The Nation Newspaper

Category: Saturday

  • Apex court rulings: Let’s just swallow hard and move on

    It is unclear who first coined the phrase ‘The law is an ass’. For sure, Charles Dickens penned those words in his famous work Oliver Twist published in 1838. In that novel, a man in court over issues with his bossy wife was told that “…the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”

    The man, Mr Bumble, replied with a fair amount of frustration and impatience, “If the law supposes that, the law is an ass.”

    Scholars have asserted that the words were not original to the famous novelist and that indeed they appeared hundreds of years earlier in a work entitled Revenge of Honour published in 1654 by English dramatist George Chapman.

    A portion of that work reads, “Ere he shall lose an eye for such a trifle…For doing deeds of nature! I’m ashamed. The law is such an ass.”

    Is that the end of the controversy? No. Another playwright would come into the picture, credited with Chapman’s play under the title ‘The Parricide, or, Revenge for Honor’ said to be written around 1620, in other words, much earlier than Dickens’ or Chapman’s efforts.

    Still, it has been said that neither Chapman nor that other playwright, Henry Glapthorne, wrote the play.

    But before our own governorship candidates who lost their appeals at the Supreme Court begin to comfort themselves with that phrase, supposing that it means the law is sh*t or something worse, they should be informed that the ass in question is the other name for a donkey, not the posterior quarters of humans or animals.

    The ass is known for its stubbornness, sometimes of the incomprehensible kind. So in the case of poor Mr Bumble or the other fellow on the verge of losing an eye for a minor offence, the law is viewed as too rigid.

    How then do we or should we view the recent judgements of the Supreme Court especially on the Rivers and Akwa Ibom states governorship election cases?

    It is impossible to have a unified position, it must be said. The atmosphere in the camp of the All Progressives Congress’ candidates has been understandably subdued and plaintive, sometimes accusatory. In the People’s Democratic Party corner, on the other hand, there is exultation.

    Beyond the partisan divide, can we have any position whatsoever? Do we feel that justice has been served beyond every reasonable doubt, as lawyers like to say? Is there credibility in the verdicts?’ If we have some reservations, what do we do? Do we hold our peace in respect to the learned Justices, blink a few times, swallow hard and move on?

    We are supposed to hail the judgements. For, they were delivered by seasoned Justices whose professionalism and patriotism are not in doubt. But on the other hand, I hope that anyone who was dissatisfied with the rulings will be permitted to ruminate on the areas of their private discontents, however ignorant they may be.

    As Mr Bumble wondered how he could possibly lose a case against his domineering spouse, so also someone was amazed that a guy who committed a minor offence could risk losing a body organ as important as an eye. They wondered what the law or its application was coming to.

    I am under no such torments. Our laws and their interpretation are appreciably in good health and in good hands, if we slice off the small margin of the antics of the proverbial bad eggs in the bar and on the bench. I only persuade myself to study these things a bit more thoroughly and always remember that those who hand out the judgements mean well too. The fate and future of the country are as important to winners and losers of court cases and elections as they are to the judges and justices who decide them.

    But to a mere columnist like me, unlearned in the fine and refined arts of law and the end to which it is put, some of these rulings may remain a bit of a puzzle for a while until I am better schooled and groomed.

    One eminent lawyer, Itse Sagay, a professor in the field, has reportedly described the rulings as “very strange”, “unprecedented”, even Draconian, in the sense that they seemed essentially alike, in other words, one verdict for all cases.

    Both the Rivers and Akwa Ibom governorship elections were reportedly marred by appreciable irregularities and not a little bloodshed, among other forms of violence. The trial tribunals and appeal courts dismissed the polls, indicating that the victories of Mr Nyesom Wike (Rivers) and Mr Udom Emmanuel (Akwa Ibom) were suspect. At the Supreme Court, the lower courts’ verdicts were emphatically reversed. In both cases, the Supreme Court Justices ruled, inter alia, that Wike and Emmanuel were legally and validly elected; that they were denied fair hearing at the lower courts; that it was wrong for the appellate courts to base their judgements on guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the use of card readers, and that, in the case of Akwa Ibom, it was wrong for the lower court to rely only on the facts and not the provisions of the law.

    For me, a few questions pop up. Did the prosecution at both the trial tribunal and appellate court do such a shoddy job? If so, the prosecution team need as much legal schooling as I do. Secondly, if the prosecutors made a messed up their cases, why did the Appeal Court judges rule in their favour, after all, the judges are presumed no less professional, reputable and patriotic? Thirdly, if, and only if, our prosecutors and judges do not quite measure up in matters as consequential as election arbitration, is it not about time we collapsed every legal and judiciary structure in place and started all over again? Meanwhile, those who are as puzzled by the rulings as I am may only need to blink hard, swallow hard and move on, hoping for the best especially in matters electoral and judicial.

     

     

  • Averting another caged presidency

    Averting another caged presidency

    Following his shock and clearly unanticipated defeat in the April 28, 2015, presidential election, especially in the light of the unbroken electoral invincibility of presidential incumbency in the country’s political history, former President Goodluck Jonathan was ushered back from the dizzying heights of intoxicating glory to the sobering realms of reality. In perhaps the most reflective and philosophical mood of his 16-yearsojourn in public office, Jonathan told members of the Christian community in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, who paid him a post-election Easter homage at the presidential Villa, that he had actually been in a cage during his adventures in power at various levels from Deputy Governor to Governor, Vice President and ultimately the country’s apex office since 1999.

    In his words: “From 1999 I have been in the hands of government. I am yet to see somebody luckier than I was in the hands of government for 16 years, not in government as a parliamentarian, because if you are in the National Assembly or House of Assembly, you take care of yourself in your house. I was in a cage being taken care of by the government. But I think it is enough and I am happy. Help me to thank God for that”.

    Of course, Dr Jonathan could not have been more mistaken as regards the true nature and essence of the cage. I am reminded of the gripping autobiographical novel, ‘I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings’, by the late African American writer, Maya Angelou. She writes with a combination of zest, verve and pathos about how, growing up in segregated America in the 1930s and 40s, she was ‘imprisoned’, her self-esteem entrapped in the limiting cages of racial discrimination, gender repression and class deprivation.

    The song of the caged bird is not a rousing, thrilling, joyous Hallelujah chorus. It is a dirge, a pitiful, mournful monotone. For, the cage is not a space of liberty and dignity. It is a humiliating place of confinement. It is a restrictive prison. It is a suffocating cell. Feed the caged bird as much as you want. It will always thirst for the freedom to flap its wings, hop from tree to tree and soar freely in the skies. By its very nature, the cage constricts, distorts and devalues the true nature of its trapped occupant.

    The defining essence of the quintessential occupant of public office particularly in a democracy is to pursue the Benthamite ideal of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of the people. He is fulfilled only by a passionate commitment to fulfilling his social contract with the public and promoting the general good. To do this, more so in a presidential system where governmental effectiveness depends largely on the energy of the executive arm, the Chief Executive must be free to soar in what Eugene Peterson would describe as the ‘wide open spaces’ of respect for the majesty of the law, dogged commitment to truth, unimpeachable transparency and fierce fidelity to the public trust. But the Nigerian presidency is deliberately designed to negate these values; to effectively cage the occupant of the office, imbue him with an exaggerated sense of his own infallibility, while crafty minders of the presidential zoo feather their nests to their heart’s content.

    You must give it to Jonathan. Yes, he has his own faults like all of us. But he is at heart a good natured man who can be sometimes amazingly naive in his utter simplicity. This is why he at least honestly admitted he was in a cage even if he himself betrayed a manifest misunderstanding of the nature of his confinement.  The Nigerian presidency is tailor made to take maximum advantage of the weaknesses of a man like Jonathan. Thus, while he theorized leisurely about the very intricate differences between stealing and corruption, the delighted minders of the presidential zoo kept him endlessly distracted while, as is becoming ever more glaring by the day, they engaged in a looting spree of epidemic proportions. But then, the problem is not with Jonathan. It is with the Nigerian presidency, which transformed an ordinarily humble school teacher into a most unwilling Nebuchadnezzar.

    It is my humble submission that every President in this dispensation has been effectively caged by the excessive and intoxicating powers of the Nigerian presidency. General Olusegun Obasanjo is an able man. It is not for nothing that he has played historical roles at key moments of Nigeria’s political evolution. His patriotism and nationalism are beyond dispute.He was really passionate about fighting corruption. Towards this end, he takes the credit for ensuring the creation and strengthening of such anti-corruption agencies as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as well as the Independent Corrupt Practices and other offences Commission (ICPC).

    At the end of the day, however, Obasanjo’s legacy was indelibly stained by the aborted Third Term Agenda, aimed at illegal and immoral tenure elongation. This ranks among the worst forms of political corruption perpetrated in this dispensation. The excessive and intoxicating powers of the Nigerian presidency fed the Messianic streak in an otherwise well- meaning President making him vulnerable to the antics of  essentially self-seeking sycophants.

    The late President UmaruYar’Adua was a man of impeccable integrity as well as uncommon dignity and honour. But for the ill health that dogged his brief tenure, there were indications that he would most likely have easily ranked among the greatest Presidents of our time. Not only did he frankly admit the flawed nature of the polls that brought him to power, he took concrete steps to initiate fundamental electoral reforms. He set the precedent of publicly declaring his assets without prompting. Yet, a vicious and rapacious cabal, capitalising on Yar’Adua’s ill health marginalized the legal and legitimate institutions of state and practically hijacked the reigns of presidential power until death mercifully intervened.

    Now, President MuhammaduBuhari has his work cut out for him. His integrity is legendary. His zero tolerance for corruption makes him an iconic moral avatar. The Daura General’s austere lifestyle stands him out in the putrescent crowd of the country’s indulgent and hedonistic political and economic elite. Buhari cuts the enigmatic figure of the conservative General as radical reformer. In a short span of time in office, he has demonstrated convincingly that his redemptive zeal has not flagged. Yet, it is unlikely that the change agenda of the All Progressives Congress (APC), which Buhari embodies, can transmute into the enduring transformation desired even if he spends two terms of eight years in office. The rot and decay have set in too deeply for an instant cure to be effected within such a short time frame.

    The change Buhari and the APC promise should, in my view, begin with the presidency itself. The President must curb the monstrous powers of an institution that perverts and taints virtually all who sit at the apex of presidential authority. Within the context of a demobilized civil society, an inchoate party system, a deformed federal structure that is essentially unitary, an ineffectual and morally incapacitated legislature and an economically famished and ethically challenged media, the Nigerian presidency is institutionally ‘overdeveloped’ and a veritable source of systemic dysfunction.

    Buhari must thus strive to enhance and institutionalize the relative autonomy of critical institutions of state – the police, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), anti-corruption agencies and Directorate of State Security (DSS) in particular – from the suffocating grip of the presidency. This is to ensure that if less restrained, decent and principled persons occupy the office in future after him,  they will be less able to wield presidential powers in the kind of politically detrimentaland disruptive ways we have witnessed in the last 16 years.

    Two other critical ingredients necessary to avert the possibility of another caged presidency under Buhari are first, decoupling the ruling party from the unhealthy dominion of the presidency. Luckily, President Buhari has shown a commendable reluctance to immerse his presidency unduly in internal partisan party matters. As the sobering experience of the PDP shows, when a ruling party at the centre becomes no better than just another parastatal of the presidency, its vital energies are sapped, its internal structures and processes begin to atrophy and it is only a matter of time before it collapses under its own dead weight. It is up to President Buhari and the APC to choose another path.

    Secondly, the APC must pursue a fundamental de-concentration of power from the centre to the states and local governments in a process of systematic re-federalization of the polity. The Buhari administration deserves commendation for its dogged prosecution of its anti-graft war. However, theover-concentration of power, responsibilities and resources at the centre, must also be a cardinal part of the APC’s change agenda in order to tackle the menace at the no less important structural level. As it is, the Nigerian presidency still remains very prone to being caged by ethno-regional cabals, unprincipled power cliques and shadowy cartels of graft with negative consequences for the polity.

  • Liberating our local government councils

    Liberating our local government councils

    This column rarely agrees with former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s often trenchant, truculent, intemperate and superficial views on issues, events and personalities. It is my view that Chief Obasanjo is too preoccupied with diligently seeking to remove the speck in the eyes of others while steadfastly ignoring the monstrous log sticking out of his face, believing perhaps that it is an adornment of great attraction. His readiness to maul people he believes are his adversaries and to strip them naked in the market place, for me, symbolises an irritating and annoying sense of hubris. It also betrays a desperate bid to hide some deep-seated psychological disorientation beneath the garb of brashness and an unwarranted sense of self-importance.

    But there are times when you must be intellectually honest enough to admit that the man is right even while fundamentally disagreeing with his methods as well as his delusion that he is not also culpable for Nigeria’s post-colonial woes. He was given the rare and unprecedented opportunity to preside over the affairs of Nigeria, first as a military Head of State then an elected President for two terms. On the two occasions he left the country worse off. But then, I digress. Obasanjo certainly got it right, for instance, when he recently wrote an excoriating letter to the National Assembly leadership vehemently condemning the humongous, opaque and immoral amounts of public resources the legislators appropriate to themselves annually for the most frivolous reasons. His stance resonated, well with large swathes of the public because of the grim economic crisis under which millions of Nigerians are suffering in agony.

    The defensive response of some of the legislators was to the effect that as President, Obasanjo tried to induce the National Assembly to give a stamp of legality to his aborted Third Term agenda designed to perpetuate himself in office. In other words, he has no business moralising to the National Assembly because corruption was rife in the system even when Obasanjo was Head of State. This surely cannot be a credible defence. The import of this reasoning is that the legislators are conceding that they are criminally enriching themselves to the detriment of the welfare of the vast majority of Nigerians because there was corruption in the system before their election as national legislators. The reasoning is untenable.

    Obasanjo’s remarks at the inaugural conference of the Ibadan School of Government and Public Policy (IGPP) at the University of Ibadan, on Monday, February 1, were also largely true and thought provoking although he opened himself to charges of hypocrisy, which may not be entirely untenable. On that occasion, Obasanjo attributed Nigeria’s stunted growth to state governors who, in his view, allegedly divert huge revenue allocations meant for the Local Government Councils to other purposes. The governors, according to Obasanjo had rendered public institutions in their domains irrelevant for all practical purposes.

    In Obasanjo’s searing words – “Is there good governance in the 36 states of the federation where some governors have become sole administrators acting like Emperors? These governors have rendered public institutions irrelevant and useless. Is there development going on in the 774 constitutionally recognised local governments which are known to have been appropriated by governors? And, of course, when governors take their money, the chairmen of the councils take the balance of the money, put it on the table and share among council members”.

    Lamenting that Nigeria has not internalised the necessary values imperative for the sustenance of presidentialism and federalism Obasanjo said: “When are we going to able to practice federalism in a way that promotes healthy competition among the states for the benefit of the citizens? When are we going to subordinate partisanship to collective goals and deploy the full potential of our diversity to advance public causes that serve the aspirations of the teeming masses of our people crying out under the cringe of poverty, disease, unemployment and neglect’”.

    Of course, many will dismiss Obasanjo’s lamentations here as nothing but deceptive and sanctimonious posturing. And they surely have a point. Obasanjo has no right to claim that any governor is behaving like an emperor and undermine public institutions. He is the least qualified person to lecture any one on the virtues of federalism. As President of Nigeria for eight years – 1999 and 2007, Obasanjo behaved like an imperial President. He was the ultimate President as Emperor. He manipulated the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to impeach governors through ways that flagrantly breached the constitution.

    He forcefully and illegally withheld the allocation of funds meant for Local Government Councils in Lagos just because the state exercised her constitutional right to create 37 new councils. Up till the end of his tenure, Obasanjo refused to obey the Supreme Court judgement affirming that the Federal Government had no right or powers to withhold any funds statutorily allocated to any tier of government.

    Beyond this, in his sweeping generalization of the governors as being responsible for the country’s stunted development, Obasanjo does not take into account the skewed fiscal allocation formula that allocates over 57% of the country’s revenues to the Federal Government while the 36 states and 774 Local Government Councils share approximately 43%. Where then can the funds be to fuel development in a meaningful manner especially when the constitution constricts many states, especially the states rich in mineral and other natural resources, from exploiting such endowment for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of their people. Obasanjo had the opportunity as two-term President for eight years to bequeath to the nation a viable revenue allocation formula that reflects genuine fiscal federalism and enables all tiers of government to serve as engines of development in their respective zones. He failed abysmally and woefully in this regard.

    But then, it will be most irresponsible and unproductive to throw the baby away with the bathwater. We must distinguish between the messenger and the message. The critical point Obasanjo raises centres on how the 774 Local Government areas can be made viable and development-driven.  It is a genuine concern we must all share. Local governments across the country are widely perceived as citadels of corruption and sordid emblems of inefficiency and manifest unproductivity. Obasanjo’s claim that state governors divert monies accruing to Local Government Councils is only part of the story.  The truth is that even with the funds available to them, the various councils could still do much more than they are presently.

    Some have recommended that the States/Local Government Joint Account to which all monies accruing to the Local Government from the Federation Account are paid before being distributed to the Local Governments should be scrapped. They believe this will enhance the autonomy of Local Governments    by enabling them to receive their allocations directly from the Federation Account. This arrangement could be fraught with danger of tying the Local Governments to the apron string of the Federal Government and strengthening the centralist impulses in the federation at the expense of the greater decentralisation we desire.

    Others have suggested that the idea of elected Local Governments under the control of the states should be done away with and replaced with that of administrative local units under the total control of the state government. Yet others contend that the presidential system obtainable at the local government should be discarded and the local councils resort to the parliamentary system that was the practice before the various local government reforms of the military era.  These suggestions are simply ways of running away from rather than solving the problem. To do away with elected local government councils will rob grassroots communities the opportunity to participate in deciding who governs them at the tier of government closest to the ordinary man.  In the same vein, a reversion to the parliamentary system at the local government level cannot solve any problem. The values that sabotage and make a presidential system of government unworkable will also have the same effect on a parliamentary style of government.

    Although there are no easy solutions to the emergence of a viable, vigorous, transparent and effective Local Government system, I offer one suggestion as a starting point. And that is to ensure free, fair and credible elections at the grassroots where votes are not just counted but they actually count. This will entail either scrapping the State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIEC) and transferring their functions to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) or strengthening the autonomy of SIEC and transform them  from the cruel mockery of democracy and integrity they are today. A vibrant electoral process at the grass roots that lets people have a genuine say in who  or which party governs them at any point in time will begin to create the real revolutionary ferment at the grassroots that will also strengthen democracy at other levels of government.

  • A WORD FOR SIASIA

    In this period of lent, so many things have crossed my mind. Some I have waved aside as illusions not worth sharing here. I have slept over others and considered a few as being achievable. One of such images that I have contended with, which can be realised, is watching for the second time Nigerian youth celebrating on the Olympic Games’ dais as champions of the football event in Rio d’ Janerio, Brazil later in August.

    I was in Georgia, Atlanta in 1996 when Nigeria, led by Nwankwo Kanu won the gold medal of the Atlanta’96 Olympic Games. The circumstances at that time now stare us on the face. The only difference is that a Nigerian would be the history maker not a wiry Dutch who led us to victory, yet rubbed mud on our faces by refusing to return with the winning squad to Nigeria. Although the Dutch tactician had a good case, he would have had the best opportunity to seek justice if he had swallowed his pride.

    Immediately after Nigeria lifted the trophy at the 1993 U-17 World Championship, football pundits predicted that some the players in that Golden Eaglets squad would rule the world. Many reckoned that if they were kept together and given the right training, Nigeria could surprise the world at the 1998 World Cup held in France. This prediction never happened because we are such a disorganised polity. Rather than motivate the people who ran the structures that produced the winning squad, we pulled them down. Bystanders wanted to be part of history without the prerequisite knowledge. They ended up corrupting the template. Rather than sustain the tradition of instituting excellence we celebrated mediocrity because of their ineptitude.

    It is instructive to note that Nigeria’s debut at the 1994 World Cup in the United States further raised the hope that 1998 would be first time the most prestigious soccer trophy would be coming to Africa, but this never happened because our players could not manage success.

    Twenty-two years ago, Clemens Westerhof brought belief into our game with the resounding manner in which the Super Eagles tore through its opponents at the USA’94 World Cup. Perhaps, if our football authorities had listened to Westerhof’s suggestion that the players be relocated to a more serene accommodation, Nigeria would have been the first African nation to play in the final of the FIFA World Cup as debutants. After all, Bulgaria that the Eagles whipped 3-0 in the group stage won the bronze medal.

    Names such as Austin Okocha, Sunday Oliseh, Emmanuel Amuneke, Uche Okechukwu, Daniel Amokachi et al joined the emerging Eaglets, such as Nwankwo Kanu, Celestine Babayaro, Emmanuel Babayaro, Wilson Oruma, Mobi Okparaku, Ibrahim Babaginda and Karibe Ojigwe (Lord have mercy, where is this guy now?), to rock the soccer world with stunning results, especially the comeback 4-3 victory over Brazil in the semi-finals.

    Products of the USA ’94 squad and the World Champions in 1993 structure a remarkable understanding with those from the domestic league but who were already in Europe making waves. They include Victor Ikpeba, Tijani Babangida, Taribo West, Kingsley Obiekwu (aka Shagari), goalkeeper Dosu Joseph, Teslim Fatusi, Abiodun Obafemi and Garba Lawal.

    The squads of USA ’94 and Atlanta ’96 excelled. It didn’t come as a surprise that both teams remain the talking points of the beautiful game here, irrespective of the galaxy of dropped stars, Jonathan Akpoborie.

    Happily, Dream Team VI’s Coach Samson Siasia passed through the grill of fairness in the choice of players by Westerhof. Even when Saisia earned the wrath of the Dutch for failing to pass the ball to an unmarked Rashidi Yekini –may his soul rest in perfect peace- in one of the qualifiers, Westerhof still picked Siasia for the final list because he was the best in his position. Siasia went on to score a goal against Argentina in the group game. Nigeria lost 2-1.

    Siasia can make history only if he selects players with initiative and the hunger to succeed. These two traits are the hallmarks of teams whose players fight for every ball until the game is won. Siasia shouldn’t restrict his team to the best 11 men. Big games are won by players on the bench. Tactical changes leave the opponents gasping for breath and fans wondering why such lads didn’t start the game.

    Siasia must pick a team of 22 talented players eager to give their best. Such players must be selfless. They must be prepared to pass the ball to the person in a more advantageous position to score. Matches are won by teams that score goals, playing as a unit. If Siasia wants to write his name in gold in Brazil, he should forget about his past achievements. He should listen to wise counseling. And this includes looking at some of our new internationals who did well at the FIFA U-17 World Cups in 2013 and 2015. Many of them are in Europe, learning the ropes in youth academies – which should make them better players. The national team isn’t a place to teach players how to control the ball or shoot into the net or other basic skills which should come to those invited like second nature.

    Siasia, I’m not a coach. But renowned coaches have these young Nigerians in their folds. It is good I list them for you to know who and where they are. Permit me to state that among the Eaglets squad that lifted the FIFA Under-17 World Cup 2013 diadem under Garba Manu’s tutelage, Kelechi Iheanacho (Man City), Musa Yahaya (Tottenham Hotspurs), Chidiebere Nwakali  (Man City), Chidera Ezeh (FC Porto),  Zaharadeen Bello (Kano Pillars), Taiwo Awoniyi (Liverpool FC/FC Frankfurt) and Success Isaac (Granada FC) deserve to fight for shirts in the final 23-man squad for the Olympic Games.

    As for the FIFA Under-17 World Cup 2015 set, players, such as Ejike Ikwu, David Enogela, Michael Kingsley, Samuel Chukwueze (Arsenal FC), Kelechi Nwakali (Arsenal FC), Victor Osimhen (Wolfsburg FC), Funsho Bamgboye and goalkeeper Akpan Udoh, should be invited.

    Add these kids to those who secured the Olympic Games ticket for us in Senegal you have a damn good team. Siasia ought to start his camping in March, armed to the teeth with skilful players hungry for glory. I sincerely do not think that Siasia needs overage players for Olympic Games.

    I will also suggest that NFF chiefs sit Saisia down to see the need for him to allow Emmanuel Amuneke work with him because he knows the bulk of the players in the 2013 and 2015 squads to guide him in his final team selection. It would pay Siasia more if he consults with ex-internationals for players they think can make the difference in his team.

    For instance, Nwankwo Kanu has identified Alex Iwobi, who has just been elevated into Barclays English Premier League side’s first team as the next star for the country. Can Saisia fault Kanu’s judgment of Iwobi’s talent? Arsene Wenger won’t sign anyone who isn’t skillful with the ball. Hey, Iwobi is Okocha’s nephew? Shhh… he must be extremely skillful. I wish he could truly be better than Austin Okocha? Can there any player like that again? Okocha was matchless. Take a bow, Jay Jay Okocha.

     

    Was Dalung misquoted?

    I’ve been combing the media for the denial of the story that Sports Minister Solomon Dalung was quoted to have said that the YouTube video on Sunday Oliseh was manipulated. It is true that such things can be edited but we need to ask Dalung why Oliseh apologised to his employers. If Oliseh didn’t say what was shown in the YouTube, he would have denied it and sought legal options. The other question to ask the minister has to do with the contents of the recording.

    Are the allegations recorded on the YouTube not what happened in the CHAN Eagles’ camps in Pretoria, South Africa and Kigali, Rwanda? Or didn’t Dalung appeal to the coaches, players and officials to bear with the government over what they were passing through in Rwanda? Or was that one also contrived on YouTube?  The setting where the recording looked like a house not a studio?

    Is it not true that the NFF are indebted to Oliseh to the tune of N10 million? Or is the minister also saying that the aspect where the coach told us how much he spent to feed the players in the YouTube recording was contrived? Did Oliseh not reveal how much he had spent to treat himself in Belgium in the recording? Or was that also manipulated? Does the minister think that video recordings are static images like pictures that can be manipulated through photo shop?

    Honourable minister, you did well to resolve the matter. And NFF chiefs credited you with that. It is, therefore, preposterous for anyone to say that the recording on YouTube was manipulated in any form.  Oliseh has erred and apologised. The minister did well to plead with the NFF to temper justice with mercy. Case closed, honourable minister. I digress.

    I hope the sports minister read Funke Oshionaike’s complaints about the way ping pong players were treated during the qualifiers for the Olympic Games.

    Oshionaike alleged that the money she spent to attend previous competitions had not been refunded. She lamented her inability to compete for the Olympic Games ticket in Sudan because she was broke. But will the minister call her to find out what happened like he did with Sunday Oliseh? Read my lips.

    Honourable minister sir, the Olympics is less than five months away, and not a word from you or the ministry on how we are preparing for the games? Isn’t Dalung worried about our ill-preparedness? Would Dalung be surprised if we return from Brazil with drug tales like we have seen with the All Africa Games? With this kind of poor preparations, desperate athletes might opt to cheat for glory by taking steroids. You want to take a bet sir?

    At the London Olympic Games held in London, Nigeria didn’t win a medal. I don’t need an oracle to predict here that we will not win a medal. It would be worse because all our athletes would crash out of all the events in the first round. Prophesying doom? Not really. Just being realistic, folks.

  • Legacy, pragmatism and idealism

    Today’s  title stems  from the   post – debate   categorization   by analysts  of the world views of the leading two US Democratic Party presidential candidates this  week. Senator  Bernie  Sanders  was labeled idealist, and Hillary  Clinton as pragmatist based on her exposure and stint  as Secretary  of State before. Both  were sworn as  it were  to defending the Obama legacy although Hillary  took a swipe at her  opponent by wondering what the Republicans would be left to say given the way the Senator was attacking the Obama legacy especially on the state of the US economy.

    I take  issues today with  this simple branding of the contestants as well  as the concept  of the legacy they are both beholden to defend because their  party has been  in power  for the last eight years in the US.  Consequently  and  ipso  facto   they  must  accept responsibility for the state of both the domestic and global  economy as well  as global  security  and  foreign  policy given  the  US leading role in world politics.  That  in reality means that as they sell  their  candidacy  they must  articulate  new ways that  they have in their arsenal to make things better  for the  American electorate  which  is their first  constituency  and vote catchment environment.

    In  contrast however  one   must  bear in mind that the Republican Party  has no such  responsibility  or  albatross on its neck  because it  has  been out  of power  also   for eight years.  However,  if Donald  Trump’s  views on the Obama Administration are representative of that party’s  judgement  of the performance of the Obama  tenure, then the two terms have been a mere waste of time and the US government needs to be rewound, reset, rejigged under an  angry Trump Administration, the prospect of which is giving even the Republican establishment nightmares and jitters  on how Trump or have gotten to such an  alarming   head  or  situation.

    In  addition  to  these  I  intend to measure some of the actions of the Buhari Administration in Nigeria in terms of these  concepts as well  as well  as the legacy  bequeathed to  it  by the Jonathan Administration it succeeded after winning  the 2015  presidential election.  I will  take  a look at the workings of our separation of powers, our 2016  budget and the decision  to take a  loan  from the World  Bank  to  finance our huge deficit in the face of falling oil prices.

    Now let  me air  my views  on the categorization  of  Sanders as idealist  and  Hillary  as pragmatist  as well as the political capital  that either can make with the American  electorate over the Obama legacy. Personally  I found Sanders  more profound and interesting  than  Hillary. The  debate looked as if Hillary  was taunting Sanders who looks  like an old man but has a lot of fire in his belly given his utterances on new ways to create jobs and improve the lot of a stagnating middle  class  as well as looking after the lot of the old and war  veterans.

    At a stage in the debate Sanders roared at Hillary  that you  are not president yet. Undoubtedly  if Sanders had his way he would not be defending the Obama legacy but the party potential  candidates  had been roped into that when Vice President Biden dropped his bid to contest and was literally policed by his boss to the venue where he announced his withdrawal  from the presidential race. Biden insisted   then  in his   speech that whoever gets the Democratic  Party’s  nomination  must defend the Obama legacy.  But  he also pointed out that the party must reduce poverty and the gap between the rich and poor  which  he said had not been that high in the US  history. That really  is what Sanders  has been saying and that doesn’t  sound as a  sound  legacy  of  the Obama Administration two terms of eight years of which Biden was the  No 2 helmsman.  The  debate  and battle between Sanders and  Hillary  will eventually  unravel whether  Biden’s admonition to sell the party  on the Obama legacy  was  given  in good  faith or was just   sour grapes and his    way of throwing spanner  in the works  for those who did not allow him to succeed  his boss.  Surely time will tell  between now and July when the convention to select the party’s  candidate will take place this year.

    One  thing that is clear from the  debate is that Hillary  looked and sounded  tested –  like  someone  who  knows  the limitations of power having been a president’s wife and  Secretary  of State. Undoubtedly the Democratic  Party is still the darling of the minorities in the US whose demographics  have swelled  such  that calling them minorities has  become a misnomer and  anachronism given their numbers  and polling might in the US today.  Such  political capital  appears to be Hillary’s  for the taking but  a formidable Sanders stands in her way.  She  should  be careful for that was what  happened eight  years ago when a virtually unknown senator stole  her thunder  at  the convention  to become the first black  US president.  History  has a way of repeating itself   for good  or bad if care  is  not taken.

    Let  us now  go back to the Nigerian  context of this analysis.  The first  is the legacy  of the Jonathan Administration that the Buhari government inherited. It is a legacy  of profligacy  and corruption on which it appears nothing solid can  be  built  and  for which  the new government  seems  sadly   ill prepared to address. That  really  is the truth. You only need to read the papers on revelations on Dasuki gate and  the properties  being seized  from  military  chiefs who own state  of the art  hospitals  to know that the government is in dire straits. It must prosecute and punish to  deter, but it must also govern and fulfill its promise to the masses  which  elected it.  But then does  the government have the requisite  manpower and resources for this? Given the present   pace of policy formulation  I doubt this and  I stand  to be corrected.

    On  the workings of our separation of powers I see a separation of ways emerging between the three tiers  of  government. This  week the Chief Justice defended the Supreme Court judgements which overturned some election victories  and reversed some other judgements. That is how it should be because the Supreme Court is the court of the highest  arbiter and its word must  be respected as the law.  So  for the Chairman of the ruling party to wonder aloud at some judgements of the court is in bad taste and is not good  for constitutionalism.

    Similarly the legislature and the executive  are on collision course largely because the executive did  not do its home work well  on the budget  and also  because  the legislature  is trying to make  a meal of its oversight function  of approving the budget. The  legislature has highlighted discrepancies  in budget  figures  but that is part of its function and the executive should reconcile its figures. But  it was lazy  of the executive to have prepared its first budget  along the lines of the  paraphernelia,   values  and  life style  of its extravagant and  inept  predecessor which created the war  chest  of the fight against  corruption.

    There should  have  been  a departure to cut costs in the face of dwindling oil  revenue  and to call on the judiciary and legislature  to  do  like wise. Worse  still  is the decision to take World Bank loan to finance our deficit. Taking a loan to finance a productive deficit  meant  for   infrastructure, jobs and  poverty  alleviation  is in order. But  taking a World Bank  loan at this time is like walking blindfolded  again back  to where  our former  Minister of  Finance, an  agent  of the World led us and our economy into the woods  while  she was rewarded by the Bank with promotion at her first  calling and juicy  consultancies at her last outing.

    At  a time when we should be asking Okonjo-Iweala to explain why she gave the NSA the recovered Abacha  loot that crystallised into Dasukigate, we  are like  a dog returning to her vomit and playing into the hands of the World  Bank  and its infamous and inhuman loan  conditionalities. I really  feel we should  look elsewhere to finance our deficit. Perhaps  China while  making sure we monitor  our loan disbursement critically. Surely we are in dire straits economically and in terms of security but its high  time we learnt  to cut our cloth according to our size  in all facets  of our responsibilities  and obligations. Once  again long live the Federal Republic of  Nigeria.

  • Oliseh’s unkind words

    Melvin Amaju Pinnick, NFF’s president, was startled that I stayed away from the crowd at the Onikan Stadium, Lagos, after the unveiling of Sunday Oliseh as the Super Eagles coach when my colleagues were flashing their business cards and taking the coach’s numbers.

    Pinnick felt I wasn’t sure if Oliseh would attack me after the kind of questions I asked him at the interactive session. The NFF President insisted that I worked with Oliseh since he was now a mature person. I pleaded with Pinnick that I was only meditating. Not convinced he offered to give me Oliseh’s numbers. I looked away as Pinnick was surfing his phones for Oliseh’s numbers.

    Vintage Pinnick, he retorted: “Ade something dey under this silence. Abi, you and Oliseh get wahala bifor? But, Oliseh no show say e know you bifor because I ask am when you ask your questions that jolted us all? Ade, tell me wetin happen make we resolve am. Oliseh na nice guy, walahi.” I smiled and pleaded that my decision be respected.  Pinnick walked away.

    Indeed, during the Vincent Enyeama and Oliseh brouhaha, I called Pinnick to seek his views on the matter. He talked a while and gave the phone to Oliseh, who stated his side of the story. And I went to town with all the sides. Trust me, I seized the opportunity to get more exclusives.

    Ten minutes later, Pinnick called. “Ade na wa for you sef. You just wan get exclusives. You and Oliseh no yan at all pass tori for your papers. I come ask Oliseh if e know you but he no fit figure who you be. I go give you all him numbers make una dey for the yan. Na good person. Mature.”

    I laughed aloud and told Pinnick that the leopard cannot change its spot. He understood and dropped the phone, knowing that I would do justice to the stories, having also spoken with Enyeama, who again couldn’t figure out who I was.

    I have never had an encounter with Oliseh but I didn’t enjoy how he treated people dismissively. I reckoned it was his style and always kept my distance.

    When I heard his outbursts on Youtube last Sunday, I wasn’t shocked. He only acted to type. As far as he was concerned, the calabash must been broken, so that its content are emptied with its foul smell- no matter whose ox is gored. But Oliseh wasn’t man enough to announce his resignation. And I wonder how he intends to work with people he has maligned.

    My take on Oliseh’s childish rant is that he feels that the money may have been released to the NFF and someone was deliberately holding on to it. He reckoned that throwing down the gauntlet would stop the trend. What Oliseh didn’t consider was that the Buhari administration isn’t one to pander to the tantrums of sports men and women, including their coaches, like the Jonathan government did several times. This new administration is meticulous and knows what approvals have been done and would turn the blind eye to frivolities like the Oliseh rants.

    I’m not surprised that Oliseh has apologised. He may have realised that the lack of cash at the NFF wasn’t because someone kept it in his accounts to yield dividends. Rather, the new government is careful to stop the leakages in the system.

    I hope Oliseh will be courageous to name the journalists who came to him to pay them to publish good stories. No media person would seek financial aid from the Super Eagles coach, who is always in the news for the right and wrong reasons. Besides, Super Eagles have a credible media officer, Toyin Ibitoye, who picks his calls – no matter how late. Indeed, Oliseh helps the journalists with his posts about his movement on the new media, making it easy for journalists to do stories on him, for anything else to balance their reports. I therefore challenge Oliseh to name those who asked him for cash.

    Now that Oliseh’s apology has been accepted by the NFF, what would he be telling his backroom staff, some of whom he accused of being witches and wizards? Will Oliseh ban his lieutenants from putting their hands inside their pockets for fear of avoiding being hyponotised? Why does Oliseh want the Eagles to play in Port Harcourt again? Did he not say that he contracted virus from staying in Port Harcourt and Abuja? Will Oliseh have the face to confront Governor Nyesom Wike after his virus claim? Again, will Oliseh blame anyone if the fans in Kaduna boo him during his stay in Kaduna, after his objection to the Super Eagles playing against Egypt in the city? I hope Oliseh isn’t losing his popularity with soccer crazy Nigerians.

    Oliseh isn’t mature. And it is evident by his recant on utterances that he willingly posted on YouTube. Nobody will take him seriously. He has lost face with his employers, who would be wary of him. I digress!

    It is easy for critics of the NFF to ask what marketing initiatives the body has to generate cash to run its activities. What most critics lose sight of is that we have 11 national soccer teams across the genders, such as Super Eagles, CHAN Eagles, Dream Team VI for the Olympics, Flying Eagles, Golden Eaglets and Sand Eagles for the men. The boys have the U-13 and U-15 categories.

    The women national teams include Super Falcons, Falconents and Flamingoes. Most times, at least two of them prosecute tournaments about the same time that you wonder if we shouldn’t streamline the competitions that we attend. But the flipside to this question is what the players of the dropped team would be doing beyond kicking the ball within their localities? If you look at the performances of the 11 national teams, it would be difficult to drop any of the three female teams because they are better rated than all the male teams, except the Golden Eaglets, who have won the U-17 World Cup five times.

    Will it be right to drop the biggest brand in the Nigerian market, the Super Eagles? I don’t think so because graduates of our age grade teams need to find expression of their talents with their mates in other climes playing for the country’s senior team at the FIFA World Cup. The Dream Team side has been Olympic champions in 1996 in Georgia, Atlanta and runners-up in 2008 in Beijing. The U-20 side has been many times African champions and finalists at the U-20 World Cup in 1989 (Damman Miracle) and Holland 2005.

    Would it be right, therefore, to scrap the Sand Eagles? I don’t think so because they have been to two Beach Soccer World Cups like the Super Eagles. It is instructive to say that this team achieved their feats without having a league series in the country.

    So, how much does the NFF need to run football with these 11 teams? Of the 11, only the Super Eagles are marketable. The rest don’t pull the fans to the stadium like the Eagles. Nigerians adore the Super Eagles more than others, although they sit up late to watch them when they are winning games. Yet, their preference is the Super Eagles.

    Only telecommunication giants Globacom has been consistent in bankrolling our soccer teams. Several attempts have been made to get sponsors by both the government and public spirited people. Nothing has come out of such an exercise simply because private sector operators would like to know what is in sports sponsorship for them to leverage their goods and services.

    Now that we have forgiven Oliseh, we need to review some of the clauses in his contract that gave him the impression that he is untouchable. Asking coaches to rub minds with technical bodies is not a Nigerian concept. It is a way of helping the coaches to resolve some knotty issues with the team. Such a coach is at liberty to accept or reject such suggestions, since the buck stops on his table.

    Besides, it is about time the sports minister included the salaries of coaches in the National Sports Commission (NSC) staff salary vouchers. That way, it would be easier for the coaches to appreciate the enormity of the changes introduced by the Buhari administration. It is obvious that NFF cannot find the cash to fund 11 national teams adequately. And it appears that we are scared to prune the teams to a manageable size because of the popularity of soccer in Nigeria.

    Oliseh’s grouse with his employers stems from lack of funding. Once we can develop a system where our coaches’ wages are duly paid, the furore of the last 12 days won’t happen.

    Even if the NFF gets a N10 billion yearly sponsorship package, it won’t solve the problem of funding when one game involving the Super Eagles, for instance, costs close to N70 million. The reason is that the Eagles and those teams with foreign-based players are paid in foreign currencies. Multiply $5,000, which is the least amount paid for winning matches to the players, by 23 and the number of matches the Super Eagles will play. Won’t this make N10 billion otiose?

    Camping of Super Eagles players in high brow hotels is standard, especially for security purposes. Besides, these boys are rich and are exposed to such exquisite treatments in their clubs. They cannot settle for less with Nigeria. Sadly, the value of the naira to foreign currencies leaves much to be desired.

    The NFF must learn to meet its obligations to the coaches and players. Yet, both parties should always remember the rosy periods and learn to bear with their employers when things go awry as they often would.

  • Regionalism as ‘decentralized despotism’

    It was with a grand flourish and spectacular élan that the brand new Ibadan School of Government and Public Policy (IGPP) held its inaugural conference in Ibadan on Monday, February 1. If the morning is an indication of what the future will look like, then one can confidently say that the IGPP is set to become one of the country’s foremost Think Tanks with great potential of contributing productively to the quality of public policy conceptualisation and implementation in Nigeria through rigorous research and advocacy. The quality of attendance at the conference was no doubt a function, largely, of the high esteem in which the Executive  Vice Chairman of the school, Dr Tunji Olaopa until recently a federal Permanent Secretary, who is also the brain behind the project, is held in diverse quarters.

    In his thought-provoking keynote address at the event, former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, made a valiant case for a retreat from the current 36 states structure of the federation to one in which the existing six geo-political zones will become the federating units of the policy. Arguing that the current 36 states are mostly economically unviable, he believes that six strong regions will be more feasible and sustainable. In Chief Anyaoku’s words: “Instead of the present structure of 36 economically unviable states with concentrated power at the centre, the National Assembly should convert the existing six geo-political zones, which are being used for a number of political decisions and actions, into the more viable federating units of a truly Federal Republic of Nigeria. The 36 states can be retained as development zones within the region but without full administrative paraphernalia. And it would be up to the six federating units to consider and meet any demands for the creation of new development zones within them”.

    Chief Anyaoku is of the view that the six zones as the country’s federating units will be more viable for planning, attracting investments for large scale projects as well as shifting emphasis from sharing of the national cake to production based on the Internally Generated Revenues of the six proposed zones. He also proposes a revenue allocation formula of 40% to the Federal Government with the balance of 60% to be shared by the six geo-political zones. This is in contrast to the existing arrangement in which the Federal Government receives 56% of national revenues while the states and local governments receive 24 and 20 per cent respectively. Underpinning Anyaoku’s advocacy for a polity of six federating units is the belief that the regional governments of the First Republic promoted accelerated development in their respective spheres of jurisdiction especially because there was a healthy competition among the regions in this regard.

    Of course, much of what Chief Anyaoku says is true. However, it appears to me that his argument is largely non sequitor. The conclusions he reaches do not flow necessarily and logically from his premises. Yes, the current arrangement, as he rightly says, cannot be regarded as genuinely federal. At best, it is a unitary-federal structure if there is any such thing. The centre is too powerful. The states are too weak and their potentials suffocated by an over centralized and overbearing federal government. But the solution to this problem cannot, as is implicit in Chief Anyaoku’s submission, be the creation at regional level of the kind of choking centralism that subsists under the current admittedly defective federal arrangement. This advocacy for the replacement of the current Abuja-dominated centralism with another form of centralism based on the six geopolitical regions is what I call ‘decentralized despotism’ to borrow the evocative phrase of Professor Mahmood Mamdani in his book ‘Citizen and Subject’.

    It appears that Chief Anyaoku and other advocates of a regression to regionalism do not take into proper account the historical reasons for the country’s evolution from a federation of four regions to the current polity of 36 states. Professor Eghosa Osaghae’s classic, ‘Nigeria since Independence: Crippled Giant’ gives useful information and informed analysis in this regard.  In the aftermath of the January and July 1966 coup and counter coup, respectively, the Eastern and Western delegations to the Ad Hoc Constitutional Conference convened by General Yakubu Gowon in September 1966 supported a confederal constitutional arrangement in which the regions would for all practical purposes be autonomous with the centre absolutely dependent on the federating units. The Western and Lagos delegations proposed an 18-state federal structure with the states controlling the armed forces. In the alternative, the West and Lagos wanted a commonwealth of Nigeria based on the then existing regions, with each region being ‘completely sovereign in all matters except the few delegated to the central authority’.

    Contrary to these proposals of the majority ethnic group’s delegations to the conference, which would most probably have culminated in the break-up of the country, the Mid-West delegation advocated the creation of more states and a federation in which the centre would be strong, injustices of the past corrected and one in which no state would be allowed to secede. As Professor Osaghae explains “As the only minorities’ region and representatives at the conference, the Mid-West was influenced in its position by the historical experience which continually led minorities in Nigeria to favour a strong centre as a guarantee against majority oppression in the regions. Such preferences provided the middle ground which saved the country from breaking up as the majority groups demanded (it probably also helped that Gowon himself was a minority Angas and not from one of the major groups”.

    Having tasted autonomy, it is unlikely that any of the existing states will ever allow themselves to be subordinated to the authority of any regional government. It is inconceivable, for instance, that Lagos will be willing to subject itself to some mythical western regional entity with its headquarters in Ibadan. Indeed, the trend is more likely to be in the direction of demand for the creation of more states rather than the fusion of existing states into six geo-political regions. It is an impractical and romantic proposition. In any case, there is absolutely no reason why the decentralization of powers, resources and responsibilities advocated by Chief Anyaoku cannot be carried out within the framework of the existing 36 states structure. Again, the introduction of a regional level of administration will only needlessly increase the cost of governance in a country already widely perceived as being excessively administered. This is particularly so as Chief Anyaoku is silent on what will be the fate of the existing 774 local government areas in his proposed new arrangement.

    Chief Anyaoku assumes that the four regional structure of the First Republic was responsible for the impressive developmental strides taken by the regions in that dispensation. This is not entirely true. The existence of a genuine federal arrangement, particularly adherence to the principles of fiscal federalism, as well as competent and visionary leadership in the regions was responsible for accelerated development in the regions. In the same way, it is not particularly accurate to assume that the current 36 states are inherently unviable because of their sizes. The states can be made more viable if greater powers, responsibilities and resources are devolved to them as advocated by Anyaoku for the regions. There is indeed absolutely no reason why there can be no healthy developmental competition among the states as was the case between the regions in the First Republic. Indeed, we already have such healthy competition at work in the South West with Ogun, Oyo and Osun states, for example, doing their utmost best within the limits of available resources to rival Lagos in the sphere particularly of infrastructure renewal, expansion and modernization.

    Like most advocates of restructuring of the polity, Chief Anyaoku is preoccupied with formal structures. Yet, equally pertinent and perhaps even more crucial is the question of the values, which under-gird and ought to support the viable functioning of any political structure. Without a fundamental transformation in our political and social values, not even the adoption of a six regional federal structure will result in any meaningful development. I think former President Olusegun Obasanjo was quite on target when in his speech on the occasion, he posed a number of critical questions: “Have we embraced the principles and values of the presidential system of government such as to enable us to realize our vision of a great country?…When are we going to be able to practice federalism in a way that promotes healthy competition among the states for the benefit of citizens?…Why is it that every model that has worked elsewhere never seem to work sustainably in Nigeria?”. I congratulate Dr Olaopa and all those associated with the IGPP on its successful debut on the terrain of academic research and public intellectual discourse in Nigeria. I pray that the institution will fulfil its purpose of contributing productively towards enriching the public policy process in the country.

  • When anger drives politics, leadership and justice

    Coincidentally  this week Nigeria’s Vice President Yemi  Osinbajo and US President  Barak  Obama spoke to a Muslim audience in their respective nations to drive home their  commitment to justice  and  the  objectives  of their governments. The  Nigerian  Vice  President reportedly  told  a delegation of  Muslim  Congress of Nigeria that although some elites were trying to put pressure on the Nigerian government to relent on its anti corruption war, he insisted that this would not happen because the President and himself are focused on the war and know that that is the wish of the ordinary Nigerians who  elected them to office and not the elites alone.

    Similarly  the US president visited a mosque in Baltimore for the first  time in his presidency and  called on those preaching hatred against Muslims to stop as American  Muslims are part of the American dream and heritage. Today  I want to   observe that there is a common thread that knits the utterances of these two statesmen  together. It  is  my  contention  here  that   for  now anger drives world politics   as   we  know it  today and that is the context in which I will  look at the two  statements made  by the two leaders in their respective nations.

    Undoubtedly in Nigeria anger is driving the anti-corruption campaign and  the reason is not far fetched. The campaign  had hardly started before the leadership election in the senate stole the thunder of the ruling party that won the 2015 presidential election.  Then came  the unbelievable revelations that   $2. 1bn –  which  is money meant for the  purchase   of arms  for  the  prosecution of the Boko  Haram  insurgency – had been diverted  for  other purposes by the  office  of the National Security  Adviser from  where key  members  of the  last administration  collected campaign  funds while  the armed  forces lacked funds and equipment  to confront the insurgency.  Obviously  a mood of righteous  indignation has pervaded  the whole  nation ever since with the masses calling for the heads of culprits who had betrayed the nation in its hour of need in nailing Boko  Haram which has been killing thousands of Nigerians with impunity  and had even kidnapped  the 200 Chibok girls without trace till  today.  That was the argument of the Nigerian VP before his Muslim  guests and  that is quite important in that Boko  Haram has  been condemned by  all  reasonable Muslims both in  Nigeria and globally. The VP’s  observations therefore tally eminently and realistically with the mood of Nigerians on crushing both Corruption and Boko  Haram simultaneously  or  concurrently as a clear  deterrence to both real and potential rebels  or insurgents as well as treasury looters and others  who  have  made it their way of life to feather their  private  nests at the expense  of the  commonwealth  of the Nigerian   nation and people.

    Similarly  President  Barak Obama’s  speech  at  the Baltimore mosque  was a sermon on tolerance and justice  for US  Muslims at a time when  no less a person than Republican Presidential  candidate Donald  Trump  had called obviously in anger that Muslims should  be banned from coming to the US on account of the rise  of global  terrorism especially that of Islamic state  and the terrorism that has reared its head on the  hitherto safe and sancrosant  US  homeland. Obviously  the emergence of a candidate like Donald  Trump in the Republican  Party  and even Senator Bernie  Saunders challenging  Hillary Clinton very  competitively  for the Democratic  Party presidential  nomination,  has  been predicated in the US   media  on anti – establishment  politics  bordering on hatred  for Washington which is US government in broad  terms and  Wall  Street which  essentially  means big business and banks. Even Bernie Saunders this week accused Hillary Clinton of being beholden to  banks given the huge money  —  $675000  – Goldman Sachs a leading US investment  bank paid  her for speeches she made on US government activities during her tenure as Secretary  of State. Hillary  was miffed and asked the Senator  to be bold to accuse her of corruption which she vehemently  denied.

    Indeed   l  stumbled on  an analysis on the internet  which  listed five reasons why the mood of the US electorate is anti-  establishment  and fuelled  by anger at present.  The  first is that most  US citizens feel  that the politicians  have  short  changed them  on the economy and that the rich are getting richer while the middle class and the masses are worse off. The  second is the issue of immigration which Obama promotes but which given the Migrants  crisis outbursts across the Mediterranean to Europe  has created panic in the western world including the US and  has made some state  governments in the US to clash with President Barak Obama  on providing refuge for those fleeing foreign wars.  Which again clashes  with the US political values as a leading democratic nation or champion and exporter of global  democracy.  The  third is that government in Washington looks after the interests of public servants to the detriment of outsiders and those not in the political class. The  fourth is the global  hatred for the US  that the war on terror has created globally  especially in the Middle  East fuelled  by implacable Arab anger over  US  age  long policy    of support for  Israel  against  the Palestinians and  the concomitant rise  of Islamic  state and its bloody, beheading borderless caliphates  now  horrifying the world and showing special hatred  for the US  and its  citizens globally. The  fifth is the deep division in ideological  terms  between the two main US political parties –the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. It was  stated clearly that the Republicans  have become more  conservative while  the Democrats have become more liberal leading  to  a deep division or gulf  between the two now threatening the social  cohesion that has sustained the political stability of the US hitherto. Given  these scenario it is not surprising that a politician like Donald  Trump  who claims  to be angry with the establishment has emerged  on the  political  scene.

    However what I find  commendable is the  way the US president has  confronted the systemic  anger that Donald  Trump  is fuelling for political  purposes.  In  reacting to  Obama’s  visit to the Mosque  in  Baltimore, Trump was even more aggressive and  contemptuous.  He  said  he – Obama- has more important places  to go  and he went  to a mosque.  But  Obama has  stood  up for the underdog which  Muslims  have  become because  of the terrorism  and security threat created  by Islamic State globally. If  one  recalls that  Obama in his biography recalled how  he followed  his step father to a mosque in Djarkata, Indonesia  for  which  some later called him a Muslim sympathizer and  some mischief  makers also called for a fatwah on him as a former  Muslim,  then one  should  appreciate his courage in taking on Donald  Trump  and stemming the anger  against Muslims  while  soliciting for tolerance for them in spite of the horror and terrorism of IS. President Obama has shown  rare  courage  on this Baltimore mosque visit.  He has  shown  clearly that  when duty calls  or danger no  leader  worth  his salt  should  be found wanting. That is a lesson that Donald Trump  should  learn in spite of his anger against Muslims   coming  to the US  which  he called a security issue and  not  a religious one. Obama  has shown leadership against  all odds and at great personal  risk. That is an example worth emulating by good world leaders and he  has my undiluted admiration this time around . Again  long live the  Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.

     

  • APC and the moral high ground

    APC and the moral high ground

    It is beyond dispute. President Muhammadu Buhari is a man of rock solid integrity. His sense of honour and high moral values are great assets to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) today. But ironically, it was not integrity that won Buhari the 2015 presidential election. He had that virtue aplenty when he lost his bid for the presidency on three previous occasions despite his massive grassroots support in the far North. There were at least four key reasons for his victory at last year’s presidential polls.

    Firstly, was the emergence of the APC as a pan-Nigerian political party that could match the spread and depth of the then ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Secondly, were the sophisticated and creative political marketing strategies that radically transformed the Buhari persona and made him for the first time sellable to the Middle- Belt and South-West political zones. Thirdly, was better funding and logistics support that enabled him campaign more effectively across the length and breadth of Nigeria. And fourthly was the abysmally poor governance of former President Goodluck Jonathan and the PDP that led to a steep appreciation in value of APC’s change slogan.

    Today, however, Buhari is clearly the most adored and admired politician and leader in Nigeria across a large swathe of the country’s political landscape. His stock has risen largely because of his single minded and unflagging commitment to fighting corruption as he promised during the campaigns. Most Nigerians are impressed that the anti-graft fire still blazes in his belly at 73 as much as it did when he was a young military Head of State over three decades ago. Buhari is quite unlike some of his very loquacious, annoyingly hypocritical, perennially letter-writing predecessors who endlessly mouthed anti-corruption slogans in office while feathering their nests with ferocious glee. The sheer lunatic scale of the looting frenzy engaged in by the PDP, as is being revealed daily, has also sensitised many Nigerians to the clear and present danger that this menace poses to the very existence of Nigeria and helped to galvanise more support for Buhari.

    Yet, the APC and President Buhari must tread very carefully. When you promise radical change from a decadent and fetid past as well as an all- out war against corruption, you must yourself stand on the highest moral pedestal possible. Let us not forget the piercing words of the fiery St Paul in the book of Romans: “Well then, if you teach others, why don’t you teach yourself? You tell others not to steal, but do you steal? You say it is wrong to commit adultery, but do you do it? You condemn idolatry, but do you steal from pagan temples? You are so proud of knowing the law but you dishonour God by breaking it”.

    What really is the defining essence of corruption, which for our purposes can be characterised simply as the criminal and illegal privatisation of collective resources by individuals and groups in positions of public trust? Yes, it is a violation of moral norms and values but that is not it. Yes, it is a negation of lofty philosophical and ethical principles but that is not it. Yes, it is an assault on elevated religious sensibilities but that is not it. Yes, it manifests as a denudation of the integrity of the human conscience but that is not it. Yes, it can lead to human suffering on an industrial scale but that is not it. Yes, it can result in harmful social inequality on an epochal dimension but that is not it.

    What then, I ask again, is at the very core, the centre, the quintessence of corruption? I think the answer is simple. It is, first and foremost, a brutal rape of stipulated rules and regulations. It is a calculated assault on the rule of law. It is a veritable coup against due process. It is a wilful, if insidious. snapping at the binding chords that prevent a descent from society to anarchy. In one word, corruption is but just another variant of impunity.

    This is why I am astounded that there is even any debate at all as to whether Buhari’s anti-corruption war must be conducted within the bounds of the rule of law or not. There is simply no alternative. You cannot fight impunity with impunity. The rule of law exists to protect us all from the tendency of power to corrupt and absolute power to corrupt absolutely. Let no mistake be made about it. No occupant of public office, no matter how saintly or well-intentioned, can be immune from the corrosive moral effects of exercising powers without restraint.

    Impunity is not a copyright of the PDP. Even the APC must be inoculated against this virus by strict adherence to constitutionalism and the rule of law whatever the circumstances. Thus, the boundaries of separation of powers must be respected. Court orders must be obeyed and the integrity of the courts protected. Nobody, no matter how much you hate his face, can be pronounced guilty in the media without following the due process of law no matter how laborious. Impunity is the common factor that binds the thieving public official, the Boko Haram terrorist, the armed robber and the elected office holder who defies court orders in one sinister brotherhood of evil.

    Yes, ‘Dasukigate’ involves the criminal diversion of $2.1 billion of funds meant for the purchase of arms for our military into private pockets purportedly for political purposes. But then, ‘Kogigate’ involves the felonious conversion of votes from the duly elected AbubakarAudu/James Falake ticket to the illegal Yahaya Bello sole candidacy, which is completely unknown to the constitution. Yes, ‘Dasukigate’ involves the stealing of humongous amounts of money. But ‘Kogigate’ involves the stealing of an entire state! Pray, which of these atrocious crimes is better? No sir, one form of impunity is not better than another.

    In ‘Ekitigate’, leading PDP politicians are accused of illegally colluding with security agencies to manipulate the 2014 governorship election that brought the feisty Ayo Fayose to power. But in ‘Kogigate’, can leading APC politicians swear that they did not collude with INEC officials to contrive a so-called inconclusive election that enabled them to foist a candidate of their choice on the state against all rhyme and reason? So it is only when PDP elements pervert state institutions that it is a crime? I tire o!

    There are two emerging trends in the APC administration that I find worrisome. First, is the creeping cheap campaign of blackmail against journalists and media houses who question the administration’s methods in prosecuting its war against corruption. Columnists are routinely described as ‘hack writers’ or agents of corruption fighting back. This is unwarranted. The administration must not cultivate the image of intolerance. The intelligent, experienced and resourceful Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, has a duty to guide the administration on a better path in this regard. Incidentally, the minister is highly regarded in media circles.

    Secondly, is the frequency with which the integrity of judicial officers is being attacked without the slightest scintilla of proof as being cogs in the wheel of the anti-corruption war. It is my view that if any judicial officer is alleged to have engaged in corrupt practices or abused his or her office in any way, such a person should be reported to the anti-corruption agencies which can investigate and prosecute in accordance with the law. But nobody should expect court judgements to be based on public opinion or media reports. Otherwise, we could as well abolish the courts and set up popular tribunals to summarily execute anybody accused of corruption in the media.

     

    Neither Ayo Fayose nor Temitope Aluko

    In the simmering controversy over the alleged rigging of the 2014 Ekiti State governorship election, popularly christened ‘Ekitigate’, I vote neither for Governor Ayo Fayose nor Dr Temitope Aluko, ex-Ekiti State Secretary of the PDP. Both men have no scruples. They lack character even though Fayose appears the more decent. Aluko testified before the Ekiti State Election Petition Tribunal that the election was free and fair. Now, he is singing a different tune because he says Fayose demurred on his earlier promise to make him Chief of Staff. There is absolutely nothing new that Aluko said which was not already in the public domain. Yes, money was voted for the elections. But which elections are fought without money? Yes, Security was illegally deployed to intimidate APC leaders and members. But does that explain Fayose’s victory in all Local Government Areas of the state including that of the incumbent governor? Does that explain why there was not a whimper of protest anywhere in Ekiti State at such alleged massive rigging? How did the PDP, despite Hurricane Buhari, convincingly win the 2015 Presidential, National Assembly and House of Assembly Seats in Ekiti? The Ekiti APC should simply stop chasing shadows, look inwards and begin rebuilding itself for the future.

  • How to graze in peace

    It has been an eventful week. In Kogi State, on Wednesday, Alhaji Yahaya Bello walked into Lugard House, the state’s seat of power, a much lonely figure. He had no deputy walking in with him. So when the litigants come charging in, as they sure will, seeking to toss him out of his cosy seat, he won’t have much top-level company from which to draw comfort. Poor him.

    In Rivers, that same day, Governor Nyesom Wike must have felt he had the last laugh. The wise Justices at the Supreme Court unreservedly declared him the rightful winner of last year’s governorship election. That ruling would have stunned the equally judicious appellate court team which could not stomach Wike’s victory as earlier announced by INEC, the nation’s electoral body, after the polls, and promptly nullified it. Dakuku Peterside who won the appeal, and his team, must be bewildered, too, but they must accept it and move on.

    The day was not done. In Ogun and Ebonyi, where less noise was made on the elections, Mr Ibikunle Amosun and Mr Dave Umahi also got the Supreme Court clearance to carry on with governance without having to worry about challengers and court cases.

    But even before all of that, on Sunday, blood had flowed freely in Adamawa. It was not the usual suspect Boko Haram. It was the other suspects, Fulani herdsmen versus local farmers. Some accounts said 30 people were killed in the clash. One of the dead was a Divisional Police Officer Mr Okozie Okereofor, barely two months at his new post. According to the report, the violence occurred in four villages namely, Demos, Wunamokoh, Dikajam and Taboungo after Fulani herdsmen invaded them. Apart from the police officer, not much is known about the other casualties, but to their families and friends, as well as the entire country, their death should be just as painful. It doesn’t matter whether the dead were simply herdsmen and growers who sized up one another or other folks who were simply cut down by the brutes. What is important is that lives have been taken so violently in a country governed by reasonable people and laws.

    Apart from the terror group Boko Haram, it is difficult to find any other combatants as bloodthirsty as herdsmen and farmers. Of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, there is hardly any spared the herdsmen-farmers bloodletting. They have caused as much misery in Kaduna and Adamawa as they have in Plateau or Taraba or any other state. In Plateau, the violence would have been admitted into the realm of proverbs. Was that not where we heard, in 2010, of a pre-dawn raid which all but wiped out a community called Dogon-Nahawa?

    Why should people die repeatedly because of animals? Why is it impossible for breeders to graze their cattle peacefully?

    The answer is simple. Government whose job it is to protect life and property through effective policies and enforced laws has consistently failed to do so. In a country brimming with lawyers and lawmakers, social scientists and public administrators, to say nothing of people with good old commonsense, it is curious that we simply have not discovered how to guide our animals to where they can eat grass quietly or drink water without upsetting the local population or spilling blood. I find that unacceptable. It is about time we started holding our leaders, especially those at the centre, accountable for the herdsmen-farmers violence, for every drop of blood spilled when they clash.

    It is true that herdsmen, finding less and less pasture for their growing stock, risk the hazardous trek from North to South and in so doing routinely encroach on farmlands. It is also true that when their cattle hoof through farms and destroy crops, the nomads do not quite manage the disagreements enough to avoid clashes, many of which turn out bloody. A young farmer in Delta State reported how he found a herd of cattle on his cassava farm and urged the herdsman to take them away to prevent more damage. The herdsman reacted, according to the grower, by raising and aiming his AK-47 at him. Thankfully, he did not squeeze the trigger, and eventually led his animals away but not before they had chewed up or trampled a good deal of the farmer’s crops. The breeder is not always the aggressor, though. Sometimes, and this seems to happen more in the North than elsewhere, armed thieves, called rustlers, simply rob them of their livestock, something the Fulani would rather die than let go unchallenged.

    Can the breeders avoid violence while grazing their animals? Yes. The federal government is reportedly planning to provide grazing areas, where they will have exclusive rights to look after their livestock. This will help but only in the interim. The politics, logistics and realities of grazing areas can be daunting. For instance, will people’s farmlands be acquired by government to keep herdsmen happy?

    Ranching is the answer. Every breeder should be sufficiently supported by government to own their breeding grounds, which they do not have far to seek. With support, ranches can be developed right in the herdsman’s home state, no matter how arid it may be. Deserts are reclaimable and can become fertile. It cannot be as costly as is sometimes feared. Besides, it is certainly cheaper to save lives. Ranches will save the breeders much foot travel. Their animals which the whole population munches on everyday will be healthier, their milk enhanced.

    With ranches in place, even the newly sworn-in state governors and others who no longer have to fear for their seats will also not worry about breeders and growers violence. Diners can eat fufu and chew beef in peace.