The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Ayobolu

  • Pope Fancis and the gay question

    Pope Fancis and the gay question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Dilemma of a weak leviathan

    Dilemma of a weak leviathan

    The idea of a weak Leviathanis obviously an oxymoron. I like the way the biblical book of Job describes the monstrous sea monster known as Leviathan. As Eugene Peterson’s The Message Bible graphically describes Leviathan, “His belly is armor-plated, inexorable – unstoppable as a barge. He roils deep ocean the way you’d boil water, he whips the sea the way you’d whip an egg into batter…There’s nothing on this earth quite like him, not an ounce of fear in that creature!”. It is thus understandable that Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the great English political thinker, borrowed the idea of Leviathan to depict the absolute, limitless powers of the sovereign state to maintain order and prevent the degeneration of society to anarchy.

    Hobbes, one of the major social contract theorists, posited that man is by nature selfish and self-centered, led by ‘a perpetual and restless desire of power after power’ resulting in a war of everyman against everyman. Thus, in the state of nature, human existence is ‘solitary, nasty, brutish and short’. To escape this unbearable condition, men enter into a social contract to cede their liberties to a sovereign authority, the state or Leviathan, which has absolute powers to enforce law and maintain order. Ironically, the negative traits of human nature identified by Hobbes make the kind of absolute and unaccountable power he advocates dangerous and injurious to human society.

    As Lord Acton memorably put it, ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. The impunity engendered by unaccountable and absolute power invariably leads society right back to the undesirable conditions of the state of nature, which Hobbes seeks man’s escape from. Nowhere has this been better demonstrated than Africa. Mobutu’s Zaire, Idi-Amin’s Uganda, Samuel Doe’s Liberia, Mengistu’s Ethiopia or Nguema’s Central African Republic are only the worst examples of polities that regressed to sheer barbaric anarchy where life is characterized by the shortness, brutishness, solitariness and nastiness of Hobbes’ state of nature as a result of absolute, untrammeled power.

    Some political scientists have characterized the African State as a ‘weak Leviathan’ because, in most instances, states on the continent have become victims of their bloated and unrestricted powers, which encourage rampant avarice and reckless lawlessness. Despite its appearance of intimidating and invincible power, for example, the Nigerian Leviathan is considerably weak as regards its capacity to secure its territory, provide basic social services and promote development.

    While the Buhari administration has largely succeeded in substantially downgrading the offensive capabilities of Boko Haram in the North East, there has been a resurgence of militancy in the Niger Delta with a vengeance that has dealt devastating and crippling blows on the economy while separatist Biafra agitations are gathering momentum disturbingly in the South East.Meanwhile, the entire country has become a vast wasteland of rampant criminality including kidnapping, armed robbery, cultism, rampaging killer herdsmen, communal violence and oil pipeline vandalism among others. All this suggests a considerable shrinking of state capacity with a growing number of assorted groups challenging with increasing effectiveness the state’s monopoly of control over the legitimate means of coercion within its territorial jurisdiction.

    Thus, theNiger Delta Avengers, speaking fromwhat they obviously perceive as a position of strength are giving the most ridiculous terms for dialogue with a government seemingly desperate for negotiations at all costs. The problem is that such signs of state weakness can only encourage the multiplication of criminal gangs all bent on blackmailing and extracting their pound of flesh from a state that appears to be expiring on the most frivolous grounds.

    Despite the democratic transition of 1999, the Nigerian state remains essentially as centralist and absolutist as it was under military rule. This is why there has been no meaningful enhancement of state capacity and efficacy in the last 16 years of democratic rule. The federal government controls disproportionate power and resources relative to the states and local governments, which are federating units only in a nominal sense.

    Unfortunately, the decentralization of the polity with a view to devolving greater powers, resources and responsibilities to the lower levels of government, which are closer to and have greater impact on the lives of millions of Nigerians, does not appear to be part of the change agenda of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

    While President Buhari’s moral integrity and preoccupation with fighting corruption is commendable, he appears to have a centrist and essentially anti-federalist mindset that can only ultimately sabotage his government’s efforts at revitalizing the economy, stabilizing the polity and sanitizing the country’s moral universe. This goes beyond populist and ill-defined calls for restructuring or a return to some nebulous ‘true federalism’.

    As Geoff Mulgan notes in his book, ‘Good and Bad Power’, while ‘ The most radical way of embedding decentralization is federalism’, the practice of devolving powers from  central to lower levels of government now transcends formally federal systems because “The democratic tradition that we trace back to Athens presumes that government works best when it is closest to the people”.

    Thus, even non federal states like France in 1982, Sweden in the late 1970s,China in the early 1990s as well as Bolivia and Chile have taken measures to decentralize and ‘slice back the power of the centre’s agents’. For now, Nigeria’s weak Leviathan may have no choice but to dialogue with the most irrational rogue elements in order to safeguard its oil-dependent economy and guarantee the country’s fragile territorial integrity. To strengthen its hand in the long run, however, and significantly reduce its vulnerability to pressure from such outlaw groups, it must take far reaching measures to become leaner, cleaner, smarter and more efficient.

    Towards this end, it is incumbent on the APC government to urgently take a number of steps. Firstly, there should be substantial devolution of more powers, responsibilities and resources to the states and local governments beginning with the long overdue review of the extant and retrogressive revenue allocation formula, which is overly skewed in favor of the centre.

    Secondly, the redesigning and decentralization of the state’s internal security architecture is long overdue. We can only continue to delay the introduction of state police at our collective peril. The military cannot continue to be burdened with and distracted by internal policing duties as is presently the case when the country faces ever increasing threats to her territorial integrity.

    Thirdly, there should be urgent constitutional amendments to enable the states control and exploit mineral resources within their territories. This will aid diversification of the economy and promote holistic and broad based development across the country thus making the whole less vulnerable to blackmail from the parts on which it is unnecessarily wholly dependent for economic sustenance.

    In a discussion during the week, ace columnist, Sam Omatseye, observed perceptively that Leviathan exposes itself to danger when it leaves the deep seas to wallow in shallow waters where its maneuverability is restricted and it is at the mercy of a multitude of smaller fish. The Nigerian Leviathan, which is the central government, must urgently shed needless weight in order to find its way back to the deep seas of efficiency and effectiveness in piloting the ship of the polity.

    Re: Kogi as constitutional laboratory

    “Segun, your apparently constructive reasoning and strong points in support of James Faleke on the issue notwithstanding, Faleke’s approach on the whole, it must be said, contributed much to make matters worse for him as it has come to be. Having naturally fought for what he thought to be his right and was neither declared the governor nor allowed to be the governorship candidate for the supplementary election, commonsense and reason suggest that he should have discretionally accepted the post of the Deputy Governor accorded him with philosophical calmness, bidding his time at least with the 2019 general elections in view. Though both the INEC and APC leadership aren’t to blame in their wisdom or lack of it in handling of the matter the way they did, it’s quite sad that Faleke having co-worked with the late Audu to deliver Kogians to APC could so end up neither plucking the mango atop the tree nor picking up the one that dropped on the ground”, Emmanuel Egwu, 08037921541

    “The tribunal failed to answer these two basic questions in my view. 1. Can a party substitute a validly nominated candidate after the closure of nomination date? 2. Which section of our constitution deals with substitution of dead candidate on the day of election as the case in Kogi?”  08136912987

    “Perhaps because we are not legal luminaries some judgements we see in recent times leave much to be desired. The answer which was very clear abinitio on who becomes the governorship candidate of APC in Kogi when Audu died became a subject of needless litigation when APC set in injustice. The judges turn us blind by their brazen judgement declarations. In effect, no one should fume with the landmark judgements in cases of Akwa Ibom, Delta and Rivers. However, reading law in Nigeria now may require Masters/Law School abroad”, LanreOseni, 08022066663

    “Uncle Ayo, thank you for standing by the truth. Faleke is supposed to be the governor of Kogi by now. The purpose of having a deputy during election is because of unforeseen circumstances like what happened in Kogi. But the power clique deniedFaleke because he is Yoruba, he is a Christian and he is close to Asiwaju. Justice and truth will surely prevail in Kogi”,   Boluwaji, Akure, 09086602636

  • Kogi as constitutional laboratory

    Kogi as constitutional laboratory

    After a waiting period of intense suspense, the Kogi State Election Petition Tribunal in successive judgements beginning on Monday dismissed the petitions against the election of Governor Yahaya Bello by Mr James Abiodun Faleke of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Captain Idris Wada (Rtd) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mrs. Zainab Usman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the Labour Party respectively. In each instance, the Tribunal found the petitions deficient and unmeritorious and thus declared Yahaya Bello duly elected as governor of the state.

    Easily the most anticipated of the petitions was that of Honourable James Abiodun Faleke, who was the running mate to the late Prince Abubakar Audu, who died after the collation but shortly before the formal announcement by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of the outcome of the November 21, 2015 poll. Before Audu’s demise, the Returning Officer for the election, Professor Emmanuel Kuchi, Vice Chancellor of the University of Agriculture, Makurdi, had declared the victory of the APC in 16 of the 21 local governments with a total of 240, 867 votes while the incumbent governor, Captain Idris Wada, of the PDP scored 199, 514 votes emerging victorious in five Local Government Areas.

    The Returning Officer, however, went on to declare the election inconclusive because, while the differential margin of votes between Audu and Wada was 41,353, the total number of registered voters in 91 polling units across 18 Local Governments where the election was cancelled was 49, 953, a figure higher than that with which Audu beat Wada. It was thus the decision of INEC to hold a supplementary election on December 5, 2015 to bring the election to closure. Some analysts accused the electoral umpire of bad faith since it was well aware that the number of duly accredited voters in the 91 polling units where elections were cancelled was no more than 25,000, significantly less than the APC’s margin of victory and thus rendering a supplementary election superfluous. From this point of view, the election was thus irreversibly conclusive. Even if all the votes in the 91 units were allocated to the PDP, the APC victory of November 21 still stood secure and inviolate.

    The INEC did not help matters when it sought the opinion of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mallam Abubakar Malami (SAN) on what its next line of action should be. For one, the electoral commission has its own legal advisers and should have protected its institutional autonomy. The AGF is an appointee of the APC-controlled Federal Government. His opinion was, therefore, believed to be that of a powerful clique within the party bent on achieving a pre-determined outcome in the Kogi polls. Nevertheless, INEC followed the advice of the AGF and requested the APC to present another candidate for the scheduled supplementary election. The party nominated Alhaji Yahaya Bello, who had come second to the late Audu in the party primaries of August 29, 2015, but who had refrained from participating in activities of the party since his defeat.

    Faleke kicked and declined to participate in the supplementary polls insisting that the November election was conclusive. It had been won decisively by the Audu/Faleke ticket. Section 187 (1) of the 1999 constitution states that “ …a candidate for the office of Governor of a State shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor”. Faleke contributed as much to the APC’s electoral victory of November 21 as Audu. Why did the constitution insist that a candidate could only run for office as governor if he picks a running mate? Furthermore, Section 181 (1) of the constitution provides that if a duly elected governor dies before subscribing to the oath of office, the person elected with him as Deputy Governor “shall be sworn in as Governor and he shall nominate a new Deputy- Governor who shall be appointed by the Governor with the approval of a simple majority of the House of Assembly of the State”.

    There are those who argue, however, that the provisions of Section 181 (1) do not apply in the Kogi case. Prince Audu had not yet been declared duly elected by INEC before his demise and this development is a novel one unanticipated by the drafters of the constitution. Was the election of November 21 conclusive or not since the Audu/Faleke ticket had won the constitutional requisites of the highest number of votes and the spread of 25% of the votes cast in each of at least two thirds of the 21 Local Governments in the state? Shouldn’t Faleke have been declared duly elected by INEC since he was on the joint ticket with the deceased governorship APC governorship candidate as running mate?  Could Yahaya Bello be deemed to have been duly elected as governor when he participated in the supplementary election without a valid running mate? These are some of the issues to which Faleke sought judicial interpretations and decisions at the Election Petition Tribunal.

    Although this columnist has not yet seen a full copy of the Tribunal’s judgement, news reports indicate that the judicial body ruled that Faleke has no locus standi to challenge the election of Bello when INEC has declared the exercise inconclusive. The tribunal further declared that deciding the candidate of a political party is not under the jurisdiction of a court. “A candidate cannot stand election without being sponsored by a party; the Electoral Tribunal has no power to determine the candidate of a party. The issues raised by the petitioner bordered on the nomination of the 2nd respondent (Yahaya Bello), which arose from the death of Prince Audu; Bello did not nominate himself. Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent belong to the same party and were sponsored by their party. The APC has the right to substitute a candidate as it deems fit” the Tribunal reportedly said.

    Most curiously, the Tribunal also declared Faleke’s withdrawal letter from the supplementary election as Yahaya Bello’s running mate to be invalid because it was addressed to INEC rather than his political party. The implication is that Yahaya Bello contested in the supplementary election with Faleke as his valid running mate. On what basis then did Bello subsequently appoint Honourable Simon Achuba as Deputy Governor two weeks after being sworn in without a deputy as required by the constitution? Again, if the party has absolute rights to present any candidate of its choice for an election, on what basis did the Supreme Court declare Rotimi Amaechi as the true candidate of the PDP for the governorship election in 2007 and ordered that Sir Celestine Omehia, victorious candidate of the PDP in the election vacate the office of Rivers State governor for Amaechi? Surely, it will be interesting to see how higher courts will treat these issues as Faleke has vowed to appeal the Tribunal’s judgement after consulting his lawyers. Kogi has certainly become a veritable constitutional laboratory and one can only hope that the ultimate judicial pronouncement on the Kogi imbroglio will help plug a key loop hole in the constitution and contribute meaningfully to the country’s political development.

    However, the ongoing political crisis in Kogi, particularly the descent to anarchy in the state legislature, can be blamed largely on the national leadership of the APC. The most sensible, rational and logical thing for the party was to have declared Faleke, who was already on the ticket and a key contributor to the outcome of the November 21 election, as its candidate for the supplementary election if that exercise was even necessary at all. By bringing Yahaya Bello, a complete stranger to the electoral process as the party’s substitute for Audu in the supplementary polls, the party leadership helped fuel the belief that a powerful caucus in Abuja is determined to ensure that a Yoruba man and Christian will not be allowed to be governor of Kogi State. This is most dangerous and unfortunate.

    In turn, an obviously insecure and immature Governor Yahaya Bello, who believes that his power source derives from a shadowy Abuja clique rather than the good people of Kogi State, is brazenly using the most crude strong arm tactics to consolidate his hold on power in the Confluence state. Thus, five members of a 25-member Kogi State House of Assembly loyal to the governor, have illegally seized control of the House, purportedly impeached the Speaker, Alhaji Momoh Lawal, and under the watch of armed soldiers passed the governor’s list of commissioners as well as the state’s 2016 budget. That this is happening under the party of change is most unbelievable. You cannot credibly claim to be fighting against corruption while perpetrating the worst forms of political, moral and spiritual corruption as is so evident in Kogi today. Physician, heal thyself!

  • Buhari’s challenge

    Buhari’s challenge

    RECENTLY, I referred to the late Pa Alfred Rewane’s prediction that, with the Babangida regime’s introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) and the consequent devaluation of the Naira in 1986, the value of the nation’s currency “within five years would be less than 20 per cent of its then existing value, leading to the possible collapse of the Nigerian economy.” Reviewing the consequences of the floating exchange rate regime on May 2nd, 1992, the astute businessman noted that “In 1985, N1.00 exchanged for 0.90 pounds sterling and 100,000.00 pounds fetched N110,000.00. Today, the Nigerian businessman must produce N3.5 million to buy 100, 000.00 pounds worth of vital equipment to be in business…By contrast, a functionary or individual who has had 100,000.00 pounds kick-back paid into his foreign account becomes an instant millionaire worth N3.5 million if he repatriates the money”.

    The regal, aristocratic and immensely wealthy Itsekiri Chief was of the unsparing, contemptuous and devastating view that the devaluation had mainly benefitted “the oil lifters, drifters, errand boys and never-do-wells of yesterday without any visible means of livelihood but who are now in advantageous positions” and thus able to own multi-million Naira houses of fabulous architectural design in Victoria Island or Lekki Peninsula in Lagos and other parts of the country. He made the point that no government from colonial times through the Tafawa Balewa, Yakubu Gowon, Muhammed/Obasanjo, Shagari as well as Buhari/Idiagbon had ever contemplated floating the currency and wondered why the Babangida regime thought all its predecessors were wrong “especially considering that the people did not experience so much hardship and suffering as obtains today”.

    As the progressive political economist, Professor Adebayo Olukoshi, has copiously documented, the Buhari/Idiagbon regime, which, in 1983, inherited a crisis-ridden and gravely ill economy from the toppled Shagari administration, steadfastly refused to abandon the economy to the mercy of market forces as demanded by the IMF/World Bank. It thus refrained, for instance, from devaluing the currency, removing petroleum subsidy, liberalizing trade or deregulating interest rates. Rather, the Buhari/Idiagbon regime opted for such policies as devoting about 44% of total foreign exchange earnings to debt servicing, drastic reduction of the country’s import profile, massive public sector retrenchment and wage freeze imposition, changing the colour of the currency to checkmate and constrict the parallel market, encouraging domestic sourcing of raw materials and bartering the country’s crude oils for vital imports in the face of foreign exchange scarcity through its counter-trade policy.

    TheBuhari/Idiagbon regime clearly underestimated the degree of dependency and helplessness of Nigeria in the international political economy. Flexing their muscles, the Western financial institutions and export guarantee agencies boycotted the country thus worsening inflation, unemployment as well as industrial and agricultural stagnation. Perhaps the regime would have succeeded in carrying Nigerians along in support of its nationalist economic policies in the country’s long term interest but for its alienation of the populace through harsh and authoritarian measures aimed at enforcing what it called national discipline. The succeeding Babangida regime swallowed the IMF/World Bank economic pill wholesale arguing that there was no alternative to SAP.

    Interestingly, the late Professor Eskor Toyo notes in his epochal ‘Economics of Structural Adjustment in Nigeria’, (page 191), that SAP actually achieved many of the objectives set for it. These include “a positive growth rate, improved utilisation of capacity, increased local sourcing of raw materials, an increase in non-oil exports, rescheduling of debts, lightening of the debt burden through debt conversion, adjustment of the exchange rate towards what the IMF and World Bank would accept as ‘realistic’, an increase in saving, more Naira in the hands of the Federal Government, ‘international confidence’ and the extension of some aid to Nigeria thanks to this confidence”. Yet, he avers that the concerns of SAP were so narrow that they did not address the fundamental problems of the economy, which we continue to struggle with even today three decades after. Can we continue to do the same things and expect a positive change?

    Is it true that there was no alternative to SAP, especially massive currency devaluation in 1986? Pa Rewane does not agree. He argues, for instance that his late leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, advocated six solutions to the country’s economic crisis before his death. These are (1) Unfloating the Naira and fixing its exchange rate at N1.00 = US1 or at worst N1.00 = US$0.60, which was the maximum devaluation proposed by the IMF. (2) Reducing the country’s trade deficit with Asiatic countries like Japan restricting our trade with them to a dollar-for-dollar basis, i.e. they must buy from us an equivalent value of goods in return for what we buy from them. (3) Nigeria’s immediate withdrawal from the Arab-dominated oil producing states, otherwise known as OPEC whose members observe prescribed production quotas in the breach.

    (4) Imposing an embargo on overseas tours and visits by ministers, commissioners and advisers, officials of ministries and parastatals except those of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (5) Increasing the country’s daily crude oil output to two million barrels per day. (6a) Permitting foreign oil companies in which Nigeria holds 60 per cent shares to sell all the oil they produce and promptly surrender all the proceeds falling due to Nigeria because only oil sales by these foreign companies are accurately accounted for at present. (6b) Confining NNPC operations to shareholding in oil companies and monitoring their activities and sales thus saving cost to the public purse as much as 70%. (6c) Selling crude oil direct to end-users, since there is no shortage of buyers. Oil-lifting as a means of distributing patronage should cease; middlemen and bartermen should draw any commissions they may arrange from their overseas clients and not from the share of oil proceeds.

    Rewane makes nine suggestions of his own which space does not permit us to

    state. Suffice it to say that Awolowo’s suggestions were in response to an economic emergency and not a comprehensive development plan which would have included agriculture and industry for instance. Again, Awolowo’s prescriptions were based on the socio-economic circumstances of the time. What one finds striking are the boldness, confidence and imaginativeness of his ideas. We will recall Awolowo’s astute management of the economy of the Western Region in the first republic as well as the country during the civil war.

    Even though he admits that the proposed revaluation of the Naira would not enjoy the automatic support of the IMF or the World Bank, Rewane was supremely confident that this would not be an insoluble problem for a country of Nigeria’s size, resources and resilience given the requisite discipline, prudence and resilience. True, Buhari’s administration has been forced by economic exigencies not of its own making to increase the pump price of fuel from N86.50 to N145.00 per litre. From all indications, the administration is already caving in to immense external   pressures to formally devalue the Naira. This is an indication of the even greater fragility, dependency and vulnerability of Nigeria in the global economic system than in 1983.

    Yet, I believe President Buhari remains a patriot and nationalist with the best economic interests of the country at heart. His challenge is that of laying the foundation for the country’s self- reliant, liberated socio-economic, industrial and technological development within a vastly transformed and persistently inhibiting global context. This requires bold, original, out of the box thinking.

  • Change: Hopes and impediments

    There is an intricate and intertwined relationship between hope and change. Human beings across time and space have always desired change in extant conditions because they believe their situations can be better. Those who advocate and promise the capacity to be midwives of positive change thus evoke great hope for the future in the hearts of their fellow citizens. The longer the time- lag however, between the promised change and the consequent great expectations aroused and its realization, the more intense the rising frustrations on the part of the citizenry resulting in a not inconsiderable degree of disenchantment.

    That appears to be the fate of President Muhammadu Buhari and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) as the administration clocks one year in office tomorrow. There are loud groans about the continued and even intensified socio-economic hardships particularly with the recent, admittedly unavoidable, fuel price hike. Epileptic power supply has worsened even though electricity tariffs have been raised. Unemployment and inflation have spiked. Millions of Nigerians are wondering when exactly the fruits of the change they voted for will begin to manifest. But then, President Buhari has a four-year mandate. His administration cannot be fairly and justly judged on the basis of the first of four years tenure. In any case, only crassly partisan and incorrigibly anti-Buhari elements will not acknowledge the huge socio-economic, moral, political and security liabilities inherited from its incomparably venal, spendthrift and incompetent predecessor.

    Perhaps the greatest hope for the ultimate realization of the APC’s promised change agenda is President Buhari’s personal incorruptibility and unrivalled moral integrity. He has thus pursued his anti-corruption campaign with a single-minded and uncompromising doggedness even though critics contend that the anti-graft war is one sided as it seems directed mainly at opposition political figures. The truth is that it is practically and logistically impossible for any administration to pursue and prosecute all corrupt elements at once. But the good thing is that where one administration stops, another will continue as no party can monopolize power for ever in our emergent democratic system. That is the beauty of a functional democratic process that facilitates the continuous moral cleansing of the political space by successive administrations until corruption, with time, becomes the exception rather than the accepted societal norm.

    What cannot be denied is that in fulfillment of his electoral promise, Buhari is admirably focused both domestically and internationally on taming the corruption menace, bringing culprits to book and recovering as much of the looted funds as possible. However, as the administration enters its second year in office, it needs to demonstrate greater strategic acumen in its fight against corruption. For instance, with proper planning, it ought to have anticipated that an efficient and incorruptible judiciary is indispensable to any successful war against corruption. It should thus have taken far reaching proactive measures to reform and cleanse the judiciary to ensure that its fight against corruption is not a futile exercise. So far, the administration seems to have been content with screaming media headlines on alleged perpetrators of corrupt acts. Not a single high profile conviction has been secured in one year. The trial of Former Director General of the Nigeria Maritime Abdministration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Chief Raymond Omatseye, who has received a five-year sentence for a N1.5 billion  contract scam, actually started under the previous administration. This is a signal failing particularly of an appallingly inept and ineffective Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.

    Again, the administration should have known that a cooperative National Assembly with which it is on the same page is critical to any successful anti-corruption effort. Yet, as leader of his party, President Buhari was inexplicably indifferent to the process through which the leadership of the National Assembly emerged. We thus have on our hands a National Assembly that remains as profligate and its finances as opaque as ever even in these austere times. Furthermore, the anti-corruption war is still largely seen as that of a Messianic President Buhari. The people must be made to own the war. Now that a Director General has been appointed for the National Oriental Agency (NOA), this very important agency must come up with a mass mobilization programme to transform the anti-corruption war from that of President Buhari to that of the Nigerian people.

    In its first year, the administration has performed creditably in substantially downgrading the offensive capabilities of Boko Haram. The military is better equipped and motivated to combat the insurgents and there is better coordination with our neighbours in this regard. However, the administration has shown no inclination towards the imperative of overhauling and fundamentally re-designing the country’s security architecture to make it more appropriate for a complex, federal polity like ours. Buhari has rightly affirmed his determination to protect and preserve the country’s territorial integrity in response to resurgent militancy in the Niger Delta and separatist agitations in the South East.

    Yet, the military is distracted by having to undertake policing duties across the country as a result of a unitary and archaic policing structure that has become wholly incapable of maintaining internal security. Hence the astronomical increase in the atrocities of pipeline vandals, herdsmen, kidnappers, armed robbers and sundry other criminals across the country. We can only continue to postpone the urgent need to radically decentralize policing functions in the country to our collective peril.

    It is perhaps in the area of reviving the economy that Nigerians will score the administration lowest. The inexcusable delay in the composition of the Federal Cabinet had negative implications for the preparation of the 2016 budget. Matters were worsened by the serial bungling and manifestations of gross incompetence at various levels that considerably delayed the ultimate signing of the budget into law. Meanwhile, the socio-economic conditions of the people continue to deteriorate abysmally.

    There is also the tension between the instinctive patriotic and nationalistic inclinations of Buhari and the heightened fragility, vulnerability and dependency of Nigeria in the global economy. Thus, the administration has been forced by economic circumstances not of its making to substantially hike the price of fuel. Again, there are indications that it is gradually caving in to serious external pressure to formally devalue the Naira. There is the need for the President to considerably strengthen his Economic Team to come up with the bold, original, out-of-the box thinking times like these demand.

    Most Nigerians still believe in the sincerity, honesty and integrity of President Buhari. However, not the same can be said of some influential members of his administration and trusted advisers who are widely seen as impediments to change. For instance, most of the President’s appointments continue to be perceived as unduly skewed in favour of the North. The electoral impunity and lawlessness currently on display in Kogi State remains an indelible stain on the APC’s banner of supposed integrity. The cavalier and casual manner with which his recent official visit to Lagos was cancelled at the last minute due to ‘scheduling difficulties’ leaves much to be desired especially when the entire state had been mobilized to honour and give Buhari a rousing welcome. This is more so as the President was widely shown in the media the following day heartily receiving visitors at the Villa.

    One of the President’s advisers recently said that Nigerians should be thankful for having Buhari as President. This is not the kind of thing they should be telling the President. Yes, his integrity is unquestionable but he is not doing Nigerians a favour. Indeed, at every point he should show appreciation and gratitude to a people who sacrificed so much for him to ascend to power. Buhari has done reasonably well in his first year. He can do better.

    Rachael Oyetesu unveils ‘Immortal’ on Democracy Day

    It is certainly not fortuitous that singer, song writer, and a Christian worship leader from Lagos, Rachael Oyetesu, has chosen tomorrow, May 29, Nigeria’s Democracy Day, to unveil her new spiritual musical offering titled “IMMORTAL” to the public. May 29 represents Nigeria’s formal deliverance in 1999 from the cruel jackboots of military autocracy. Rachael Oyetesu’s impassioned divine lyrics are aimed at liberating her listeners from what Eugene Peterson would call the ‘brutal tyranny’ of sin and other forms of satanic bondage. Spiritual emancipation is as critical as political freedom seems to be her message.

    A graduate of English language from the University of Lagos, Rachael is also a fashion designer and mentor of young people. A member of various performing groups and Choirs she is currently the Music Director of the Joseph Company Choir, an outreach Ministry of the He Cares Gospel Church in Lagos. She is married to Mr Owolabi Oyetesu of the Lagos State waste Management Authority (LAWMA) who doubles as her manager.

    The event, which holds at the New Revelation Baptist Church, 8, Ashabi Cole Street, Daily Times Bus Stop, Agidingbi, Ikeja, Lagos, from 3 pm will take the form of a live video and audio recording with full audience participation. Yours truly will surely be there to soar in the spirit on the wings of soul stirring music.

  • A middle way

    A middle way

    Former Minister of Education in the Obasanjo administration, Mrs Oby Ezekwesili, has once again descended scathingly on the economic policies of the President Muhammadu Buhari administration. Speaking at a forum organised by the Covenant Christian Centre, Abuja, Mrs Ezekwesili accused the ascetic  General of implementing ‘opaque’ and ‘archaic’ economic principles reminiscent of the ‘command and control approach’ of his first coming as a military dictator a little over three decades ago.

    In the weighty words of Oby Ezekwesili, “During the first coming of this our new president, a command and control system was adopted. During that era, inflation spiralled. During that era, jobs were lost. During that era, the economic growth level dipped. That era wasn’t the best of eras in economic progress. What did not work in 1984 cannot possibly be a solution in a global economy that’s much more integrated…In a year we have lost the single digits inflation status we maintained in previous administrations. Mr Buhari’s distortion of the foreign exchange system has left the poor it was intended to support even worse off.” Contending that PMB’s economic policies are encouraging massive corruption, Madam Oby avers that “Enormous power is being abused as a result of opaque economic policies. Companies are suddenly finding themselves unable to produce because they are unable to access foreign exchange.”

    It is certainly most unfair for Ezekwesili to say that an administration, which has done more than any since the commencement of this dispensation in 1999 to expose, investigate and punish corruption as well as retrieve billions of stolen funds, is encouraging massive corruption. Even if it is true that some unscrupulous elements may be exploiting loop holes in Buhari’s economic policies, particularly rigid foreign exchange controls and import restrictions, to indulge in sharp practices, Ezekwesili must agree that graft is no more a cardinal and directive principle of state policy as it had become in the recent past. As a result of his famous ‘body language’, the fear of PMB has become the beginning of wisdom for public officeholders.

    True, the administration in which Ezekwesili served without blemish as Minister and a key member of its Economic Management Team, established institutions like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) to fight corruption, but Nigerians are well aware of a certain African leader (name withheld) who was elevated right from prison to his country’s apex political position with his business entirely in ruins. Yet, he left office at the end of his tenure with an expansive hilltop mansion in his home state, an extensive private presidential library built in controversial circumstances and numerous thriving business ventures. It reminds me of ‘Chichidodo’, the bird in one of Ayi Kwei Armah’s novels who hates faeces but feeds on maggots!

    Mrs Ezekwesili speaks glowingly of single digit inflation status and impressive growth rates achieved by previous administrations but are now being eroded by Buhari’s policies. But what was the impact of these statistical data on the level of poverty, inequality, unemployment, infrastructure development, industrialization or power supply? Haven’t all of these worsened over the last 16 years? Should the present administration continue with tried and failed policies of the past and yet expect a different outcome of promised change?

    Yes, the administration in which Mrs Ezekwesili served cannot be wholly held responsible for the ‘fantastically’ massive corruption that led to the industrial scale squandering of humongous oil revenues earned over the last six years. Today, the country lies prostrate because oil prices are cascading and we did not prepare for the rainy day. But then, Obasanjo’s signal failing was that he lacked the perspicacity and discernment to ensure that he was succeeded in office by a competent and fit leadership, capable of sustaining and improving on his legacy.

    It is true that the nationalistic and state-centric economic policies pursued by the Buhari/Idiagbon military administration in 1984 only worsened the crisis it inherited from the preceding Shagari administration.  Buhari stubbornly refused to accede to the International Financial Institution’s conditionalities of massive devaluation of the Naira, across the board privatisation, liberalisation of trade, removal of subsidies and deregulation of prices and interest rates. The ensuing stalemate and deepening economic crisis as well as authoritarian methods of the regime facilitated the ascendancy to power of Babangida.

    Interestingly, it is the type of IMF/World Bank-dictated neo liberal and extremist free market policies including currency devaluation that the Babangida regime succumbed to that Mrs Ezekwesili is vigorously urging PMB to adopt now. But what were the implications for the economy? Listen to the late Pa Alfred Rewane in a public letter he published on 2nd May, 1992: “In the evening of Friday, 26 September, 1986, I was at home with some friends when the Federal Military Government announced its decision to introduce the Structural Adjustment Programme and the Second-Tier Foreign Exchange Market (SFEM)…By implication, it was claimed that Nigerians had opted for a deregulated economy including a floating exchange rate regime, subject only to what was described as market forces. As my friends and I discussed the implications of the government’s announcement, I expressed the view that the devaluation of the Naira was a recipe for disaster and that within five years, the Naira would be worth less than 20 per cent of its then existing value, leading to the possible collapse of the Nigerian economy.”

    And Pa Rewane’s reason? His words: “I reminded them of a standard economic argument that devaluation of the national currency is best contemplated where the nation’s economy depends largely on the export of manufactured products for its foreign exchange earnings, and where devaluation is considered appropriate to ensure the competitiveness of its manufacturers.”

    Pa Rewane was right. President Babangida’s eminent academic economic advisers were wrong and we have been in a permanent state of unending and unfruitful structural adjustment and reforms for the last three decades. The country remains as underdeveloped and impoverished as ever relative to her rich resource endowment. Faced with non-functional domestic refineries, the imperative of importing refined petroleum, the crash in oil prices and continuous deterioration of the value of the Naira, the APC administration has been forced to deregulate the downstream sector of the oil sector with the pump price of fuel rising to N145.00 per litre from N86.50 per litre.

    This will no doubt have serious implications for mass poverty at least in the short to medium term. It thus becomes more imperative that the social protection nets for the poor provided for in the 2016 budget be effectively and efficiently implemented. Asking now why a country that has reaped gargantuan revenues from crude oil over decades has negligible domestic refining capacity can only be academic. The question is: what is the way forward towards the development and transformation of Nigeria? Surely, it cannot be that of rigid state controls and intervention in the economy as Ezekwesili rightly argues. But it can also not be the path of doctrinaire neoliberalism that throws open the Nigerian economy to the voracious sharks of the so-called free market. I think the Buhari administration’s economic management team is trying to find a pragmatic middle way that attracts the support of the international economic and investing community without jeopardising our national interest. They deserve our support.

     

    Buhari, Biafra and Niger Delta ‘avengers

    This column staunchly supports President Muhammadu Buhari’s strong and firm stand against the agitators for the breakup of the country particularly the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB). As I have said before, Buhari has a legal mandate to lead Nigeria for four years in the first instance. He does not have a mandate to preside over the breakup of the country. PMB and Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo have also asserted in clear terms the determination of the Federal Government to protect oil pipelines and facilities in the Niger Delta, which have come under crippling attacks in recent times by a group that calls itself Niger Delta Avengers.

    The very essence of the state is its legitimate monopoly of the instruments and mechanisms of coercion within its sphere of jurisdiction. A state that shares this attribute with any other group is fast becoming a failed entity. However, should Buhari have renewed his warning against pro-Biafra agitators during a visit to his home state, Katsina? I don’t think so. It was tactless, insensitive and politically unwise. By now the President should have visited the South-East or met critical stakeholders and opinion leaders from the region to dialogue and win their confidence. There is no indication that the mainstream of the Igbo leadership is in support of this Biafra nonsense. Buhari should not alienate them.

    In the same vein, PMB should personally and forcefully speak up against the atrocities of herdsmen across the country the way he has done on Biafra. This is because the herdsmen are, rightly or wrongly, perceived to be Fulani like Buhari himself. PMB must not allow himself to be seen in the mould of a Fulani rather than a pan Nigerian President.

  • Thoughts and non thoughts on ‘Fulani herdsmen’

    Thoughts and non thoughts on ‘Fulani herdsmen’

    The destructive, barbarous and utterly condemnable activities of so called ‘Fulani herdsmen’ killing, maiming, raping innocent citizens and ravaging farmlands across the country has rightly been the central focus of public discourse in recent times. Yet, much of the often rancorous ‘conversation’ has generated more heat than light. The issues have been distorted, even by enlightened commentators to absurd ethno-religious reductionism. The herdsmen – Fulani or not- are innately evil. The rest of us are inherently righteous and morally superior. This perception is superficial and analytically unhelpful.

     The clash between herdsmen, farmers and pastoralists is, first and foremost, a function of the failure or what Marxian analysts would call a ‘withering away’ of the Nigerian state. From the ‘Weberian’ perspective, the distinctive feature of the state is its legitimate monopoly or control of the instruments and mechanisms of coercion. A state that shares this essential attribute with herdsmen, cattle rustlers, ethnic militias, kidnappers, election riggers, armed robbers and oil pipeline vandals among others has its essential ‘stateness’ grossly eroded. The violent conflict of herdsmen, pastoralists and farmers is thus only a manifestation of a deeper, profounder and more widespread crisis of what Professor Eghosa Osaghae calls ‘state fragility’ in post- colonial Nigeria.

    In a lecture delivered at the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) on 9th April, 1970, the incomparable sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo argued that “The causes of our national maladies are essentially economic”. His views are still cogent and relevant. At the root of the persistent ethno-regional, religious and purely criminal fissures across the country is the pervasive  poverty in an otherwise richly endowed country grossly underdeveloped by the sheer venality and incompetence of an irresponsible ruling class whose membership transcends sectional primordial boundaries. In the words of Awolowo: “I have said it before and I want to say it again that the causes of our national maladies are essentially economic. It is important, therefore, for us to bear it in mind that if we failed to find the right solutions to our economic problems, we would not succeed in solving our political and social problems”.

    Emphasising his point further, Awolowo averred that “My case then is that, in order to keep Nigeria harmoniously united, and, at the same time, fulfil the natural, ultimate, supreme, and inalienable purpose of that unity, the present and future rulers of this country must place the most crucial emphasis on, and attach the utmost importance to, the advancement of the economic prosperity and social well-being of the entire people of Nigeria without exception or discrimination”.

    The ‘Fulani’ herdsmen, pastoralists, cattle rustlers, kidnappers, armed robbers and sundry other criminals are thus largely victims, consciously or unconsciously, of a corrupt, selfish and intellectually lazy ruling class that has, among others, underdeveloped Nigerian agriculture, pursued economic policies that have resulted in massive de-industrialization of the country as well as the consequent colossal unemployment while also failing to provide the country either a modern and efficient road and rail transportation network or modern ranches for herdsmen.

     Unfortunately, what we are currently witnessing in the country is also a function partly of the virtual collapse of our universities and the consequent devaluation of the quality of the contributions of the Nigerian intelligentsia to public discourse. Most of our best scholars have become veritable nomads that have migrated either to greener intellectual pastures outside the country or from our public universities to the essentially commercially driven private universities many of which lack genuine and creative intellectual culture.

    For instance, northern governors, senators and traditional rulers have spoken, some sensibly and rationally and others arrogantly and insensitively, on the issue of the ‘Fulani herdsmen’ and their clashes with their host communities. But where is the voice and opinion of the northern intelligentsia and academics? This has not always been the case. For instance, following the religious violence that erupted in Kaduna State on Friday, 6th March, 1987, a group of scholars at the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, published a full length article in the New Nigerian of 20th March, 1987 and The Guardian of 25th March, 1987 titled ‘The Violent Politics of Religion and the Survival of Nigeria”.

    These scholars including the late Dr Bala Usman, Kyari Tijjani, Sanusi Abubakar, George Kwanashie, Alkasum Abba, Ahmed Modibbo Mohammed, Ahmed Siddique Mohammed as well as Ayo and Grace Ajagun among others argued that “We are convinced that this campaign has reached this totally unacceptable and very dangerous level because successive federal governments have toyed with one of the foundations on which Nigeria exists, namely the secular nature of the Nigerian state and its sacred responsibility to protect the right of belief and worship of everyone. A strong impression has been created that some organisations and individuals can, with arrogance and impunity, incite and threaten people of other religious beliefs and will get away with, at most, only verbal reprimands or appeals to be tolerant”. According to them “In spite of reports and warnings from concerned individuals and organisations, three days after the start of the violence, Police and Security forces were completely absent from the scenes. This apparent abdication of responsibility by Government must be taken seriously. This type of violent campaign of Muslims against Christians is unprecedented in the history of our country. It directly threatens her continued survival as a single entity”.

    Most of those who wrote these words were northerners and Muslims. But they were men and women of intellect and integrity who transcended narrow and selfish primordial considerations. I was privileged to work closely with the late Dr Bala Usman when I served as media aide to Professor Iyorchia Ayu who was then Senate President. Dr Usman translated Chief MKO Abiola’s ‘Farewell to Poverty’ manifesto into Fulfude and was constantly on the Hausa BBC and Voice of America Service to explain pertinent political and socio-economic issues to the ordinary people of the north. On the issue of the ‘Fulani herdsmen’, the northern intelligentsia must regain its voice and reassert its leadership in moulding public opinion. And progressive Nigerian intellectuals, professionals and activists in general must begin to speak up once more against those who are vigorously manipulating religion, ethnicity or regionalism to divide and continue to exploit Nigerians. The real enemies of the herdsmen, pastoralists, peasant farmers, cattle rustlers and the millions of impoverished Nigerians are the criminal and predatory looters of our commonwealth.

    Omolayo Thomas: Exit of an unsung but consistent progressive

    My friend and brother, Dr Dapo Thomas of the Department of History and International Relations, Lagos State University (LASU), is in a mixed mood. Naturally, he is sad at the death on the 21st of last month of his brother, Mr Omolayo Thomas, at his residence in Ebute Metta, after a protracted illness. Aged 71, Mr Omolayo Thomas was born on Lagos Island and was a grandson of the famous Richards Odeniyi Thomas of 8/10, Richards Lane, Lagos Island. The late Thomas started his working career with the Lagos Municipal Transport Service in the late 1960s but later resigned and made considerable success in the foreign exchange business.

    But then, Dr Thomas is happy that his late brother was a man of character, integrity and unwavering consistency in progressive politics. In 1978, he joined Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and during Babangida’s ‘transition without end’, he was a member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) with Lagos Island and Mainland as his political base. In the epic political battle between Chief  Dapo Sarumi and the late Dr Femi Agbalajobi for the governorship of Lagos State, Mr Omolayo Thomas was fervently in support of the ‘Primrose’ group which included Dapo Sarumi, Senator Bola Tinubu, Oyinlomo Danmole, Rahman Owokoniran, Aro Lambo, Dr Fasegun Machado and Yomi Edu among other prominent politicians. Despite his fragile health, he was a staunch supporter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and canvassed strongly for Governor Akinwunmi Ambode’s election. Mr Thomas was an unusual politician who spent his personal funds on mobilising for elections without ever seeking reimbursement. He was an unsung but consistent progressive who surely deserves the full support of the APC at his burial. May his soul rest in peace and may God grant his loved ones the strength and grace to bear the loss.

  • Enduring relevance of tradition

    Enduring relevance of tradition

    My recent column calling for a truce in the altercation between the Alake of Egbaland, Oba Adedotun Aremu Gbadebo and the Awujale of Ijebuland, Oba SikiruAdetona as regards the ranking of Yoruba Obas received mixed reactions. A respected, cerebral and highly principled trade unionist argued that my piece should have been more aptly titled ‘Needless institution’ rather than ‘Needless controversy’. He pointed out that the traditional institutions not only collaborated with our colonial conquerors but still constitute veritable parasites on society today. A highly respected elder statesman cautioned me against ‘intellectualizing’ an outmoded and irrelevant institution at a time when most parts of the world have moved from monarchical rule to democratic forms of governance.

    I too strongly held to this perception of traditional institutions many years ago. It is a position that in my view can no longer be credibly sustained. Did traditional rulers in pre-colonial Nigeria readily collude with the colonial intruders? The evidence does not support that position. As Dr Patrick Heinecke, formerly of the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) notes of the North, for instance, “Transition to colonial rule was a prolonged and bloody struggle which lasted in some areas until the mid-1920s. The Hausa-Fulani violently resisted invasion by the British, and several Emirs were killed or exiled before their emirates were finally forced into submission”.  We are aware of the complete and ruthless razing of the capital of the almost 500-year old Benin Kingdom in 1887 and the banishing of the reigning Oba Ewuare into exile. The same fate of forced exile befell Oba Kosoko of Lagos. The situation was similar across pre-colonial Nigeria. The colonial conquest was thus more a function of a confrontation with a superior technological military civilisation rather than the complicity of traditional rulers.

    And those countries that transited either through evolution or revolution from absolute monarchies to democracies at least did so organically within the context of the internal dynamics of their respective societies. In Africa, the modern Nation-State is an alien imposition. That is why the late historian, Basil Davidson, described the Nation-State as a curse and ‘the black man’s burden’.

    In recent times we have had the installation of new monarchs in various parts of the country including Ile-Ife, Ibadan, Warri, Iwo, Kano and Borgu to name a few. The contestation for the positions among qualified ruling houses has often been fierce and intense but once a choice is made by the king makers, the community rallies behind him. Of course, modern political science teaches us that the legitimacy and authority of government is a function largely of regular, free and fair elections. But the reality is that most monarchs across the country enjoy greater legitimacy, commitment and loyalty from their people than their elected officials. And despite the undeniable greed and grovelling of many traditional rulers, there are those like the Awujale of Ijebuland, the late Olubadan, Oba Samuel OdulanaOdugade, the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba LamidiAdeyemi, the Oba of Benin, Omon’Oba n ‘Edo Uku Akpolokpolo Erediauwa and the Alake of Egbaland to name a few who have maintained the dignity and integrity of their offices. Equally noteworthy is the fact that no matter the partisan political leaning of a reigning monarch, he enjoys the respect and loyalty of his people across party lines.

    It would amount to intellectual dishonesty not to recognize and admit the sheer resilience, durability and continuing influence of the country’s traditional authority institutions. As I said in my previous column, our forefathers must be credited for devising creative systems of governance to cope with the challenges of their peculiar political environments in the pre-colonial era. The tragedy is that the colonial intrusion interfered disastrously with the natural evolution of the pre-colonial traditional institutions into the modern era and replaced them with a strange post-colonial Nation-State contraption that remains a major obstacle on the path of Africa’s progress. Unfortunately, most of us behave as if there is no redeeming feature whatever in our political past that can add value to our current political development preferring to seek our political salvation solely in foreign models.

    Even the highly enlightened and accomplished Chief ObafemiAwolowo wrote in 1947 that “only an insignificant minority of Nigerians have any political awareness”. Basil Davidson described this as an astonishing statement “given Yoruba political history over the previous several centuries”. In the 1969/70 session, Professor James O’Connell, Head of Department of Government and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at ABU delivered a public lecture in which he defined government as a small group of people who coordinate the affairs of the larger community with its members “usually divided into three branches: those who make rules (the legislature), adjudicate rules (judiciary) and implement rules (the executive)”.

    In a trenchant review of the lecture, the late Dr BalaUsman described this definition as “insulting in its colossal arrogance”. According to him, “The division of government into legislature, judiciary and executive evolved in some states in the northern part of Western Europe from the 17th and 18th centuries. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be described as ‘usual’ for the overwhelming majority of the world’s political systems…The governments of Bornu, Benin, the Bachama or any other Nigerian peoples one cares to name, have never been divided in this way either in theory or in practice”. Whether one agrees with Dr Usman or not, the valid point he is making is that our theory and practice of politics and governance must be informed not just by received doctrines but also our own historical experience.

    This is why it is commendable that in their 2005 edited book, ‘Beyond The State: Nigeria’s Search For Positive Leadership’, Professors Adebayo Olukoshi, Adigun Agbaje, Hussainah Abdullah and Cyril Obi, devote the first part to locating the country’s leadership challenges in historical perspective. The chapters in this section critically examine traditional leadership in the Sokoto caliphate as well as among the Idoma, Igbo and Yoruba in pre-colonial Nigeria. Contending that it has not always been the case that good leadership has eluded the country, the authors submit that “going by the rich pre-colonial experience of the various communities in Nigeria, there is every reason to find some encouragement in history and in contemporary reality for the identification and nurturing of a culture of positive leadership and the institutionalisation of such a cadre in the country”.

    In a seminal essay in which he examines what he calls the co-existence of ‘dual authorities’ – republican and traditional – in African states, Professor Richard Sklar makes the same point: “The African national governments are fragile, and there is great need for authority based on consent of the governed. In this circumstance, a separate source of authority, embedded in tradition, could powerfully reinforce social discipline without abandonment of democratic forms of government. The rejuvenation of traditional authority would not, then, imply a resurgence of either “feudalism” or political oligarchy”. The simple point is that we can tap into the strong legitimacy, loyalty and commitment that the traditional institution enjoys among millions of our people to reinforce democracy and good governance.This would, however, be a function of ensuring that only men of the highest character and integrity ascend to these traditional positions.

    Development lessons from Cuba

    The restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba by the almighty United States under the Obama presidency represents a major triumph for the tiny Island. For over five decades, America had not only imposed an economic blockade on Cuba but several American Presidents had even tried to eliminate the iconic Fidel Castro. Cuba boasts no great wealth or mineral resources. She is not your model of global prosperity. Yet, she has achieved near 100% literacy for decades and its health statistics continue to marvel more developed countries. According to an analyst, “In Cuba, the extremes of opulence and misery are banished in favour of a generalized level of wealth, best described as “enough to get by”.  Cuba has offered more than 460 doctors and nurses to help combat Ebola in West Africa and more than 50,000 Cuban health workers are working in 66 countries around the world. Former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti obviously had Cuba in mind when he said his country was not seeking grandeur but the more limited ambition of moving out of poverty with dignity. I have never really understood why Nigeria aims to be among the top 20 largest economies by 2020. Will that necessarily reduce poverty and inequality or promote general wellbeing of the vast majority? I think we have a lot of developmental lessons to learn from Cuba.

  • Farewell to foreign policy?

    Farewell to foreign policy?

    Perhaps, the finest moment in Nigeria’s foreign policy was at the defunct Organisation of African Unity OAU) summit in Addis Ababa on 11th January 1976. The background to the crucial summit was that the United States and other key western powers were exerting considerable pressure on African leaders to recognise reactionary, retrogressive and pro-apartheid forces like the FLNA or UNITA in the battle to extricate Angola from the grip of Portuguese colonialism. However, the Movement for the Popular Liberation of Angola (MPLA) was obviously the most progressive and widely accepted groups within Angola. Many African leaders were obviously prepared to toe the US line. In a characteristically fiery speech, the tempestuous Nigerian Head of State, General Murtala Mohammed decisively changed the tide.

    In Murtala’s words on that occasion, he declared unequivocally that – “Africa has come of age. It is no longer under the orbit of any power. It should no longer take orders from any country, however powerful”. At the end of Murtala’s speech and vigorous diplomatic lobbying by Nigerian diplomats, the OAU leaders unanimously voted to recognise the MPLA as the legitimate government of Angola. In 1998, the Obasanjo military regime nationalized the assets of British Petroleum and Barclays Bank in Nigeria as retaliation against the sale of oil to the racist regime of Ian Smith in Rhodesia – a move that was said to have forced the conservative government of Margaret Thatcher to soft-pedal on its policy of constructive engagement with the racists. At last the British government acceded to demands for an all -inclusive party conference that eventually culminated in the independence of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

    It is obvious that there has been a significant decline in the quality and efficacy of Nigeria’s foreign policy ever since the precipitous and continuing spiralling of the country’s economic crisis. Last week, The Guardian’s perceptive columnist, Dr Reuben Abati, undertook an incisive critique of Nigeria’s foreign policy focussing particularly on the ruling APC. His principal contention was that President Muhammadu Buhari is the country’s Chief Diplomat, which makes his frequent trips abroad justifiable and inevitable. Abati cites several reasons over the years for the decline in the quality of the country’s foreign policy. These include an unhealthy politicisation of the Foreign Service, demoralisation of the professional diplomatic corps and poor funding of the External Affairs Ministry.

    There are also those who argue that Nigeria can no longer pursue the exuberant and expansive foreign policy of the Murtala/Obasanjo years because of the drastic erosion of the role of oil in the global economy. However, one factor, which Dr Abati and other commentators are silent about, is the ability and global diplomacy competency of whoever is the Foreign Affairs Minister. I have asked several persons across diverse strata, for example, who is the Foreign Minister in President Buhari’s administration. Those I asked, including highly informed persons, responded in the negative. Can you imagine majority of Americans not knowing who a Secretary of State like Hilary Clinton or John Kerry is?

    With a political science degree from Columbia University in New York and degrees in law from the London School of Economics and Cambridge University, the Foreign Affairs Minister, Geoffrey Onyeama, is quite cerebral and accomplished. But is he being utilised in his area of maximum competence? I do not think so. If he were, the President would not have to personally conduct his own global diplomacy leading to severe criticism of his frequent travels abroad.

    Nigeria’s unquestionably most able and dynamic Foreign Affairs Minister was Professor Bolaji Akinyemi who served under the Babangida administration between 1985 and 1987. This was the period of Structural Adjustment and the onset of economic stress.  A contributor to a collection of essays in honour of Professor Akinyemi writes that he was “determined that Nigeria’s foreign policy would not be suspended pending the solutions of the country’s economic problems” and that the very existence of these problems necessitated “the need for an imaginative foreign policy whose strength was weighted more in its content of ideas, as opposed to the budgetary allocation to the Ministry of External Affairs”. Thus, we had such bold initiatives as the Technical Aid Corps Scheme, Concert of Medium Powers and a strong bid to revive the Pan-African Movement as a centre-piece of Nigeria’s foreign policy under Akinyemi.

    In reality, President Buhari ought not to be the country’s Chief Diplomat if he has an effective Foreign Minister. His international travels would be limited to very strategic ones as he is a very busy man. He should stay at home more to closely monitor infrastructure renewal and expansion, restoration of security and stabilisation of power supply among others. For, in the final analysis, foreign investors are no philanthropists and foreign investment capital, like electricity, has no feeling. It will flow in the direction of locations with the clement environment for their businesses to thrive and make profit.

    Does Nigeria today have a systematically formulated and rigorously defined foreign policy? I do not think so. Phrases like ‘Economic Diplomacy’ or ‘Citizen Diplomacy’ appear to me hazy and vacuous lacking in concrete meaning. If you ask me, I will say we run a ‘street beggar’ and ‘mendicant diplomacy’ that detracts from our honour and dignity.

    Hakeem Bello’s superfluous apotheosis of Fashola

    My friend, brother and Media Adviser to Mr Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN) Hakeem Bello, in his response to my last column, is of the strange view that my commendation of the Fashola administration’s handling of the Ebola crisis, somehow denies me of a right to criticise the administration in other spheres. He forgets that this column once named Fashola as its man of the year. Yet, that did not preclude me from strenuously condemning the administration’s purported wholesale sacking of striking doctors in public hospitals or the astronomical increase in school fees at the Lagos State University (LASU.

    Hakeem spends about 80% of his rejoinder reiterating Fashola’s achievements in office. That is completely unnecessary for no rational person has ever denied his accomplishments. Fashola needs no such apotheosis or deification. Largely unknown politically in 2007, Fashola had in eight years stamped his authority of competence and efficiency on the terrain. I guess Hakeem’s aim is to prove that Fashola did not concentrate solely on the elitist parts of the state. But he runs away from responding to my central contention that Fashola’s accomplishments notwithstanding, the electoral fortunes of the ACN and then APC declined steadily and substantially during his tenure. From a margin of over 500,000 votes with which Fashola defeated the PDP candidate in 2007, Ambode beat Jimi Agbaje with less than 200,000 votes in the 2015 elections.

    Much of Hakeem’s submissions are only of tangential relevance to my arguments and so of negligible analytic value. I will simply ignore them. Let me thus reiterate my position on the Ambode administration. Within his first month in office, Ambode came under vitriolic attack with even The Economist of London claiming that traffic and crime were spiralling out of control under him. As Ambode progresses towards his first year in office, however, it is obvious that Governor Ambode knows his onions and is unobtrusively delivering on his mandate. By restructuring the state’s suffocating debt exposure from 18% interest to 12.5%, he has freed N3 billion every month for other urgent challenges.

    This is obviously why his administration has been able to establish the innovative N25 billion Employment Trust Fund, rehabilitated over 500 inner roads in the city within one year, approved N11 billion to offset arrears of pensions for Lagos State government, local government and parastatals retirees since 2010, approved employment of 1,300 qualified teachers and is approving another N1 billion for renovation and supply of furniture as well as education materials across all public secondary schools.  He also procured equipment worth over N4 billion for the police with positive impact for security in the state.

    Ambode has empowered the 57 Local Government and Local Council Development Areas to construct 114 inner roads at two per local government to be delivered by June 2016, procured 26 transport ambulances for General Hospitals as well as approving the purchase of generators and x-ray machines for all General Hospitals. This is in addition to approving the construction of the first ever high-powered DNA forensic laboratory in Nigeria to take off within the next 12 months. The operation light up Lagos is on-going at a frenetic pace while work has commenced on the construction of flyover bridges for Ajah and AbuleEgba.

    More importantly, Governor Amboder is paying close attention to less elitist parts of the state with a lot of prospects for the Ikorodu/Epe axis, Alimosho and Badagry to name a few. None of these takes anything away from Fashola. Tinubu is the pathfinder, who laid the foundation for the renaissance of modern Lagos. Fashola is the actualizer who built so impressively on Tinubu’s vision. Ambode is emerging as the consolidator as well as the emancipator of less developed and long neglected parts of the state.

  • IMF and World Bank as patrons of poverty? (2)

    As we noted in the first instalment of this piece, Dr  Sylvester OdionAkhaine , in his book, ‘Patrons of Poverty: IMF/World Bank and Africa’s Problems’, traces the root causes of contemporary disorientation, disarticulation, disillusion and mal-development in Africa to the historical forces of slavery, colonialism and now neo-colonial imperialism. He cites the concrete examples of Senegal and British-Gambia to demonstrate that his thesis is no mere ‘leisure of the theory class’.  Those two countries were forced by the colonial administration to engage in overproduction of groundnuts for export to the detriment of the production of rice, which was their staple food crop. The consequence was that they became heavily dependent on rice importation from French Indo-China and India respectively.

    All across Africa, the emphasis of colonial economic policy was on production of cash crops for export leading to the persistent food crisis due to overdependence on food imports. As Dr Akhaine puts it, “Rodney saw in it what he called ‘irrational contradictions’ due to non-industrialization. Africans grew cotton and imported finished cotton goods, grew cocoa but imported chocolate beverages in a process of product round tripping…colonial production never allowed Africans to produce what they consumed and consequently became outward oriented economically”.

    Perhaps the two most important chapters in the book are the fourth and fifth, which interrogate the Western and African solutions, respectively, to the continent’s crisis of dependency and underdevelopment. The western policies propounded for Africa through the IFIs and mostly adopted by intellectually slavish and timid African policy elite include modernisation theory, Import Substitution Industrialisation, Washington Consensus/Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) and Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. None of these policy initiatives helped to ameliorate the plight of African countries – indeed they only sank deeper into the morass of underdevelopment.

    Modernisation theory, for instance, Dr Akhaineexplicates, posited that African countries were backward and traditional societies that had to tread the trajectory of highly industrialised western countries to achieve modernisation and development. The rich industrialised countries of Europe and North America were put up as the developmental role models that African countries must seek to replicate. They did not realize, or perhaps did not bother, that this kind of development model by imitation engendered a feeling of inferiority and psychological inadequacy on the part of Africans that only made it more difficult for the latter to find a way out of the dark labyrinths of poverty, misery and despair.

    This dilemma was perhaps best captured by Professor Claude Ake, who lamented that “The colonisers convinced themselves and tried to convince us that our level of civilisation was sub-human…Now, two decades after political independence, the cult of inferiority continues to be nurtured by the ideology of development which Europe has foisted on us; this ideology represents Western society as the ideal state of being and African society as thoroughly bad and needing drastic change. It is no wonder that we the African elite suffer from an inferiority complex”.

    Modernisation theorists who drew up the immediate post-independence development plans for many African countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda among others emphasised external capital inflow in the form of loans and grants as well as increased agricultural production for exports to the detriment of domestic food sufficiency. The rich bauxite deposits of Ghana, Akhaine notes, could easily have supported a viable aluminium industry for the country. But there was a snag. Western experts deemed Ghana’s bauxite inferior and needing further enrichment from the West to enhance its suitability for industrial purposes.

    Thus, Akhaine describes these policy options as being “in the main, mechanisms for reproducing the unequal economic relations of the colonial epoch in a post-colonial setting, which many have referred to asneo-colonialism, the continuation of colonialism by means of economic dependence”. The author agrees with Professor OkwudibaNnoli that what was achieved was at best the ‘acquisition of artifacts’ such as bridges, trunk roads, stadia, ports etc which were not products of the indigenous productive or technological capacities of African countries.

    In a similar vein, the Import Substitution Industrialization strategies suggested to African countries by the IFIs only increased further import dependency, encouraged massive foreign exchange (capital) outflow and high budget deficits. This is because the strategy was based on large scale importation of equipment, machinery and high level technical skills to produce locally consumer and intermediate goods that were once imported.

    And despite the emphasis on Agriculture, rural development and employment, particularly by the United Nations (UN) development agencies, the 1980s was regarded as a lost decade for Africa with severe food shortages across the continent, drought in some areas, increased malnutrition, marked slump in manufacturing, manipulation of commodity prices by Western multinationals to the detriment of African countries and monstrous corruption by African countries all combining to drive the continent deeper into debt.

    As from the mid- 1980s, the IFIs began to urge the adoption of stringent Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) by desperate, fiscally distressed African countries as a condition for external financial support. The same set of policies –exchange rate devaluation, market liberalisation, deregulation of controls, privatisation of public enterprises, removal of subsidies to the most vulnerable, downsizing of the public sector etc – were forced on practically all African countries irrespective of their peculiarities. At the end of the day, the SAPs practically wiped out the middle class in most African countries, destroyed social services, increased both poverty and inequality, compounded the debt problem and generally worsened the plight of these countries.

    The Western solutions to Africa’s crisis of development are juxtaposed by Dr Akhaine in chapter five with proposed home grown African solutions. Two major solutions to Africa’s problems originating from Africa are examined by the author. The first is the far reaching organisation of African Unity (OAU) 1980 Lagos Plan of Action (LPA), which, unlike the Western solutions focussed on concrete problems confronting the continent with the objective of achieving collective self-reliance for accelerated, non-dependent development. Areas covered by the LPA include food and resources, human resources development and utilization, science and technology, transport and communication, trade and finance, economic and technical cooperation, environment and development, energy, women and development, as well as development planning, statistics and population.

    The second major home grown development agenda by Africans for Africans is the African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programmes (AAA-SAPs) articulated by the UN Economic Commission for Africa. Summarising the thrust of AAA-SAP, Dr Akhaine writes that “Whereas SAP compels adjustments to the crisis in the global financial architecture in its domestic and external dimension, the alternative framework proffers for African economies structural transformation from its ‘structural disarticulation’, diversification and increased productivity in order to improve the lot of the African people and bridge the gap in the standard of living between them and the rest of the world”.

    It is a measure of the stranglehold that the IFIs have on the policy process in Africa and a confirmation of Dr Akhaine’s central thesis that these alternative home grown solutions were shot down by the IFIs and African leaders abandoned them for the IMF/World Bank-inspired African Priority Programme for Economic Recovery (APPER) – 1986-1990. The economies of African countries have unfortunately degenerated even further since then. Poverty has risen astronomically, the debt burden worsened and meaningful development more of a mirage than ever.

    To launch Africa on the path of true development, Dr Akhaine stresses the need for the requisite political will on the part of African leaders as well as the replacement of the current rent-seeking, neo-colonial African elite with new patriotic afro-centric elite. But then one wonders how this can be achieved without a far reaching revolution, which seems a remote prospect given the constellation of class forces in today’s world.

     However, it is difficult to fault the author’s endorsement of the position of the Tony Blair-inspired Commission of Africa that “Africa’s development must be shaped by Africans. History has shown us that development cannot and does not work if policies are shaped and forced by outsiders. It is Africa’s actions and leadership that will be the most progressive in generating resurgence in Africa, advancing living standards and taking forward the fight against poverty”.