The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Ayobolu

  • Mokugwo Okoye as nationalist and futurologist

    The year was 1966. The day was the 3rd of December. The venue was the Alexandria Auditorium, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. The atmosphere on campus was charged.   Most of the students were fervently and passionately in support of the plan by Lt-Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu to announce the secession of the Eastern Region from Nigeria and declare an independent Republic of Biafra. This was understandable. Emotions still ran high in the East following the massacre of Igbos in the North that year in retaliation for the perceived Igbo-centric colouration of the January 15, 1966, coup. Waves of Igbos had fled the North back to the East and Ojukwu had ordered non-Easterners to leave the region. As part of their drive in support of Ojukwu’s secessionist plans, the UNN students had organized a public lecture titled “The Role of Students in National Politics” at the Alexandria Auditorium.

    None other than the great Nationalist and close associate of Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe during the nationalist struggle for independence, Mokugwo Okoye, was the guest speaker. The great author of several cerebral books, including ‘Storms on the Niger’, ‘African Cameos’, ‘Blackman’s Destiny’, ‘The Beard of Prometheus’, ‘African Responses: A Revaluation of History and Culture, and Embattled Men: Profiles in Social Adjustment’, Okoye amazingly never had a post-primary education. (I owe this information to the journalist and columnist, Owei Lakemfa). Okoye had suffered imprisonment and other forms of harassment during the anti-colonial struggle but never wavered in his commitment to a free and united Nigeria.

    He was thus considered by the students to be one person who would be so disgusted at what Nigeria had turned out to be, particularly the painful experience of the Igbo, that he would give a fiery lecture in support of Biafra and denouncing Nigeria. It turned out to be a dramatic and historic encounter between a genuine nationalist who still believed in the possibilities of Nigeria despite his no less fierce opposition to the injustices inflicted on members of his ethnic group, and the young students of UNN on fire with secessionist fervor.

    I came across this intriguing story of a genuinely committed revolutionary who placed his Nigerian consciousness, indeed commitment to our common human solidarity, above ethno-regional and religious sectarianism in Dr. A. A. Amakiri’s book, ‘The Left in Nigerian Politics’ first published in 1997 by AMKRA books, Ilupeju, Lagos. It is based partly on the author’s doctoral thesis, ‘National Liberation Movements and the Non-Aligned’- a study conducted at the University of Leicester, England. The 206- page book is divided into seven chapters covering such topics as ‘The ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ in political history’; ‘The emergence of the Left in Nigeria’; ‘The Left under civil rule’; ‘The Left under military rule’; ‘The Left and the emerging fourth Republic’; ‘The Left and popular organizations’ and ‘The Left: Retrospects and Prospects’. It provides valuable information and insights into diverse aspects of Nigerian politics. I focus on the Mokugwo Okoye incident only as an example of one of the historical gems in the book as well as in the light of some of our recent historical experiences.

    Amakiri writes in his book that Mokugwo Okoye, that night, commenced his lecture on a rather probing and detached note when he gave some expositions on student unionism in a global context stressing human solidarity as a crucial element of the pan-student movement. The radical nationalist gradually began to warm up to his subject when he denounced and condemned what he described as the dehumanizing treatment meted out to their non-Eastern colleagues by students of the Enugu campus of the UNN on the day the former were expelled from the region along with other non indigenes of the region. According to Amakiri, Okoye “deplored reports of the unsympathetic attitude of the Eastern students towards those who had “shared the same hostels, dining hall, and classrooms” with them but were now forced to leave for no fault of theirs. In his opinion the spirit of solidarity ought to have prevailed on that sad occasion of forceful separation of friends”.

    Okoye lectured his student audience on the history of the Nigerian crisis suggesting what he considered should be the role of students at that sad juncture in Nigeria’s historical trajectory. However, the unrepentant thrust of his submission was that secession should not even be contemplated as a solution to the Nigerian crisis urging advocates of secession not to desecrate the sacrifices of the generation of nationalists that struggled to liberate the country from colonial bondage and their efforts to build a united Nigeria. At this point, his audience had had enough. The atmosphere became tense and restive.

    Amakiri’s narrative itself gathers pace and becomes tense. His words: “Hell was let loose at this juncture in the lecture as the students booed, shouted, and fired ‘missiles’ at the speaker…In the midst of the turbulence, Okoye could still be heard shouting: “Go and tell your leaders that secession is ill-advised. The East cannot withstand the federal might. Some of us sacrificed our youth to build what you want to destroy. You are on this campus because we fought to provide for you…The Federal might is great enough to crush your secession. You were all born Nigerians and would die as Nigerians. I warn you, secession is ill-advised”. The students grew more enraged. They fired missiles and hurled abuses at him. A defiant Okoye would not be intimidated. His voice grew louder according to Amakiri: “I have seen rough weather. I successfully stood against the colonial might. Your actions, your ‘missiles’ cannot scratch me. I tell you, you will be shamed if you ignore my advice and embark on your mad venture”.

    When the lecture ended at around 10p.m that night, according to Amachree, Okoye was a lonely and deserted man on a hostile campus. Yet, almost 30 years later in 1995 specifically, Okoye in a private letter to Amakiri said he had no regrets on his stance that night stressing “I do not regret the line I took on the Nigerian crisis, and history seems to have vindicated me”. By the time he died in 1998, Mokwugo Okoye was a member of Anthony Enahoro’s Movement for National Reformation and was still preoccupied with the struggle for the liberation of Nigeria. Yet, dismemberment of the country was never an option for him.

    Okoye’s position on secession, Amakiri explains was in consonance with the dominant perspective among the Nigerian Left at the time because “In Leftist thinking, it was considered reactionary to support secession, since support would be inconsistent with the ideology of internationalism”. Was Okoye a romantic and unrealistic nationalistic dreamer? Would the likes of  Nnamdi Kanu and his Indigenous Peoples of Nigeria (IPOB) fellow travellers have thought and behaved differently if exposed to the seminal thoughts of great Igbo men like Mokugwo Okoye? Did history really vindicate Okoye? So many questions.

  • Who casts the first stone?

    There was an interesting story on page 4 of last Sunday’s edition of this newspaper. Titled “Battle of the billionaires: Arthur Eze, Ngozi Olejeme in tussle over $2.8m, N240m’, the report gives details of the impending titanic legal battle between the oil magnate, Prince Arthur Eze and the no less formidable political and financial Amazon of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Dr. Ngozi Olojeme. According to the report, “A staggering loan of N1.2 billion allegedly borrowed by a People’s Democratic Party (PDP) stalwart, Dr. Ngozi Olejeme to enable her prosecute her aspiration of contesting the 2015 governorship election in Delta State has now landed her in court. The lender and Olojeme’s long standing associate, Prince Arthur Eze is frustrated that repayment of the alleged loan is not forthcoming and prays an Abuja High Court to compel her to pay. The loan, according to Eze, is in two parts: $2.8million and N240million Naira. He said the agreed repayment dates for the funds have long expired without any attempt by the defendants to settle the debt”.

    On the expiration of the 2016 deadline for the repayment of the ‘interest free loans’, Arthur Eze complained to the court, the demand letter written to the defendant by his solicitor was rebuffed as Olojeme “merely deployed her personal aides to plead to me for time as she was having issues with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission”. Without prejudice to the case, which is in court, it is pertinent to wonder at the nature and soundness of the ‘investment’, which Eze made in Olojeme’s governorship ambition. Is the governorship of Delta State a profitable enterprise, which was supposed to yield such munificent dividend to enable Olojeme repay a debt of N1.2billion a year after assuming office? Did the agreement with Olojeme, which was reached according to Eze on April 2, 2014, take into consideration the possibility of her losing the election? If she did not win as eventually happened, could the agreement still be binding? Where was she expected to get the money?

    Well, Arthur Eze is not a billionaire for nothing. He is certainly not dumb and must have calculated that Olojeme would still be able to repay her debt whether or not she realized her governorship aspiration. Of course, that was a rational assumption in yesterday’s Nigeria where a clean distinction was once famously made by, you know who, between saintly stealing and devilish corruption. After all, Olojeme at the time she obtained the loan for the prosecution of her ambition was chairman of the Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF), another juicy position with ample and delicious fiscal delicacies to satisfy the palates of our decadent political elite. But then, neither Eze nor Olojeme reckoned with the political ascendancy of the ascetic General from Daura with his obsession with taming the monster of corruption in the country.

    Buhari’s anti-corruption war has thrown a spanner in the wheel of the two billionaires. For, Olojeme, according to another report on page 7 of Tuesday’s edition of this newspaper, is currently being probed by the EFCC for an alleged N62.3billion fraud during her tenure as NSITF Chairman with $48, 485, 127 reportedly credited to her account at the time. The ex-NSITF boss, who is currently placed on administrative bail by the EFCC, has had 30 accounts allegedly belonging to her frozen by the EFCC and the commission has obtained a court order to seize 37 of 38 houses reportedly belonging to her. Surely, had the PDP won the 2015 election and Olojeme retained her headship of the NSITF honey pot as would most likely have happened, it is unlikely that this naked legal dance in the market place between the billionaires would occur.

    The Arthur Eze/ Ngozi Olojeme saga helps to throw light, once again, on the character of politics and the perverse utilization of state power in postcolonial Nigeria. For the most part, public office is perceived and utilized as a means of material accumulation by its lucky occupants. Political entrepreneurs like Eze invest in political aspirants such as Olojeme with the objective of reaping humongous yields from the risky but profitable enterprise. While the N1.2 billion he lent Olojeme was supposedly ‘interest free’, it is only natural and rational that the oil magnate would expect a much higher return on his investment.

    Apart from money voted by political aspirants for ‘logistics’ such as bribing electoral and security officials, ‘settling’ influential community, religious and political leaders, transportation and publicity among others, a sizable chunk of the expenditure by political aspirants is dedicated to directly bribing voters both before and especially on election day. This was popularized as ‘stomach infrastructure’ in Ekiti’s 2014 governorship election. In a recent governorship poll in one of the South West states, it was the pecuniary inducement of voters was cynically christened ‘dibo ko se obe’ (vote for our party and enjoy a rich pot of soup).

    This is why we must be wary of superficial analyses of the phenomenon of corruption in Nigeria. Corrupt enrichment transcends political boundaries. It is not the sole preserve of any political party. It is an ingrained culture both among the political class and a not insubstantial number of the general populace. Perhaps this explains why most of those indicted for colossal acts of corruption still remain highly revered figures in their respective communities.

    In the light of the revelations by Senator Shehu Sani, as regards the humongous, utterly unjustifiable and unconscionable salaries and allowances collected by members of the National Assembly, for instance, one would have expected spontaneous and sustained nationwide mass action against the legislators. But apart from a vocal minority – some lawyers, civil society and trade union leaders – the silence over the issue is deafening. The point is: how many Nigerians see the conduct of the legislators as wrong and how many finding themselves in their shoes will not toe the same line? In any case, the menace of corruption is not limited to the legislature; it is also prevalent in the two other arms of government.

    Corruption is not the exclusive preserve of the centre, it manifests, perhaps even more virulently, at the lower levels of government. We also tend to make the mistake of focusing almost exclusively on corruption in government. But the virus of corruption is also wreaking considerable havoc in the private sector, among civil society groups, Non-Governmental Organizations, trade unions, the professions, academia, religious organizations, the media and other segments of society. This is why, although commendable, this administration’s anti-corruption war must go beyond identifying and arraigning indicted corrupt persons before the law courts. Concerted efforts must also be made to rigorously study the problem, identify its root causes and evolve multi-pronged anti-corruption strategies that encompass the cultural, educational, religious, economic, intellectual, social and legal terrains.

    In the vast ocean of corruption that contemporary Nigeria is; who really is qualified to cast the first stone in this war? Not very many if truth must be told. But one of the few is certainly President Muhammadu Buhari whose legendary asceticism and aversion to material accumulation is near miraculous given the moral putrescence of our society. Buhari’s hands and credibility can only be strengthened in this regard, however, if he acts decisively to discard with some of his close and trusted associates who hide under the aura of his undisputed integrity to perpetrate acts of corruption that severely discredit and damage the administration’s anti-corruption war.

    A first class graduate’s plea for help

    “Sir, My name is Moses Alabi-isiama, age 33, an indigene of Utagba in Delta State and a first-class graduate of Energy and Petroleum Studies. I got admission into the Petroleum Engineering Department of the University of Ibadan in the year 2000 but had to leave after seven years due to bad health, financial issues and some bad decisions. After five years of leaving University of Ibadan, I got some money and got admission into Novena University to study Energy and Petroleum Studies and I finally graduated in August 2017 with First-Class honours (4.60). After all the sleepless nights towards graduating with a first class, I was hoping to be retained as a Graduate Assistant in Novena University (which is the policy of the university); but because I was not able to pay my final year fees (N509,000) plus clearance fee (N100,000), the university has refused to give me employment; even after telling the university management to make 80% deductions from my supposed salary of N40,000 which is what is paid to graduate assistants.

    I have pleaded with the school authority for the past seven months and reached out to people around but to no avail. It’s been seven months of hell. I can’t get my certificate to work anywhere else and the school I graduated from with a first-class is refusing to employ me. I have been living on borrowed money and having suicidal thoughts because of the shame. My dream is to become a Professor on energy/Petroleum related matters; but my dream is being threatened even after the delay of 17 years to get a B.Sc. I need the help of well-meaning Nigerians to pay off the N609,000 I owe Novena University so I can proceed for my Masters program. I am willing and ready to work in any capacity to pay off this debt; but without my certificate from Novena University, I am stagnated again. Please I need Help!

    -Moses Alabi-isama, (09064548640; mozizboss@gmail.com)

        

  • Ekweremadu, military intervention or anarchy

    Ekweremadu, military intervention or anarchy

    Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu’s admonition on the floor of the Senate, this week, to his fellow political actors against actions capable of provoking another military truncation of democratic governance in the country, a scenario which he considers not improbable, has at least served two useful, even if unintended, purposes. First, it has compelled the military to reassure the country of its commitment to democracy, loyalty to the Head of State and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and its institutional fidelity to its constitutionally stipulated role of protecting the territorial integrity of the polity. We will recall that in May, last year, the Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen. Tukur Buratai, felt sufficiently concerned to publicly warn soldiers to steer clear of politics in the light of information he claimed to have that certain individuals had been approaching some officers and soldiers for political reasons.

    Secondly, it has given an opportunity for individuals and groups within civil society including lawyers, the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), Trade Union Congress (TUC), Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Ohaneaze and Afenifere to reiterate the readiness of Nigerians to resist any form of military intervention no matter the weaknesses and shortcomings of our current democratic practice. A cardinal lesson of our political history is that persistence in the practice of democracy, notwithstanding inevitable challenges, problems and crises, is the only path to systematically incremental political development even though the process may be slow, seemingly chaotic, fractious and arduous. The illusion of the military as political messiah has been shattered forever and military intervention no longer an even remotely feasible option in Nigeria.

    Intense and passionate debate, Open and acrimonious disagreement and contention as well as ceaseless disputation are necessary and inevitable ingredients of a viable and vigorous democratic system even as is witnessed in the most advanced democracies. The imposed peace of the graveyard, which military dictatorship claims to guarantee is not only detrimental to development, it also contains the seeds of future instability leading to the path of national disintegration. Even then, Ekweremadu’s warning must not be dismissed lightly. Yes, military rule may not be an option. But when an elected governor behaves no better than a military dictator and demolishes a Senator’s house for partisan political reasons while hiding under the guise of enforcing urban planning laws or Senators are prevented from visiting their constituencies in Kano and Kogi States, for example, or acts of political intolerance, aggression and violence pervade the polity, democracy is clearly endangered.

    When political actors brazenly disregard the constitutions both of their parties and that of the country with impunity and provoke resentment and bitter opposition through the arrogant and unrestrained deployment of power, as is the case with Governors Nasir ‘el Rufai and Yahaya Bello in Kaduna and Kogi states, respectively, something worse than military intervention is being invited – a descent to indescribable and uncontrollable anarchy. Democracy can only serve as the best option for the peaceful resolution of disputes and crises that are unavoidable in an open, free and complex plural society like ours when political actors faithfully adhere to what Professor Billy Dudley describes as the ‘constitutive and regulative rules’ of the game. That I think is the essence of Ekweremadu’s warning even if he could have framed it differently.

    It is for the same reason that Afenifere, Ohaneze, ACF, NLC, TUC, ASUU as well as several lawyers have vehemently denounced Ekweremadu’s comments on the possibility of military intervention if political actors do not moderate their behavior that this column has consistently opposed the call in some quarters for a jettisoning of the extant 1999 constitution and a regression to an overly romanticized 1963 constitution or one untested variant or the other of regionalism. No matter the challenges confronting Nigeria today, the country has experienced considerable political development over the last 19 years of unbroken civilian rule. The successful democratic and peaceful transfer of power from an incumbent to an opposing political party in 2015 shows that the country is gradually moving from being an essentially illiberal democracy towards being a genuinely liberal one. Yes, there is a long road to travel in this regard but truncating the present process and jumping back to 1963 or leaping in the dark in pursuit of some fanciful but unrealistic experiments in regionalism cannot be the option.

    Some have dismissed the 1999 constitution as a military creation and imposition, which does not truly reflect the will of the Nigerian people. Indeed, the late legal luminary, Chief Rotimi Williams, who was a member of a socio-political pressure group, The Patriots, was of the view that the phrase ‘We the People’ that prefaces the constitution is a fraud because the document is not allegedly the product of the collective will of the Nigerian people. If the General Abdulsalam Abubakar regime that handed over to the new democratically elected government in 1999 had done so on the basis of the 1995 draft constitution engineered  by the regime of General Sani Abacha or the earlier 1989 draft constitution drawn up under the Babangida regime, I would have understood this point of view. The 1989 and 1995 constitutions, although drafted with considerable civil society input through national conferences made up of selected eminent Nigerians, had their credibility and integrity tainted by the regime perpetuation schemes of the two dictators.

    That is probably why the Abdusalam Abubakar regime accepted the recommendation of the Justice Niki Tobi Constitution Review Committee, which it had set up to review past constitutions and make recommendations, that the 1979 constitution with appropriate amendments was preferable to the 1989 and 1995 draft constitutions. The Abubakar regime thus handed over to an elected civilian government in 1999 on the basis of the 1979 constitution, which was drawn up under the Murtala/Obasanjo regime, with slight amendments. The 1999 constitution is thus virtually a carbon copy of the 1979 constitution. Can the 1979 constitution be regarded as a military imposition? That would surely be a misleading and rather shallow reading of the genesis and subsequent evolution of the 1979 constitution. It would appear that the Murtala/Obasanjo regime itself was conscious of the intellectual deficiency of the military as regards the task of constitution-making.

    Thus, according to the eminent political scientist, Professor Alex Gboyega, in selecting members of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to draw up the proposed new constitution for the Second Republic, the regime placed premium, in the words of General Murtala Mohammed, on “our learned men in disciplines considered to have direct relevance to Constitution-making namely – history, law, economics and other social sciences, especially political science and eminent Nigerians with some experience in Constitution-making making were brought in to complete the spectrum”. Let’s face it. Constitution-making is an essentially elitist, not a populist, enterprise. I cannot be expected, for instance, to discuss constitutional issues with the depth, perspicacity and authoritativeness of a constitutional lawyer or a Professor of history or political science.

    Yes, the sanctioning of a constitution by the majority certainly enhances the document’s legitimacy. But it is understandably always a small intellectual elite with the requisite technical knowledge that will be the ultimate determinants of its substantive content. This is probably why the trio of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, authors of ‘The Federalist Papers’ had such an immense influence on the promotion and ratification of the United States constitution.

    Headed by Chief Rotimi Williams, the CDC was made up of some of Nigeria’s brightest and best brains although it was observed that there was no woman on the committee. The draft constitution proposed by the CDC was subjected to a three-month public debate tagged ‘The Great Debate’ on the platform of the defunct Daily Times, which at the time circulated close to half a million copies nationwide and contributions to the debate later published in two volumes. The draft proposals were then considered and ratified by a Constituent Assembly headed by Justice Udo Udoma and made up of members elected, directly or indirectly, on the platform of the local government councils as electoral colleges. True, the military made about 17 insertions into the final document forwarded to it by the CDC. But there was absolutely nothing preventing the succeeding civilian administration from expunging these military insertions if that was the will of the majority of Nigerians.

    As I said earlier, the 1999 constitution is basically a reproduction of the 1979 constitution. There is no doubt much that is wrong with this constitution that promotes excessive centralization of power at the centre. But throwing the entire document away and starting a new experiment de novo after 19 years of unbroken civilian rule under its provenance would be most prodigal, which is why this column supports ongoing, even if too long delayed, efforts to amend the constitution to decentralize greater powers, responsibilities and resources to the states and local governments.

    Even then, decentralization can be ultimately dysfunctional and counterproductive if you have ‘democratically elected’ executive tyrants and virtual monarchs like Nasir ‘el Rufai, Yahaya Bello,  Rochas Okorocha, Nyesom Wike or Ayodele Fayose in power in the states. It is obviously the behavior of political actors like these that prompted Ekweremadu’s controversial comments on military intervention. As I said earlier, however, a greater danger than military intervention, if our political actors continue on the path of impunity, is a descent to total anarchy.

  • APC and the tenure question

    APC and the tenure question

    Briefing newsmen after Tuesday’s National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the All Progressives Congress (APC), the often effervescent Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, said the party’s NEC, in accordance with its constitutional powers, had decided to extend the tenure of its Chief Oyegun-led National Working Committee (NWC) as well as the party’s state executives by one year. Governor Bello was obviously referring to Article 13.3 (ii) of the party’s constitution, which empowers the NEC to “Discharge all functions of the National Convention as constituted in between elections”. Expatiating on the reasons for the NEC’s decision, Bello said, “Considering the time left for the party to conduct all the congresses and conventions and considering that our leader, Senator Tinubu, has been charged with the responsibility of reconciling all aggrieved members of our party, we cannot afford to approach the general elections with more dispute and crises. Let me tell you that this will not stop the convention of the party. But to go into elective Congresses is what we are trying to avoid, relying on the constitution of our party.”

    Clarifying Bello’s statement on Tuesday night, however, the Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) and Governor of Zamfara State, Alhaji Abdulaziz Yari, situated the NEC’s decision in its appropriate legal and constitutional context. He stressed that the desire of the NEC to extend the tenure of the party executives’ was still only an expression of interest until necessary constitutional amendments to that effect had been undertaken in accordance with the constitution of the party. In Governor Yari’s words, “What was done today is only an expression of a desire to extend the tenure of Chief Oyegun-led National Executives. The power of the Convention to extend tenure is exercised only by way of a constitutional amendment. The power of the National Executive Committee of our party cannot go beyond doing so by way of constitution amendment”.

    Governor Yari defended his position by reference to Article 30 (i) of the APC constitution, which states that “This Constitution and Schedules hereto can be amended only   by the National Convention of the Party”. Yari’s point is, in my view, succinct and surgical. Article 13.3(ii) empowers the NEC to “discharge all functions of the National Convention as constituted in between conventions”. One of the functions (powers) of the National Convention is to extend the tenure of party executives if it so desires. But the National Convention, itself, cannot exercise this power without constitutional amendment. And constitutional amendment, according to Article 30 (i), can be effected only by the National Convention. This is why an Extraordinary National Convention of the party had to be convened on October 29, 2014, for the sole purpose of effecting necessary amendments designed to align the party’s constitution with the Electoral Act.

    But why is amendment of the party’s constitution a necessary condition for any extension of tenure for party executives to be legal and valid? This is simply because Article 17 (i) of the party’s constitution states that “Except as otherwise provided by in this constitution, all officers of the Party elected or appointed into the party’s organs shall serve in such organs for a period of four (4) years and shall be eligible for re-election or re-appointment for another period of four years only…”. Even more importantly, according to legal experts, Section 223 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides not only for “the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party…” but in sub-section 2a of that section specifically states that “the election of the officers or members of the executive committee of a political party shall be deemed to be periodical only if it is made at regular intervals not exceeding four years…” The NWC’s tenure ends in June.  If it is not careful, therefore, the APC’s NEC stands the risk of violating not just its own constitution but the constitution of the country.

    Does time constraint provide a plausible excuse for the APC not holding elective congresses and conventions as insinuated by Bello? This certainly should not be so. After all, the party held three successful National Conventions within a period of seven months in 2014. It is all a function of the efficiency and efficacy of the elected and appointed party executives as well as the party bureaucracy they preside over. Again, how do we explain the seemingly morbid fear expressed by Yahya Bello, and echoed by Chief Oyegun, that elective congresses and conventions will necessarily result in crises that will negatively affect the party in the 2019 elections?

    Again, this was certainly not the case in the keenly contested National Convention through which President Muhammadu Buhari emerged as the party’s candidate in 2014. The important thing is that the primaries were widely perceived to be unquestionably credible, free, fair and transparent thus making the results generally acceptable to all aspirants. The impression must not be created that party members are politically immature and unable to accept the outcome of results of intra-party contests that they do not win. Elective party congresses and conventions must not be portrayed as negative activities that disrupt and destabilize parties. In reality, these activities constitute the equivalent of organizational muscles and sinews of political parties. Just like the muscles of the human body are strengthened through regular exercise, the organizational muscles of political parties are strengthened through regular, constitutionally stipulated intra-party electoral competitive exercises.

    On the other hand, parties gradually atrophy and ossify into inertia and apathy when intra-party elective congresses and conventions are stifled or cynically and illegally manipulated in violation of the will of the majority of party members. Just as ultimately happened with the PDP leading to its monumental electoral loss in 2015, parties that stifle internal electoral competition purportedly to avoid crises gradually lose their organizational agility and capacity to compete effectively against opposition parties in general elections. Elective congresses and conventions ahead of the 2019 can only strengthen rather than weaken the APC. They will invigourate and energize the party at all levels. They will provide opportunities for thousands of party members who legitimately desire to occupy party offices to exercise their right to vie for those positions. This can only reduce the level of frustration and possibly indifference and apathy among the large number of talented party members who are made to feel that their aspirations are stifled by lack of opportunities for intra-party contests.

    A political party must not allow itself to be held hostage by those who will accept nothing but victory in intra-party contests and resort to seeking to plunge the party into crises if they lose. That can be no valid excuse for not holding elective congresses and conventions as stipulated in a party’s constitution. In any case, there is no way in my view that the APC can constitutionally avoid holding elective congresses at ward, Local Government and State levels of the party. This is because the ward, local government and state executive committees of the party do not have similar powers of exercising the functions of congress in between congresses as the NEC has.

    The fears that holding elective congresses and conventions will hurt the party’s chances particularly in the presidential elections are self-serving and exaggerated. True, the APC government may not have met the high expectations it had raised before its assumption of power. But it has performed modestly well and I am sure that a significant number of the electorate will still prefer the party to the return of the PDP. Besides, whatever may be his lapses, President Buhari’s personal integrity still remains a huge asset for the APC. In any case, the PDP, although it is reforming gradually under Prince Uche Secondus, cannot realistically expect to bounce back to power in 2019. It has suffered too much moral, structural and psychological damage. President Obasanjo’s Coalition for Nigeria Movement is evidently dead on arrival. Why, then, should the APC fear to hold elective congresses and conventions? It is unjustifiable.

    Apparently and perhaps understandably, Chief Oyegun, has strongly defended the proposal to extend his NWC’s tenure claiming that elective congresses at this time will be disruptive and counter- productive. One would have thought he should be eager to submit himself to the will of party members in an elective National Convention if indeed he is confident that he has performed creditably as party Chairman. As a former outstanding Permanent Secretary, former State governor, NADECO activist and experienced politician, his election as National Chairman raised high hopes that he would help lead the hurriedly formed party towards greater structural cohesiveness and ideological clarity after its 2015 victory. Instead, under Oyegun, the party has been plagued with a multiplicity of crises that could either have been nipped in the bud or promptly resolved with a more creative, firm and proactive leadership. The APC should confront its internal demons now by holding elective congresses and conventions and jettisoning the idea of tenure extension for national and state party executives. If not, if it wins re-election in 2019, the first year of the new APC administration will be squandered on the politics of intra-party elections. To avoid that, the party may again have to further extend the tenure of incumbent elected and appointed party executives to its own detriment and that of Nigeria’s democracy.

  • Anti-corruption paradox

    Anti-corruption paradox

    It is as paradoxical as it is mystifying. President Muhammadu Buhari’s greatest assets are his much admired integrity, prudence and asceticism that played key roles in his ascendancy to the country’s apex of political authority in the 2015 election. In accordance with the electoral pact of his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) with the electorate, he has made confronting the monster of corruption a cardinal priority of his administration in addition to containing insecurity and rejuvenating the economy.  His government cannot be accused, despite certain operational, procedural and systemic lapses, of having been derelict or remiss in its commitment to its anti-graft offensive over the last three years. Yet, even though many Nigerians will place him on a higher ethical pedestal than most of his predecessors, Buhari ironically shares similar behavioural features with the government of the duo of President Shehu Shagari and Vice President Alex Ekwueme that his military regime superseded in December 1983. To borrow from the Ghananian novelist, Ayi Kwei Armah’s ironic imagery, Shagari and his deputy hated the faeces of corruption but they found no disgust or displeasure in being found in the company of aides and advisers who gorged on maggots.  The same affliction may imperil Buharfi’s anti-corruption war if the Daura-born General does not act fast.

    By all accounts, the Buhari administration can point to impressive gains in its onslaught against corruption resulting in the recovery of humongous amounts of stolen loots as well as scores of physical assets both within and outside the country since its assumption of office. For instance, briefing the House Representatives on the loot recoveries when he recently defended his agency’s 2018 budget before the legislators, the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu, gave an indication of the staggering funds raked into government coffers from thieving public office holders between January and December, 2017. This amounted, according to him, to N473 billion, $98 million, 7 million Euros, and 294,000 Pounds. A breakdown shows that this included the final forfeiture of N32 billion and $5 million to the coffers of the Federal Government by a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, the recovery of N449 million discovered at Legico Plaza in Victoria Island, Lagos, as well as the final forfeiture of more than $43 million discovered in an apartment in Ikoyi area of Lagos.

    Magu also disclosed that withholding tax of over N22.7 billion supposed to have been paid into government coffers was retrieved from banks while more than  N329 billion of ill acquired funds was recovered for government from petroleum marketers in Kano. Mention must also be made of the dramatic increases of revenues paid into the government’s coffers by such public agencies as the Federal Internal Revenue Service (FIRS), Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) and even the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) compared to their remittances in the past all due to the blockage of leakage opportunities by the Buhari administration. There is no doubt greater fiscal discipline, accountability and transparency in the management of public resources under this administration than was the case at any time over the last 16 years of PDP rule. Even those in positions of public authority today lament openly that there is less latitude now for unimpeded public spending than used to be the case in the past.

    Against this background, how do we explain the finding of the 2017 Corruption Perception Index (CPI) just released by Transparency International, which indicates that corruption is perceived to have grown worse in Nigeria between 2016 and 2017 under the Buhari administration? Of course, we know that perception is most times stronger than reality. Perception of the country’s corruption status will no doubt have implications for foreign investment to cite just one instance. Using a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 representing highly corrupt and 100 virtually zero corruption level, the CPI ranks 180 countries and territories by their assessed levels of public sector corruption as perceived and experienced by experts and business sector operators. In 2015, Nigeria was ranked 136 out of 168 countries having scored 26/100 percentage points. For 2016, the country scored 27 percentage points out of 100 and was again ranked 136th most widely perceived corrupt country in the world. As for 2017, Nigeria scored 28/100 percentage points but with a ranking of 148 out of 180 countries thus dropping 12 points below her position last year in terms of perceived level of corruption.

    The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) reports that Nigeria ranks 32nd position in Africa out of 52 assessed countries for corruption perception while she is also perceived as the second worst corrupt country in West Africa in 2017 second only to Guinea Bissau. Can it be that the CPI is jaundiced and biased against Nigeria? I hardly think so. If we accepted their ratings of past administrations’ corruption perception, why should their integrity be questioned when it comes to the Buhari administration which has fighting corruption as its flagship policy plank? One area I think we should look at is the strategy of prosecuting the anti-graft war. At every opportunity, locally and abroad, high ranking public officials decry and proclaim the high level of corruption in the country. But shouldn’t we at the same time be projecting and celebrating the thousands of quiet Nigerian icons of integrity, incorruptibility and honest industry who abound within the country and in the Diaspora? Would that not have some positive mitigating effect on our global corruption perception ranking?

    Again, as a war-tested General, it is surprising that President Buhari would commence such a critical war against entrenched and formidable corruption forces without a proper and thorough reconnaissance of the terrain, an assessment of the systemic constraints, cultural nuances and psychological predilections that allow corruption to flourish. The administration clearly engaged the forces of corruption without adequate preparation and have been virtually tactically and strategically, strafed, checkmated and frustrated at every point. Consequently, as CISLAC put it, “Since the current administration has come to power on the anti-corruption ticket, no significant politically exposed person has been duly sentenced on anti-corruption charges”. The lack of convictions for widely publicized cases of gargantuan fraud is another reason why corruption is widely perceived as flourishing in Nigeria despite the Buhari administration’s best efforts.

    Of course, President Buhari is no lawyer. He cannot be blamed for the abysmal incompetence exhibited so far in prosecuting anti-corruption cases. But it is his responsibility to search for and appoint a competent attorney general of impeccable integrity since the incumbent occupant of the position, Mallam Abubakar Malami (SAN), has consistently demonstrated questionable capability for the job professionally and ethically. The intellect, integrity and proficiency of the occupant of the office, is critical to domestic and international public perception of the state of the anti-corruption war in Nigeria. Two other reasons have been cited for the poor performance of Nigeria in the CPI in 2017 compared to 2015 and 2016. First is the perception that the Buhari administration tends to treat its top officials and kitchen cabinet members accused of serious malfeasances with kid gloves.

    This has been most evident in the hesitancy, reticence, reluctance and haphazardness with which fraud allegations against former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir Lawal, D-G, Nigeria Intelligence Agency (NIA), Ambassador Ayodele Oke, and, of course, the utterly embarrassing and inexplicable, controversial reinstatement into service of dismissed civil servant and fugitive from the law for alleged embezzlement of pension funds, Mr. Abdulrasheed Maina, before being fired by an angry President Buhari.  Key members of the administration implicated in this travesty continue to occupy their powerful offices. There is also the pending issue of the controversial unilateral reinstatement into office by the President of the Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), Professor Usman Yusuf, who had earlier being suspended from office by the Minister of Health, Professor Isaac Adewole, after being indicted by an inter-ministerial investigative panel for alleged fraud.

    The second reason is that it would appear that credible international organizations like TI, do not limit their definition of corruption to financial embezzlement or fraud. Acts of nepotism, favouritism and sectionalism for which the Buhari administration has been widely criticized in many quarters are also perceived as no less virulent strains of corruption. The administration should see the 2017 CPI Report of TI as a wake- up call to go back to the drawing board and make the vital strategic, tactical, personnel and structural changes that will positively change public perception of its anti-corruption war and ensure a much better performance for Nigeria in 2018 even as the country prepares for next year’s crucial elections.

  • Anti-corruption paradox

    It is as paradoxical as it is mystifying. President Muhammadu Buhari’s greatest assets are his much admired integrity, prudence and asceticism that played key roles in his ascendancy to the country’s apex of political authority in the 2015 election. In accordance with the electoral pact of his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) with the electorate, he has made confronting the monster of corruption a cardinal priority of his administration in addition to containing insecurity and rejuvenating the economy.  His government cannot be accused, despite certain operational, procedural and systemic lapses, of having been derelict or remiss in its commitment to its anti-graft offensive over the last three years. Yet, even though many Nigerians will place him on a higher ethical pedestal than most of his predecessors, Buhari ironically shares similar behavioural features with the government of the duo of President Shehu Shagari and Vice President Alex Ekwueme that his military regime superseded in December 1983. To borrow from the Ghananian novelist, Ayi Kwei Armah’s ironic imagery, Shagari and his deputy hated the faeces of corruption but they found no disgust or displeasure in being found in the company of aides and advisers who gorged on maggots.  The same affliction may imperil Buharfi’s anti-corruption war if the Daura-born General does not act fast.

    By all accounts, the Buhari administration can point to impressive gains in its onslaught against corruption resulting in the recovery of humongous amounts of stolen loots as well as scores of physical assets both within and outside the country since its assumption of office. For instance, briefing the House Representatives on the loot recoveries when he recently defended his agency’s 2018 budget before the legislators, the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu, gave an indication of the staggering funds raked into government coffers from thieving public office holders between January and December, 2017. This amounted, according to him, to N473 billion, $98 million, 7 million Euros, and 294,000 Pounds. A breakdown shows that this included the final forfeiture of N32 billion and $5 million to the coffers of the Federal Government by a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, the recovery of N449 million discovered at Legico Plaza in Victoria Island, Lagos, as well as the final forfeiture of more than $43 million discovered in an apartment in Ikoyi area of Lagos.

    Magu also disclosed that withholding tax of over N22.7 billion supposed to have been paid into government coffers was retrieved from banks while more than  N329 billion of ill acquired funds was recovered for government from petroleum marketers in Kano. Mention must also be made of the dramatic increases of revenues paid into the government’s coffers by such public agencies as the Federal Internal Revenue Service (FIRS), Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) and even the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) compared to their remittances in the past all due to the blockage of leakage opportunities by the Buhari administration. There is no doubt greater fiscal discipline, accountability and transparency in the management of public resources under this administration than was the case at any time over the last 16 years of PDP rule. Even those in positions of public authority today lament openly that there is less latitude now for unimpeded public spending than used to be the case in the past.

    Against this background, how do we explain the finding of the 2017 Corruption Perception Index (CPI) just released by Transparency International, which indicates that corruption is perceived to have grown worse in Nigeria between 2016 and 2017 under the Buhari administration? Of course, we know that perception is most times stronger than reality. Perception of the country’s corruption status will no doubt have implications for foreign investment to cite just one instance. Using a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 representing highly corrupt and 100 virtually zero corruption level, the CPI ranks 180 countries and territories by their assessed levels of public sector corruption as perceived and experienced by experts and business sector operators. In 2015, Nigeria was ranked 136 out of 168 countries having scored 26/100 percentage points. For 2016, the country scored 27 percentage points out of 100 and was again ranked 136th most widely perceived corrupt country in the world. As for 2017, Nigeria scored 28/100 percentage points but with a ranking of 148 out of 180 countries thus dropping 12 points below her position last year in terms of perceived level of corruption.

    The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) reports that Nigeria ranks 32nd position in Africa out of 52 assessed countries for corruption perception while she is also perceived as the second worst corrupt country in West Africa in 2017 second only to Guinea Bissau. Can it be that the CPI is jaundiced and biased against Nigeria? I hardly think so. If we accepted their ratings of past administrations’ corruption perception, why should their integrity be questioned when it comes to the Buhari administration which has fighting corruption as its flagship policy plank? One area I think we should look at is the strategy of prosecuting the anti-graft war. At every opportunity, locally and abroad, high ranking public officials decry and proclaim the high level of corruption in the country. But shouldn’t we at the same time be projecting and celebrating the thousands of quiet Nigerian icons of integrity, incorruptibility and honest industry who abound within the country and in the Diaspora? Would that not have some positive mitigating effect on our global corruption perception ranking?

    Again, as a war-tested General, it is surprising that President Buhari would commence such a critical war against entrenched and formidable corruption forces without a proper and thorough reconnaissance of the terrain, an assessment of the systemic constraints, cultural nuances and psychological predilections that allow corruption to flourish. The administration clearly engaged the forces of corruption without adequate preparation and have been virtually tactically and strategically, strafed, checkmated and frustrated at every point. Consequently, as CISLAC put it, “Since the current administration has come to power on the anti-corruption ticket, no significant politically exposed person has been duly sentenced on anti-corruption charges”. The lack of convictions for widely publicized cases of gargantuan fraud is another reason why corruption is widely perceived as flourishing in Nigeria despite the Buhari administration’s best efforts.

    Of course, President Buhari is no lawyer. He cannot be blamed for the abysmal incompetence exhibited so far in prosecuting anti-corruption cases. But it is his responsibility to search for and appoint a competent attorney general of impeccable integrity since the incumbent occupant of the position, Mallam Abubakar Malami (SAN), has consistently demonstrated questionable capability for the job professionally and ethically. The intellect, integrity and proficiency of the occupant of the office, is critical to domestic and international public perception of the state of the anti-corruption war in Nigeria. Two other reasons have been cited for the poor performance of Nigeria in the CPI in 2017 compared to 2015 and 2016. First is the perception that the Buhari administration tends to treat its top officials and kitchen cabinet members accused of serious malfeasances with kid gloves.

    This has been most evident in the hesitancy, reticence, reluctance and haphazardness with which fraud allegations against former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir Lawal, D-G, Nigeria Intelligence Agency (NIA), Ambassador Ayodele Oke, and, of course, the utterly embarrassing and inexplicable, controversial reinstatement into service of dismissed civil servant and fugitive from the law for alleged embezzlement of pension funds, Mr. Abdulrasheed Maina, before being fired by an angry President Buhari.  Key members of the administration implicated in this travesty continue to occupy their powerful offices. There is also the pending issue of the controversial unilateral reinstatement into office by the President of the Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), Professor Usman Yusuf, who had earlier being suspended from office by the Minister of Health, Professor Isaac Adewole, after being indicted by an inter-ministerial investigative panel for alleged fraud.

    The second reason is that it would appear that credible international organizations like TI, do not limit their definition of corruption to financial embezzlement or fraud. Acts of nepotism, favouritism and sectionalism for which the Buhari administration has been widely criticized in many quarters are also perceived as no less virulent strains of corruption. The administration should see the 2017 CPI Report of TI as a wake- up call to go back to the drawing board and make the vital strategic, tactical, personnel and structural changes that will positively change public perception of its anti-corruption war and ensure a much better performance for Nigeria in 2018 even as the country prepares for next year’s crucial elections.

  • Professor Akin Oyebode’s prescience

    Professor Akin Oyebode’s prescience

    The distinguished legal scholar, diligent researcher, outstanding teacher, principled academic of unimpeachable integrity and prodigious author, Professor Akin Oyebode, recently retired from the University of Lagos having attained the mandatory retirement age of 70. Of course, his illustrious career continues to be widely celebrated by his students, colleagues, relatives and numerous admirers. Unfortunately, I am one of those who only admired him over the years from a distance. I was not privileged either to be his student or to be even casually acquainted with him. Yet, his strong and impeccable character, diligent and meticulous scholarship and courage, even in times of grave national crisis, to speak truth to power, never ceased to make an impression on me. Even though I never knew him personally or had the opportunity to take refreshing gulps from his deep, ever fresh spring of knowledge and wisdom, Professor Oyebode’s collection of selected essays titled ‘Law and Nation-building in Nigeria’ has been one of my constant companions over the last few years. Quite apart from the pungency of his views, the acuteness of his intellect, I am often drawn to this book by the clarity of his thought and the lucidity with which he expresses them.

    Published by the Centre for Political and Administrative Research (CEPAR), Ogba, Ikeja, Lagos, in 2005, the book, which runs into 274 pages, is subdivided into four sections and has 24 chapters. Section one deals with Jurisprudential issues, Section two with Constitutionalism, Law and Development, Section three with The Legal System and the Judicial Process and Section four with Law and the Economy. What comes across in all the essays in the book is Professor Oyebode’s passion for justice, his aversion to all forms of oppression and his commitment to the greatest good of the greatest number of the people. One of the essays which I found most interesting in the book is the distinguished scholar’s perception of ‘The Role of Lawyers in the Society’, which was the focus of a lecture he delivered to the Ekiti State Ministry of Justice Retreat, Ikogosi, on September 14, 2002.

    For Professor Oyebode, as adumbrated in that lecture, the most important challenge confronting lawyers in the country today is to utilize their specialized professional skills to assist in working towards the adoption of a new constitution reflecting the various interests, needs and aspirations of the diverse components of the polity. The second challenge, he argues, is to save the legal profession from atrophy. He contends that the problem with the country’s legal system is not the absence of laws but rather the lack of a collective will to abide by the dictates of the law. Man’s movement away from the Hobbesian State of nature to a civilized existence, the author reasons, implies the existence of laws to guide and regulate human behavior and interactions. Since a government predicated on laws is superior to one dependent on the whims and caprices of men, it follows that “those who make the law their vocation always find relevance if not, in fact, preeminence in the scheme of things”.

    But then this very fact confers grave and onerous responsibilities on the lawyer as regards his role in society. In Professor Oyebode’s words, “It must be emphasized, though, that the enviable status being prescribed for lawyers in society needs to be jealously guarded. Those among us who run foul of the rules of professional ethics should be prepared to be burnt at the stake! For a profession that is unable to sanitize its ranks would soon forfeit self-respect or indeed recognition and admiration from the rest of society”. For a lecture delivered over a decade and a half ago, is the distinguished professor not remarkably prescient given the state of the legal profession in the country today?

    Professor Oyebode is of the view that since law is a means to an end, we must apprehend the ends of the law in order to better appreciate and correctly locate the role of lawyers in the society. He agrees with the position of the great jurist, Dr. T.O. Elias expressed in the 1970s that “the tasks confronting law in Nigeria were those of facilitating economic development, elevating our moral nature, welding our heterogeneous communities into a united polity and evolving a common law for the country”.

    Professor Oyebode was equally prescient when in a paper he presented to the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) at the University of Lagos in 1994, he made a case “that it was time we did away with the shibboleth of rule of law and embrace the seemingly novel notion of the rule of just law or, more plainly, the rule of justice in order to re-establish the link between law and social reality”. This discourse presaged by over two decades, current arguments in this dispensation as regards whether or not the ongoing anti-corruption war should be waged within the context of the rule of law. According to him, a deformed liberal state like Nigeria can ill afford a position which extols the rule of law especially given usurpation of political power by miscreants for most of our post-colonial history and the attempts by these to enforce their will through the so-called rule of law.

    In his words, “Accordingly, the law must provide a framework for the realization of the yearnings of the preponderant majority of the population if it is to have any relevance to their existence. Thus, it is not sufficient for the constitution to proclaim equality before the law when legal services are priced beyond the reach of the ordinary person. Nor can we talk of the right to life when the constitution fails to guarantee the right to work. As Obarogie Ohonbamu had asked some years ago, “what, indeed, is freedom of thought and expression to someone who is a crass illiterate? What is ‘one man, one vote’ to a hungry unemployed citizen?”

  • Professor Akin Oyebode’s prescience

    Professor Akin Oyebode’s prescience

    The distinguished legal scholar, diligent researcher, outstanding teacher, principled academic of unimpeachable integrity and prodigious author, Professor Akin Oyebode, recently retired from the University of Lagos having attained the mandatory retirement age of 70. Of course, his illustrious career continues to be widely celebrated by his students, colleagues, relatives and numerous admirers.

    Unfortunately, I am one of those who only admired him over the years from a distance. I was not privileged either to be his student or to be even casually acquainted with him. Yet, his strong and impeccable character, diligent and meticulous scholarship and courage, even in times of grave national crisis, to speak truth to power, never ceased to make an impression on me.

    Even though I never knew him personally or had the opportunity to take refreshing gulps from his deep, ever fresh spring of knowledge and wisdom, Professor Oyebode’s collection of selected essays titled ‘Law and Nation-building in Nigeria’ has been one of my constant companions over the last few years. Quite apart from the pungency of his views, the acuteness of his intellect, I am often drawn to this book by the clarity of his thought and the lucidity with which he expresses them.

    Published by the Centre for Political and Administrative Research (CEPAR), Ogba, Ikeja, Lagos, in 2005, the book, which runs into 274 pages, is subdivided into four sections and has 24 chapters. Section one deals with Jurisprudential issues, Section two with Constitutionalism, Law and Development, Section three with The Legal System and the Judicial Process and Section four with Law and the Economy. What comes across in all the essays in the book is Professor Oyebode’s passion for justice, his aversion to all forms of oppression and his commitment to the greatest good of the greatest number of the people. One of the essays which I found most interesting in the book is the distinguished scholar’s perception of ‘The Role of Lawyers in the Society’, which was the focus of a lecture he delivered to the Ekiti State Ministry of Justice Retreat, Ikogosi, on September 14, 2002.

    For Professor Oyebode, as adumbrated in that lecture, the most important challenge confronting lawyers in the country today is to utilize their specialized professional skills to assist in working towards the adoption of a new constitution reflecting the various interests, needs and aspirations of the diverse components of the polity. The second challenge, he argues, is to save the legal profession from atrophy. He contends that the problem with the country’s legal system is not the absence of laws but rather the lack of a collective will to abide by the dictates of the law. Man’s movement away from the Hobbesian State of nature to a civilized existence, the author reasons, implies the existence of laws to guide and regulate human behavior and interactions. Since a government predicated on laws is superior to one dependent on the whims and caprices of men, it follows that “those who make the law their vocation always find relevance if not, in fact, preeminence in the scheme of things”.

    But then this very fact confers grave and onerous responsibilities on the lawyer as regards his role in society. In Professor Oyebode’s words, “It must be emphasized, though, that the enviable status being prescribed for lawyers in society needs to be jealously guarded. Those among us who run foul of the rules of professional ethics should be prepared to be burnt at the stake! For a profession that is unable to sanitize its ranks would soon forfeit self-respect or indeed recognition and admiration from the rest of society”. For a lecture delivered over a decade and a half ago, is the distinguished professor not remarkably prescient given the state of the legal profession in the country today?

    Professor Oyebode is of the view that since law is a means to an end, we must apprehend the ends of the law in order to better appreciate and correctly locate the role of lawyers in the society. He agrees with the position of the great jurist, Dr. T.O. Elias expressed in the 1970s that “the tasks confronting law in Nigeria were those of facilitating economic development, elevating our moral nature, welding our heterogeneous communities into a united polity and evolving a common law for the country”.

    Professor Oyebode was equally prescient when in a paper he presented to the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) at the University of Lagos in 1994, he made a case “that it was time we did away with the shibboleth of rule of law and embrace the seemingly novel notion of the rule of just law or, more plainly, the rule of justice in order to re-establish the link between law and social reality”. This discourse presaged by over two decades, current arguments in this dispensation as regards whether or not the ongoing anti-corruption war should be waged within the context of the rule of law. According to him, a deformed liberal state like Nigeria can ill afford a position which extols the rule of law especially given usurpation of political power by miscreants for most of our post-colonial history and the attempts by these to enforce their will through the so-called rule of law.

    In his words, “Accordingly, the law must provide a framework for the realization of the yearnings of the preponderant majority of the population if it is to have any relevance to their existence. Thus, it is not sufficient for the constitution to proclaim equality before the law when legal services are priced beyond the reach of the ordinary person. Nor can we talk of the right to life when the constitution fails to guarantee the right to work. As Obarogie Ohonbamu had asked some years ago, “what, indeed, is freedom of thought and expression to someone who is a crass illiterate? What is ‘one man, one vote’ to a hungry unemployed citizen?”

  • Update on Odu’a group’s resurgence

    Update on Odu’a group’s resurgence

    Whatever may be their personal idiosyncrasies, political inclinations or attitudinal dispositions, the current crop of South West governors deserve commendation for the efforts and energies they have expended thus far in pursuing the cause of South West regional economic integration. It is under the purview of the current governors, for instance, that the Development Agenda of Western Nigeria (DAWN) was established to serve as the intellectual powerhouse to generate ideas and provide a forum of robust discourse to constantly renew and strengthen the cause of South West regional economic integration.

    A momentous milestone was reached in this regard when, on assumption of office of Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode as Governor of Lagos State in 2015, the region’s Megacity state officially became a formal member of the Oodu’a Group of Companies in February, 2016, through the Ibile Holdings, the Lagos State Investment Company thus bringing the phenomenal asset base and economic potential of Lagos to bear on the fortunes of the Oodu’a conglomerate. Throughout 2017, the South West governors demonstrated their commitment to the economic integration of the region and one can say that the South West is showing the light for others to find the way in this regard. At various times in 2017, the South West governors held meetings to assess and deepen the process of South West integration in Ado-EKiti, Ekiti State, in February 2017; Abeokuta, Ogun State, in July, 2017; and a South West Economic Forum in Ibadan on November, 21, 2017.

    The governors utilized each of these deliberative sessions to elaborate on their plans for a collaborative developmental enterprise in diverse areas including education, agriculture, security, transport, infrastructure, trade, commerce and sports. Some of the far reaching goals and objectives the governors set for themselves include harnessing the competitive advantage of constituent states for sustainable regional development; the establishment of a Western Nigeria Export Development Initiative (WENEDI) to drive the region’s export potentials; the codification of Yoruba values and ethos to strengthen Yoruba identity and unity of purpose; building a multi-modal transportation system, including highways, water and air, energy and power and the adoption of the South West Regional Integrated Commercial and Agricultural Development Programme (RICARD) with Lagos earmarked to be at the vanguard of a structured regional food exchange programme.

    It is not surprising that in their determined pursuit of regional economic integration and cooperation in the South West, the region’s governors have opted to utilize the Oodu’a Group of companies, a massive investment outfit that traces its roots to Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s visionary Action Group (AG) Western Region Government in the First Republic, as its Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in this regard. Although the conglomerate had been largely moribund before the assumption of office of the current Mr. Adewale Raji-led management team in 2014, its resurgence and growing financial vibrancy must have encouraged the governors to place their confidence in it for the realization of their regional economic integration objectives.

    For instance, the Group’s audited accounts revealed that its Profit Before Tax grew from N378 million to N597 million in 2015 thus making it possible to pay the sums of N167 million and N194 million respectively as dividends to its shareholders for the 2014 and 2015 financial years. It is instructive that no such dividends had been paid in the preceding six years. Impressed by the performance of the conglomerate under its new management, the owner State governors, after a meeting in Ibadan on January 19, 2016, resolved to help raise the company’s revenue base from N4 billion to N20 billion in 2019. They also resolved to re-position Oodu’a Investment Company as the engine room for the economic growth of the South West.

    Even more importantly, the governors resolved to allow the conglomerate to run as a purely commercial and professional outfit without the political interference and partisan interventions that had impeded its progress over the years. Given a free hand to operate professionally, the Adewale Raji-led management team has also corrected critical organizational lapses that had helped erode the efficacy and profitability of the Oodu’a Group over the years. For instance, in his anniversary lecture to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Oodu’a Group in December, 2016, Professor Wale Omole (OFR) had noted that “It is disturbing that a Board of a conglomerate will have neither the Statutory Audit Committee, nor Finance and General Purposes Committee. This is a clear violation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 (CAMA). How are domestic reports dealt with? Where is the heart of the business? Where are strategies formulated, evaluated, tested and refined?”.

    With these gaping loopholes plugged by the Adewale Raji-led management team with the staunch support of the Board Chairman, Engineer Olusola Akinwumi, and other board members as well as owner state governors, it is not surprising that the Oodu’a Group continues to consolidate on the recovery and gains of the last four years. Thus, the company announced a profit before tax of N789 million from a turnover of N1.89 billion for the financial year ended 31st December, 2016. As a result of this performance, the Group declared and paid out a gross dividend of N277 million to its shareholders, which represents a 43% increase over the N194 million paid for the 2015 financial year.

    Despite the effects of the recession from which the economy is only gradually emerging, Oodu’a Group’s revenue in 2016 grew by 11.3% while profit increased by 32% in comparison with the 2015 financial year. Even though much of this year will be given to electioneering campaigns towards next year’s elections, it is important that the South West governors do not relent or allow themselves to be distracted from their laudable efforts towards regional economic integration particularly through DAWN and the resurgent Oodu’a Group.

     

    Icon of change

    All too often, most of us look to those in key leadership positions especially at the political level to initiate and embody the change we desire to see in our society.  Thus, we tend to believe that the positive change we crave for can only begin and end with President Muhammadu Buhari, state governors, national and state legislators or other leaders who hold prominent positions of influence. Yet, there are others who believe that change can actually begin with their personal examples in the little corners in which they find themselves. This was probably what the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohamed meant when he launched his ‘change begins with me’ campaign early in the life of this administration.

    One of such self-motivated, highly influential change agents in their professional spheres is Dr. Benjamin, Oluwatosin, Olowojebutu, a dynamic, 36-year old medical doctor and surgeon who graduated from the College of Medicine, University of Lagos, in 2006. An alumnus of the 2017 Leadership in International Health Management, University of Washington, USA, Dr. Olowojebutu was on the 1999 Merit List for academic excellence of the University of Lagos and the best biology student in Lagos State JETS competition in 1997 in addition to several other professional and academic awards.

    Dr. Benjamin Olowojebutu
    Olowojebutu

    After stints at various private hospitals across the country, this dynamic professional established the Liberty-Life Hospital, Ogudu, Lagos, in 2016 where he is Medical Director. If the acquisition of wealth was his primary preoccupation, Dr Olowojebutu would have absolutely no problems given his consummate skills. However, this is a medical doctor with a difference. He is motivated by compassionate and altruistic considerations. Thus, in 2016, Liberty Life Hospital conducted 865 free medical screening and surgeries for indigent persons. In September 2017, his hospital undertook 85 free surgeries for hernia, hydrocele, breast lumps and Lipoma. And between October and December, 2017, he carried out free fibroid surgeries on 57 indigent women.

    For 2018, Dr. Olowojebutu and his team are scheduled to carry out free surgeries for hernia, hydrocele, breast lump, Lipoma, Keloids and fibroids from April 9th – 27th; August 6th – 24th and December 3rd-21st. More than 70 indigent persons have already registered for the first set of free surgeries in April. Surely, this patriotic and selfless icon of change deserves the moral and financial support of Nigerians.  

  • Obasanjo’s verdict on PDP, APC

    Obasanjo’s verdict on PDP, APC

    This column will not concern itself with the vitriolic and virulent contents of ex President Olusegun Obasanjo’s rabidly unforgiving and unsparing public missive to President Muhammadu Buhari, his depiction of the Daura-born General as an unmitigated all-round disaster in governance and his consequent advice that the latter should perish any thoughts of a second term in 2019. After all, it is vintage Obasanjo – who takes no prisoners and fires on all cylinders when the embers of his combustible temper are stoked.

    But how valid is Obasanjo’s submission that the two major parties – the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have failed thus necessitating the formation of what he calls ‘a Coalition for Nigeria Movement’ to salvage the country? From insinuations in his letter, this strange ‘Movement’ is to be led and championed by the ‘Ebora Owu’ himself.  In my view, Obasanjo’s dismissive avowals on the two parties portend ominous signals for the continuous development of Nigeria’s evolving democracy.

    For one, Obasanjo shoots himself on the foot and engages in amazingly damaging self-immolation when he declares that the two major parties are failures which cannot be entrusted with Nigeria’s future and must now be replaced by his Third Force. He was president   for eight years at the inception of this dispensation in 1999. Whatever may have been his flaws, his administration had notable records of achievement as my colleague, Sanya Oni, wrote in his column in this paper on Tuesday.

    Reiterating some of the Obasanjo administration’s attainments, Oni wrote “I refer here to his pension reforms which given the mess that has been made of the old defined benefits scheme has become revolutionary, the power sector reform, the creation of anti-corruption institutions – the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission – all of which have given governance a sense of modernity”. And of course we must refer to his administration’s landmark success in getting the Paris Club to right of $18 billion of Nigeria’s debt in 2005.

    If these commendable reforms of the Obasanjo PDP administration were not sustained, the fault lies with the former president than with the country’s political system in general or the party structure in particular. In the first place, immediately he assumed office as president, Obasanjo deliberately weakened and systematically destroyed the PDP, ensuring the expulsion of influential, experienced and powerful leaders; he removed national chairmen and other officers of the party at will and completely subordinated the PDP to the presidency.

    Without a powerful party platform to hold it in check, the Obasanjo presidency was able to act with impunity committing all kinds of unconstitutional acts like removing elected governors unlawfully, seizing Lagos State government local government funds even against the ruling of the apex court in the land or completely razing communities like Odi and Zaki Biam. While destroying any effective restraining voice within the PDP, the Obasanjo presidency now turned its attention to infiltrating and destabilizing other opposition parties like the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD) and All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) thus considerably weakening the entire political system and its inbuilt checks and balances.

    Another serious shortcoming of Obasanjo was his inability to influence the emergence of physically fit and intellectually capable successor to build on, sustain and improve on his policies. His critics say that his choice of either physically challenged successors or abysmally incapable ones was motivated by the selfish interest of wanting to remain in power even while out of office. This was a marked difference from Lagos State where the Asiwaju Tinubu administration not only laid a solid foundation for development between 1999 and 2007, but was also succeeded by competent and visionary leaders like Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN) (2007 to 2015) and now the superlative Mr Akinwunmi Ambode. Obasanjo must not be allowed to get away with blaming the party system for his own personal deficiencies.

    The sad thing is that the APC, which came in amidst popular exultation as a party of change in 2015 has patterned itself organizationally and functionally in the mirror image of the dysfunctional PDP. As this column had cause to warn once, it is important for the APC to realize that the party’s complete subordination to the presidency, lack of inspirational and charismatic leadership, embarrassing immobility of its internal organs and structures and the surrender of their functions to a cabal in the presidency were some of the reasons why the PDP lost so scandalously to the new ruling party about three years ago.

    The truth is that a government’s being held in check by and responsible to the party that provided it an electoral platform enhances the chances of good, transparent and ethical governance. Perhaps if the APC had been more assertive as a party with a better hold on its government, the difficult-to-deny allegations of skewed appointments, nepotism or the unbelievable Maina-gate or Lawal-gate scandal could have been avoided and President Buhari’s solid integrity better protected.

    But the alternative to the defects of the current party structure, particularly the perception and performance of the two major parties that Obasanjo is so craftily playing upon cannot be the ex president’s ill-conceived ‘Coalition for Nigeria Movement’. In the first place, there are scores of other registered parties that Nigerians can vote for if they are irreparably dissatisfied with both the APC and PDP. Secondly, even the names that Obasanjo has coupled together to help midwife his ‘Movement’ – Former governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola of Osun State, former governor Donald Duke of Cross River State, former national chairman of the PDP, Dr. Ahmadu Alli, former national secretary of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), Alhaji Buba Galadima, Bashorun Segun Runshewe, Otunba Babatunde Fasawe etc are no fresh faces on the political scene. They are not necessarily any better or different from most members of the two major parties.

    The historic election of 2015, which saw an incumbent government at the centre displaced for the first time, demonstrates that Nigeria’s democratic form of government can indeed be made to work. And whatever may be the shortcomings of the Buhari administration, no one can claim it has not provided a better moral climate and more disciplined governance  than the previous PDP administration. If the APC does not listen to popular outcry and urgently redress its own defects, deformities and excesses, nothing stops it from suffering the same fate as its predecessor at the centre. But I think the real Third Force the two major parties have to fear is not Obasanjo’s “Coalition for Nigerian Movement”. Rather, it is the very possibility of a genuine coalition of popular forces, young professionals, aggrieved, unemployed youths etc being successfully mobilized by genuine faces of integrity to lead the country in a new direction.

     

    Let the democratic process take its course 

    While Obasanjo’s identification of the nature of the succession problem currently facing Nigeria (though not its root causes) may sound quite reasonable, one is not sure about the solution he prescribes or the motives underlying it. I hope the Coalition for Nigeria masquerading as a Movement is not another subterfuge for scheming another “Interim Government for Nigeria” (ING) thing used for subverting the Abiola Claim to the Presidency in the wake of the debacle resulting from the June 12, 1993 annulment. No such debacle currently exists, nor do we have any national emergency to warrant a military-turned-political leadership being again brought in as it were like a Cincinnatus from the field to assume affairs of the republic or for that matter the abrogation of the democratic process or rule.

    Adekanye
    Prof Bayo Adekanye

    Let the democratic process define for us who should  rule. The citizenry generally and youth in particular (given the powerful means of social mobilization members now have at their disposal) should rise up to the challenge. If they find existing political party structures not good enough to use for turning the fortunes of the country around, let the youth mobiles just like their counterparts in other parts of the world to set up alternative political vehicles for taking over power and the machinery of rule. But in doing this, they must be careful not to be used by anyone. I recommend Emmanuel Macron’s strategy (France).