislature.

    Even  though  the two situations  are  patently    provocative   and  infuriating  to  those  who  elected them,  and   whose interests  they  have betrayed   I  am   happy  that  there  are  still  people  and institutions in our fledgling  democracy  who  have  been  bold  enough  to  call  them  to  order or  show  them  the light.  The  relevant  institutions  responsible  for  fixing such issues  has come out to say  that  only  the President  and  Vice  President  are entitled to  pension  and  immunity and  no one in the legislature according  to  the constitution  in place for now. That  should  end the  selfish    move  of  the Senate in  that regard except  they  want to  proceed on the dicey  and slippery  path of constitutional  amendment  which  will  make them even  more  unpopular and loathed  than they  are  at  present.

    Obviously  the legislators have  not  understood  the concept  and meaning of pension  which  in normal  corporate life is reward for long  employees  service  and can  be contributory  or  not.  How  come then a Senate  leader  or  President elected in the  legislature  can  aim  to  claim such  right or perquisite accorded  the executive  in our  presidential  system? Obviously  the lawmakers  are acting  out  of their  purview  and  are  like  fish  out  of water  with  those  who  gave them  their  present  mandate  and  representation.  To drive home my point  I will  illustrate with the gay  rights  and gun laws  of  the US  and  the attendant controversies  in recent  times.

    Quite controversially  for a US president  that  Africans  love  and  respect, the US President  Barak  Obama  regards the issue  of  the ruling of  the US Supreme  Court on  equal  rights  for  gays  on inheritance  as  a major  achievement of  his  two  term  presidency. Yet  a debater  on  CNN, a white lady  claimed  that the    ruling on  the issue by  the Supreme  Court usurped  the  mandate of the  American  people as the  court  was  not  elected  for such  a broad and important  matter  as gay  rights  and  the  issue  should  have gone  to  the American  people  to  vote on  in  a referendum.  This is a view  that I agree  with  and can  compare  with the decision of  the Tory Party  in  Britain on  Brexit  which went  to  a  referendum on  June 23, even  though  that  became  rowdy  and  disruptive  politically.  What  I am  saying  is that  some  issues  have  to  go  to  the people  to decide in a referendum or  election as  those  are  the barometer of  public  opinion in  a working  democracy  and  not  judicial short  cuts as in  the gay issue in the US  or  the pension  and  immunity  rights  for  the  Senate  leadership  in  Nigeria.

    On  the    charge   of political  victimisation  of the   Senate President  on  the  corruption  charges I  will  ask  the Senate  to respect  the separation  of  powers  inherent  in a presidential  system such  as we practice  for  now  in  Nigeria. The  executive  is in  charge of  law  and order in Nigeria  just  as  it is the  constitutional  duty  of  the legislature to make  laws  and approve  the budget.  In  approving the budget  which  normally  should  be a cost  control  matter  the legislature  has  encouraged  padding  to include its  membership  perquisites before budget  passage  in  the legislature  and  the Nigerian  legislator is one of the highest  paid  in the  world. The  Nigerian  constitution does  not  allow both  the senate  and  the  executive to interfere in  court cases  once  they  are  on and  that  of  the Senate President cannot  be an  exception. Equally  untenable was  the defence  posture  of  the Senate  President  that  the additional  case  of leadership  election forgery  would  be an added  pressure  on  him  in  the performance of his onerous duty as Senate  President. He  is well  advised  to ease  such pressure  by resigning  so  as to  have time to clear himself  of  the law  so as to  meet  the very  challenging  duty  of  leading the  hallowed  task  of  law  making  in  our  Upper  Chamber.  Once  again, long  live  the Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.