A DAY after the Supreme Court granted an interim order restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) from enforcing the deadline to delegitimise the old naira notes, this newspaper screamed in its headline ‘Relief, joy as Supreme Court halts CBN deadline on old naira’. And with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) describing the deadline as poorly conceived and impracticable, that February 9 headline seemed reasonable, accurate and objective. There was no way on earth, not even in fiction, that the newspaper could have foreseen the CBN’s and federal government’s blatant disobedience to the February 8 apex court court order.

The following Tuesday, February 14, speaking to representatives of the diplomatic corps, the CBN governor, Mr Godwin Emefiele, defiantly said that there was no going back on the February 10 deadline. In other words, the deadline was already being enforced by the time he spoke with the diplomats, all of them far more capable and circumspect than he is in appreciating policy and political undercurrents. How Mr Emefiele did not understand that publicising his disobedience to court order in the presence of diplomats exposed the country to global ridicule is beyond explanation. Before the diplomats, the CBN governor gave indication that his word was law, and that his word transcended the apex court’s order.

Mr Emefiele was, however, not alone in subverting the constitution and arrogating to himself the power to defy the laws of the land, including the CBN Act that regulates the operations of his organisation. Shockingly, President Muhammadu Buhari followed suit a day after the Supreme Court sat a second time on the matter and retained the order to extend the naira swap deadline till the case was determined. Nigerians were horrified, including those who even defended the CBN’s quest to enforce the arbitrary and counterproductive deadline set for the naira swap. Mr Emefiele had put on record before diplomats that the CBN would flout the apex court order. The consequences will follow him sometime in the near future. But for the president to also put on record his administration’s disobedience to court order was tantamount to a subversion of the constitution from which he draws his legitimacy.

In an address read to the nation a day after the apex court insisted its order against the CBN deadline subsisted, the president said he would be exempting only the N200 note from the list of banned notes. That was not the order of the apex court. The order was a simple and direct one, and it contained no ambiguity nor lent itself to any negotiation. This disobedience to court order will return to haunt the president. He will find himself becoming a pariah to the rest of the world. They would wonder why he was not imaginative enough to couch his defiance, or even pretend to obey the order while working against it behind closed doors. Had the president’s disobedience to court order been reflected in a press statement issued by one of his spokesmen, the administration could easily walk it back, even after many implausible days. But to address the nation directly as well as offer untenable and unjustifiable arguments leaves him no room to manoeuvre now or in the future.

Both the president’s and Mr Emefiele’s defiance are symptomatic of the horrifying decline in which Nigeria has become immersed. The president was never a convinced democrat, and had repeatedly advocated for the subordination of the rule of law to national security interests; but after presiding over Nigeria for seven years and more, he was expected to know a thing or two about running a modern society, and was not expected to ruffle judicial feathers or subvert the constitution a mere three months or so to the end of his tenure. He was expected to go quietly. He has, however, chosen not to go quietly, with the little dignity left of his combative and controversial government now all but dissipated on the altar of feverish conspiracies against his own party, the party that projected and fed him.

The president’s address also brought to the fore the alarming lack of quality and courage in the president’s kitchen cabinet. To allow the president make this monumental gaffe is probably a testament to his team’s lack of quality. No speechwriter worth his salt would pen that kind of speech, except perhaps it was drafted at the CBN and only slightly redacted in the presidency. But whether it was drafted at the CBN or by the president’s speechwriters, it was an infernally poor job, one which neither the president nor the speechwriter would live down for as long as they live. Apart from the horrendous disobedience to court order embodied by the address, the economic arguments contained in it were also unworthy of any decent and adequately trained economist. The address, not to say the proud but vexatious bearing of Mr Emefiele, is perhaps the lowest point in this republic, far more obscene in its import than ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2005 disobedience to the Supreme Court judgement on the creation of local governments in Lagos.

When the Supreme Court retained its order on the old notes, it was a huge relief indeed. But it had to be undermined by an administration and a CBN governor that had no sense of history or the inviolability of the law. Having defied the constitution and boxed themselves into a corner, it remains to be seen how the matter would end. The streets have erupted in protests in some parts of the country, and the country is left angry and frustrated by the government’s intransigence and insensitivity. The president and his team, not to talk of the arrogant Mr Emefiele, have no mechanism in place to gauge the mood of the country over their controversial policies. Consequently, they have misread the naira policy and its implications for peace, growth and security. But despite their reputations and legacies being torn into shreds, they may indeed take macabre satisfaction that their ulterior motives, their pernicious political agenda designed to catch a mouse or burn down the barn, are close to being realised. They should not celebrate too early.

El-Rufai’s inspiring example

KADUNA State governor Nasir el-Rufai may seem to some people cantankerous, but there is no doubt that when he finds a cause, he prosecutes it with inimitable vigour. In the past few weeks, one of such causes has been the naira redesign policy cobbled together and clumsily implemented to harm the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its chances in the next elections, of course among other controversial objectives. The policy is a disaster through and through, for it has slowed down economic activities, pauperised many, caused political chaos, and paralysed the country. Mallam el-Rufai is of course not the only one or the first to decipher the hidden and bizarre intentions of the policy, especially its impact on economic activities in the North and the political fortunes of the APC. But he is probably the first among the governors to raise the alarm.

No one is sure just how far the governor will go in fighting the mistimed and poorly implemented policy, but it is reassuring that he has remained dogged in the battle. Yes, he can be sometimes unpredictable, and his loyalties can also sometimes prove protean, as some of his detractors have alleged verbally and in writing, but fortunately for him, criticisms have never really deterred him from being himself, or from identifying with a cause of his choosing, no matter how controversial. The APC is fortunate to have him in their ranks. And for now, they can rest assured that he will not flinch from battle. Not only has he made very sensible arguments about the weaknesses and misconceptions of the naira swap policy, as contained in his proactive address to the people of Kaduna, he has also courageously spoken truth to power in Aso Villa.

Mallam el-Rufai’s courage and brilliance in assailing the poor and pernicious implementation of the naira swap policy demonstrates why every cabinet, whether at the federal or state level, needs courageous and intelligent members. The weaknesses of the naira policy, which he identified in his broadcast, also demonstrates, sadly, why it is clear that the Muhammadu Buhari cabinet as well as presidential advisers were either not afforded the opportunity to debate the policy or perhaps the men around the president are a disaster.   

After expressing much displeasure over the refusal of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Godwin Emefiele, to honour its invitations, the House of Representatives eventually had its way when last Tuesday he sauntered into the lower legislative chamber to meet with the ad hoc committee on naira redesign. He was full of apologies for not turning up earlier, and as expected blamed everyone else but himself and the president for the shambolic implementation of the policy on naira redesign. The banks were to blame for hoarding, and the anti-graft agencies were on their tails, he said. Nigerians should let the cashless policy work, considering its capacity to rein in kidnappers, curb inflation, and check vote buying, he crowed. He acknowledged the pains experienced by depositors who had turned in their old notes and not got new ones, but offered no real palliative.

The ad hoc legislative committee members were puzzled at first, wondering whether the long-awaited showdown between the lawmakers and Mr Emefiele would end in anticlimax, until he finally acknowledged that even after the deadline no depositor would lose his money as the CBN would still be available to give value to their deposits. Why not the commercial banks? The Reps failed to push the matter of why the CBN would deliberately and willfully concentrate so much administrative power in its tremulous hands. They seemed eager to believe him when he suggested that some banks were sabotaging the policy on redesigned naira. They did not pin him on down on the scale of the so-called sabotage vis-à-vis the scores and scores of local governments without banking facilities, necessitating indigenes of the unbanked communities to undergo needless trauma due principally to the short notice given to depositors to exchange their notes.

The Reps ad hoc committee insisted that the 10-day extension (which will expire in five days) was unreasonable, but they seemed satisfied that since the CBN had given assurance that no one would lose his money and could still exchange it after the deadline, then perhaps it was okay. But it is not okay. The notice was not only indecently short, even the banks, including the CBN, did not also begin to substantially dispense new notes on December 15, 2022 as envisaged by the policy. Consequently, depositors were depositing old notes and returning with old notes until the deadline was a week to expiration. The Reps seemed convinced that the policy was inspired by wholly ulterior motives, to wit, as a tool in the brutal in-fighting raging within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to truncate the coming elections as well as the ambitions of certain candidates. But they were reluctant to drive home that argument.

By hesitating to hold Mr Emefiele’s feet to the fire, the CBN governor got away with a slap on the wrist. He had made nebulous concessions about no one losing his money simply because of expired deadline, and had also suggested that patriotic interest demanded that the policy be allowed to work; but he had done nothing nor even said anything to assuage the bitterness on the streets, the pains experienced by frustrated depositors unable to have access to cash in an economy that is still largely dependent on cash transactions. As a politician and card-carrying member of the APC, not to say a tired and scorned aspirant for the presidency, Mr Emefiele remained deceptively vengeful throughout the duration of the ad hoc hearing. It is either he had convinced and placated the Reps or the lawmakers had finally woken up to the somber fact that the policy, its misapplication, and horrifying execution were actually beyond the incoherent and rambling CBN governor.

Whatever the case is, the crisis will not be ameliorated in five days, nor even in weeks. The APC as a party will be held responsible for messing up a policy which other countries had executed seamlessly without as much as a whimper. In an election season, the public anger could be foreboding. But as some critics have said, stoking that anger was indeed the original plan, apart from the incidental but simplistic objectives of catching currency hoarders, frustrating ransom payments, and paralysing vote buyers. Mr Emefiele was in on the nefarious plans, alleged critics, and was probably central to its execution, and was doing his part without restraint, compunction and hesitation. Why the lawmakers who seemed to have cottoned on to the horrifying objectives of the policy failed to press their advantage against the unconvincing and posturing CBN governor is hard to understand. Mr Emefiele has slipped through the net and will smugly go on to erect barricades before depositors to his heart’s content. Except public reaction threatens the conspirators, it will otherwise be difficult to engage the CBN and the administration as well as get them to stop treating Nigerians with such appalling condescension.

The Reps initially insisted on a six-month extension. That made sense. But the Muhammadu Buhari administration and the CBN will have none of that. Unfortunately, the committee hearing ended with so much ambiguity that both sides will interpret the resolutions from their cracked prisms. The Reps believe they have bought Nigerians time and compelled Mr Emefiele and his CBN to respect the CBN Act. But nothing in their obfuscating resolutions has lifted the roadblocks erected by the government, or their contempt for suffering Nigerians. Which depositor knows the road to the CBN? And why did the CBN first forbid the banks to decline paying cash to customers over the counter, only to now relent? And in any case, where is the cash? Mr Emefiele has gracelessly given sop to the devil; he can now turn round to do as much havoc as he pleases. The lawmakers on the other hand will be left flummoxed in the days ahead, except perhaps public anger forces the hand of the government.

Atiku continues to flip-flop

Sensing the disunity in the APC, and keenly aware that some elements in the presidency might not be averse to him winning the presidency and could in fact be subtly paving the way for him, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has begun open flirtation with the presidency. Days ago he defended President Muhammadu Buhari against what he concluded was an attack on the president’s convoy in Kano by elements instigated by the APC. Weeks ago too, he had initially synchronised his point of view with the CBN on the naira redesign policy as well as the short notice for cash swaps.

But as his flip-flop over the lynching last May of Deborah Samuel in Sokoto showed, Alhaji Atiku seldom takes a position based on principle and reflection. After seeing the sour public mood on the new naira notes policy, and days after the APC candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu had publicly denounced the deadline and asked for extension, Alhaji Atiku also went on Twitter to ask for a deadline shift. He had argued that the authorities needed to “ease the burden of the people” while sensitisation continued. He then added: “It is important for the CBN to consider an extension for the public to swap their old notes thereby reducing the financial consequences on these vulnerable citizens.”

However, days later on February 1, he again flip-flopped by suggesting that no more extension should be granted on the swap because only election riggers stood to benefit. Just days later, and without reference to his argument three days earlier. Hear him: “…The CBN should be wary of the elite whose motive for crying out about more postponement of the deadline for the tenure of the old naira notes is sinister and far from being altruistic. I am totally in support of building a cashless economy and reducing the amount of cash in our economy. The anti-democratic elements who are pretending to be democrats are the ones ganging up against the CBN because of the currency redesigning and the cashless regime it seeks to enthrone…I urge the CBN and the government to ignore their antics. The CBN should not succumb to the current pressure.”

If voters oblige him, Alhaji Atiku will scheme and flip-flop his way to the presidency, perhaps seizing advantage of the rancour and bitterness in the APC, but completely unmindful of the pains and aspirations of the people.  

NIGERIANS wait to see whether the confirmation of Solomon Arase, a past Inspector General of Police (IGP), as the chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC) will resolve the turf war between the police and the PSC. The turf war of course predates the current IGP, Usman Alkali Baba, and Mr Arase. It is a needless war, especially because the PSC is empowered to carry out oversight functions on the police. Inspired by the 1957 Constitutional Conference/Willink Minorities Commission Report, the PSC, as constituted, is expected to help ensure that the Police Force does not become an instrument of oppression by a tribe or political party. There is, however, no consensus that the Force is as neutral and professional as its Act envisions.

The turf war between the police and its supervisory organ became pronounced in recent years under the leaderships of former chairman Musiliu Smith, himself a former IGP, and Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court and the most senior commissioner on the PSC. If a former IGP and a jurist could both not resolve the dispute between the police and the PSC, not much hope can be reposed in the sterling records of Mr Arase, who is already accused of being a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) sympathiser. The crux of the matter is who controls or supervises whom? The Police Force, speaking through its IGP, claims that by virtue of the Police Act 2020, the police could appoint constables and post commissioners of police to states. Quoting the same Act and the 1999 Constitution, the PSC insists the police do not have the leeway they have carved for themselves.

This divergent interpretation of laws has led to a prolonged dispute between the two bodies over the appointment of constables in 2020 and 2021, and particularly over their enrolment on the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information system (IPPIS). The dispute was particularly fierce during the tenure of Mr Smith who stepped down last year. The disagreement is also being litigated, with the Court of Appeal delivering judgement in favour of the PSC’s interpretation of its constitutional powers. The court judgement enabled Justice Ogunbiyi to stay the course of his predecessor by drawing the attention of the relevant organs of government, such as the Head of Service of the Federation as well as the Accountant General of the Federation (AGF) to the illegality of enrolling newly recruited policemen on the IPPIS without the approval of the PSC. The case is now at the Supreme Court.

That Nigeria is poorly policed, both in terms of personnel and equipment, is not in doubt. Therefore, holding in limbo the appointment of about 20,000 policemen because of turf wars has become an unwise exacerbation of the policing quandary the country has found itself. The Police Force and the PSC should be able to resolve their differences, perhaps by involving past PSC chairmen and former IGPs. After all, the two organs were not always at war in the past. Unfortunately, they have so far been incapable of finding peace. But much more indicting is the shocking inability of the federal government to call the two combatant groups to order. The laws governing the establishment and operations of the Police Force and the PSC seem unambiguous. The problem is either conflicting interpretations or, as the PSC alleges, nefarious and ulterior interests. Whatever the problems are, especially after litigating the matter to the Court of Appeal, the federal government should be able to intervene through the office of the Attorney General in order to forge an administratively binding resolution. The government should not be paralysed.

One thing is obvious: the PSC will not back down and watch, as it claims, its powers eroded. For the Police Force, the misunderstanding has been escalated to the point that the police leadership sees the disagreement from the prism of professional law enforcement pride. Public admonitions will not work. It is indeed strange that two federal organs could escalate their disputes to the point of litigation and the federal government acts as if its reputation is not on the line. For the umpteenth time, the public should call on the presidency to seek legal advice, in case one is needed, and bring the messy turf battles to an end. Litigations are a waste of public funds and they question the administration’s philosophy of letting the law take its course. For a country which should have gone beyond petty power squabbles to the higher issues of how to procure state policing and devolution of power, it is a reflection of the mediocrity that has overtaken Nigeria that law enforcement organs get embroiled in power games to the detriment of fighting crimes escalating and modernising at a rate that has left the people insecure and breathless.

Naja’atu Mohammed’s APC reminiscences

NAJA’ATU Mohammed, 67, a former member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council and Director, Civil Society Liaison, claimed two Saturdays ago to have resigned her position and was not sacked. She will continue to be controversial, given her background, her claims of being poisoned by the Department of State Service (DSS) in 2013, and the seven surgeries she said she underwent, including a reconstructed colon. Such adversities sometime bring out the dyspeptic worst in a person. Her colourful accounts of what she endured in the hands of enemies have indeed not seemed to temper her vigour and activism but to instigate her into daring and malignant explosions. She married into activism, and despite many setbacks, including the murder of her husband, has remained immersed in it, conducting her campaigns in ways that are sometimes befuddling and sometimes self-serving.

Though media reports did not indicate the date on her resignation letter, what is significant is not the debate over her acrimonious exit, but the entirely scurrilous attacks she has leveled on APC leaders, including President Muhammadu Buhari who appointed her a commissioner in the Police Service Commission (PSC) in 2018, and APC presidential candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu. She described President Buhari as too self-centred to be capable of any altruism, and Asiwaju Tinubu as phlegmatic and given to money politics. Shortly before she jumped ship and berthed in PDP three days later, Mrs Mohammed donned the garb of a medical practitioner and went on to describe the medical condition of the APC candidate. Perhaps soon, Mrs Mohammed, having acquired diagnostic expertise, can also be trusted to broadcast the medical condition of the 76 years old PDP presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, her new political dalliance.

Mrs Mohammed is cocksure of everything, and believes she is progressive and ethical. Some of her former friends and traducers, whoever they are, are nothing but corrupt, insensitive and irredeemable people. She didn’t start her sanctimonious politics yesterday; she won’t stop it tomorrow. She will keep at it till her dying day, permanently kept grumpy by her many surgeries. What is even more significant is how APC-baiting newspapers latched on to the straw that Mrs Mohammed provided. In an interview with ThisDay published on January 25, the interviewer, unable to resist gloating over the controversy between Mrs Mohammed and Asiwaju Tinubu, asked leading, abusive and pejorative questions.

In one, the interviewer asked: “Recently, Governor Ayade said Asiwaju is the best that can fix Nigeria and that he’s generous. But does Tinubu being generous qualify him to be Nigeria’s president?” Not repulsive enough a question? Take this, then: “You’re the first person to give the public a glimpse of how things are because he (Tinubu) has avoided debates. He has avoided granting interviews to the media and successfully avoided scrutiny.” Shocked? Wait for this: “Some people have said Tinubu is the first presidential candidate in Nigeria to have a direct link to agberos on the street. Your thoughts?” And finally this piece of exquisite editorialising: “But why will a deeply flawed man want to be president?”

If Mrs Mohammed, who gives the impression of being an ethicist, still does not feel used, then, despite her self-professed love for political morality, she must be completely inured to reality.  

Last Monday, Board of the Electoral Institute (BEI) chairman Abdullahi Zuru, reported by the news media to be representing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) chairman Mahmood Yakubu, warned that the February general election could miscarry because of rising insecurity. The warning predictably unleashed a firestorm among politicians and officials of the federal government. “We all appreciate the fact that election security is vital to democratic consolidation through provision of an enabling environment for the conduct of free, fair, credible and inclusive elections and thus strengthening the electoral process”, the BEI chairman had said. Then he added more ominously: “…If insecurity is not monitored and dealt with decisively, it could ultimately culminate in the cancellation and/or postponement of elections in sufficient constituencies to hinder declaration of election results and precipitate constitutional crisis. This must not be allowed to happen and shall not be allowed to happen.”

Prof. Zuru of course left enough elbow room for himself when he stated categorically that postponed or cancelled election ‘shall not be allowed to happen’. However, social and conventional media were clear about the import of his statement, and as expected took their stories from the threatened cancellation/postponement angle. On Tuesday, a clearly alarmed federal government, through the Information minister, Lai Mohammed, declared definitively that the elections would not be postponed, for nothing unusual had happened to warrant any cancellation or even postponement. INEC’s timetable was still being honoured, he asserted, and nothing out of the ordinary had occurred to trigger revisiting the timetable.

Whether the INEC chairman was himself independently alarmed by the reactions to Prof. Zuru’s warning to wade into the matter or the presidency reached out to him is unclear. It is sufficient to note that immediately INEC top guns saw the reaction to their warning, they also hastily called a press conference. Nothing, they chorused, would cause them to cancel the polls. They were only worried about the attacks on INEC facilities. According to INEC, “In short, at no time in the recent history of the commission has so much of the forward planning and implementation been accomplished 44 days ahead of a general election…Therefore, the commission is not contemplating any adjustment to the election timetable, let alone the postponement of the general election. The repeated assurance by the security agencies for the adequate protection of our personnel, materials and processes also reinforces our determination to proceed. The 2023 general election will hold as scheduled. Any report to the contrary is not the official position of the commission.”

INEC’s position doesn’t seem ambiguous at all. They were not contemplating postponement or cancellation of the February polls, they asserted. Nigerians will take them at their word. President Muhammadu Buhari is tired and can’t wait to retire to his farm in Daura. The only thing he contemplates, and for which he has received nuanced criticisms, is his fixation with free and fair polls to the detriment of advocating the victory of his party and the sustenance of his legacy after the polls. Obviously he cannot even imagine any postponement, let alone cancellation. INEC too is anxious to deliver on its mandate and get it over with. Postponement will make their misery drawn-out. Nigerians also hanker after a new government, an administration that will try out new developmental tricks to get the country moving, especially at a time when the world is poised on the precipice of another crippling recession, perhaps midwifed by a fresh outbreak of Covid-19 or the stalemated Russo-Ukrainian war.

However, more troubling is the dispute over the attribution of the warning about insecurity and its implication for election postponement. The media believed that Prof. Zuru spoke for the INEC chairman. He has declined to rebut the publication. But on Tuesday, in rebutting stories about postponed elections, Prof. Yakubu insisted the elections would go on as planned because nothing extraordinary had occurred to alter the plan. Then he added that any information to the contrary was not official and not from INEC. Yet, even he, like Prof. Zuru, has not forthrightly suggested that the BEI chairman did not represent him at the Abuja function. Nor have, so far, both Prof. Zuru and Prof. Yakubu indicated that the address read by the former at the validation of election security training in Abuja was not cleared. Well, perhaps, those are just inconvenient details, one of those mix-ups in bureaucracy and government. It is now official that the elections will go on, and in respect of the warnings about insecurity, the government and security agencies are expected do their best to ensure nothing should interfere with the polls. 

INEC, its chairman, and other officials must learn lessons from the tremors they had needlessly activated in the electoral system and in an election year. Every word counts, and every statement will be scrutinised by the tensed public. Officials must exercise caution in their communications, for whatever they say will be construed as a negative or positive signal. They could still warn about the potential of insecurity to stymie elections without seeming to draw a connection between insecurity and postponed or cancelled elections. Words matter; so, too, does style.

Chaotic CBN monetary policy

There is clearly much to be said for the Central Bank of Nigeria’s redesigned naira. The new notes may impact the fight against ransom payment to kidnappers, help mop up liquidity, and put some tentative lid on inflation and naira depreciation. But the policy also leaves much to be desired. Some experts insist that the so-called excess liquidity is a dangerous and false hype promoted by the CBN, and that the entire policy had not been well thought out nor was substantial consultation embarked upon before the apex bank plunged into the policy miasma.

To demonstrate the hastiness of the CBN policy, experts point at the almost immediate shift in the cash withdrawal limit policy, the fact that the new notes are allegedly colour fast, and the incontestable point that all kidnappers need do is wait longer in the bush with their captives until victims’ families raise sufficient ransom obviously from multiple sources. What is even more damning is that experts suggest that what helps the value of a currency is less its colour or redesign features as domestic production of goods and services.

There are undoubtedly many pros and cons. But no one can tell authoritatively whether the CBN appreciated the latitude of its powers and impact on the economy to have engaged in enough debate on the measures it planned. As everyone knows, despite informing the presidency, no one in Aso Villa can quite show whether the administration itself did its homework. Now the country is caught in a bind. The notes are not only, some say, colour fast and undermining public confidence in them, there are not even enough dispensed to the public to spend in place of the old notes, despite CBN protestations and threats against the banks. Meanwhile, the deadline to phase out the old notes is barely two weeks away.

On top of all this, the CBN governor, Godwin Emefiele, is reportedly running from the law, with the Department of State Service (DSS) insistent on hauling him in for questioning. Then there is also the inquiry on the Stamp Duty collection farce, with no one able to say conclusively just how culpable the CBN is. It is not at this time of general policy paralysis that the head of the CBN should be away, but of course he claims to be attending to his health.

Whoever can arrest the drift should step in and do so if the entire benefits hoped to be gained from the naira redesign is not to be frittered away. If Mr Emefiele has a case to answer with the DSS, let him return and face his ordeal like a man. After all, they can’t keep him forever. And if the CBN policy designers need to give themselves time to punish those they claimed had hoarded naira for politics, then let them buy time, or else seize the moment if they are sure of themselves. This dithering and confusion must stop.

IN the closing days of December, the President-General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) and Sultan of Sokoto, His Eminence, Alhaji Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar IV, presided over a meeting of Muslim leaders from across the country to deliberate, among other things, on the next general election. There was nothing really earthshaking about the NSCIA communiqué jointly signed by Secretary General, Professor Is-haq O. Oloyede, and Director of Administration, Zubairu Haruna Usman-Ugwu, but it was nonetheless remarkable for pointing the way to other religious leaders on how to approach delicate electoral issues in a plural and secular society. They must be commended for their uncontroversial recommendations.

Among other recommendations, the NSCIA suggested that “Nigerians should freely choose the best candidates and vote for those who will lead with justice, fairness, and righteousness.” The Council continued: “Nigerians should evolve a standard process of electing not only eligible candidates but also suitable ones because the eligibility criteria are too general to the extent that unsuitable people ultimately get elected to the positions of authority. In essence, there is an urgent need to raise the bar of leadership in Nigeria beyond basic qualifications.” To illustrate what they meant, and how deeply they had looked at all the issues affecting Nigerian elections over the decades, the Council touched on two key variables that vitiate elections in these parts. The first relates to the choices confronting Muslim voters, and the second is the even more transcendental issue of how suitable leaders could be elected.

For the first, the NSCIA avoided the pitfall of dictating to their members, sensibly leaving the matter to the prayerful discretion of the individual. The Council rightly reasoned that it would create friction and division among the faithful to insist they should vote only one way. That would not only negate the principle of choice embedded in democracy, it would also imply that the Muslim leaders arrogantly believed there was only one way to political paradise. With one simple advice, the NSCIA navigated that treacherous waterfall and managed to retain their relevance regardless of how the faithful vote or whoever wins. They knew it would be unwise to put all their eggs in one basket.

The second advice, apart from being thoughtful, manages to portray the Muslim leaders as farsighted. They drew a distinction between eligibility and suitability, suggesting that it is not all the time that an eligible candidate for leadership position is also suitable. With that engaging advice they drew the attention of Nigerians to the dire and urgent need to tweak the country’s political system to accommodate constitutional modifications capable of throwing up suitable leaders much more than just eligible leaders. They know of course that such advice is a little belated for the next elections, but at least they have broached the topic, and hopefully, going forward, the country would revisit the distinction and explore ways by which better choices could be made and the country better led.

The advice the Council has given the Muslim faithful does not of course preclude any Muslim leader from individually and privately endorsing one candidate or the other. All the Council is saying is that regardless of Muslim leaders’ private choices, the virtue of impartiality must be underscored. They sensed that by so doing, whoever becomes president would not dare accuse them of partisanship, nor would the Muslim faithful blame them in case that choice turns out less suitable. In short, head or tail, the Muslim leaders will continue to retain their relevance. Does this imply indecision or fear of taking responsibility? Hardly. In a plural society, by far the most sensible approach, at least at that very senior level of religious leadership, is not to stand imperiously in the way of the people but to help them navigate among competing choices.

The murder of Mrs. Raheem

THE cold-blooded murder of pregnant Omobolanle Raheem, a lawyer and mother of one, by a police officer in the Ajah area of Lagos State on Christmas Day tragically brings to the fore once again the reluctance by the Police Force to reform their methods of policing. That unprovoked killing, now proved to have been perpetrated by Drambi Vandi, an assistant superintendent of police, unfortunately typifies decades of egregious Nigerian policing. Such killings, when they occur, negate and rubbish the valour and diligence of many fine policemen and officers. Weeks earlier, one Gafaru Buraimoh, was also killed by a policeman said to have been attached to the same Ajiwe Police Division where Mr Vandi, who had served 33 years, worked.

That tragic killing was not the first, and from all indications, as the police continue foot-dragging on reforms, will not be the last. If the public could point to two chilling killings perpetrated only weeks apart by officers of one small police division, it also points to the absence of poor supervision in the Force, reluctance to compel police officers to take responsibility for the behavior of their men, and the urgent need for comprehensive and constitutional restructuring of Nigeria’s law enforcement culture. If officers are not held accountable for the misbehaviour of their men, and the country’s leadership continues to reinforce wasteful and farcical cosmetic changes of policing, extra-judicial murder and widespread corruption will permeate the Force.

Mr Vandi is being held to account. But whatever punishment he receives will not be sufficient penance for the needless killing of a woman who was pregnant with twins. Indeed the country is fortunate that this untold tragedy did not lead to a breakdown of law and order far more violent than the EndSARS movement derailed and robbed of victory by foolish politicking.

Whatever punishment is meted out to killer policemen will not appease the families of victims. However, the task before the government is to ensure that the madness is curbed. But that would not happen until after the elections. The current administration has had almost eight years to carry out reforms, but it shirked that responsibility. Hopefully, the next administration will recognise the futility of proceeding along the same cosmetic and ineffective lines, and feel burdened enough to carry out restructuring that would make Nigerians proud of their policemen.

Buhari makes amends on campaigns

DESPITE the inclusion of President Muhammadu Buhari in the latter phase of the presidential campaign of the All Progressives Congress (APC), no one is sure exactly how his mind works on the candidacy of Bola Ahmed Tinubu, his long-time ally and ardent supporter. While Asiwaju Tinubu backed the president in 2015 and campaigned for his re-election in 2019, the president had until last week dithered in his support for his party’s unprecedented third bid for the presidency. Twice or so, both in Nigeria and overseas, the president had suggested to voters to vote their conscience. Many analysts interpreted this to mean he was more concerned with delivering a great election than backing a candidate many have rumoured he remained ambivalent towards.

The party’s chairman, Abdullahi Adamu, waffled on a BBC programme last week about the president not “intentionally recording his absence” from the campaigns. It would be a shame for the president to hand over to the opposition, he had deadpanned. But all is well that ends well, perhaps. The doubts will, however, never be fully erased, and even after his party had won the election, his taciturnity and restrained enthusiasm would still give rise to more speculations. The party now says the president has ‘graciously’ consented to attend 10 APC presidential campaigns in the weeks ahead, including the finale. Great. For, whether he knows it or not, should his party lose the presidency, the loss would cascade into a domino effect capable of sweeping many of APC states into the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) column. For the sake of his legacy, if nothing else, he had better put his heart and soul into the effort to make APC retain the presidency. 

EVEN though his address at the 46th Convocation of the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) was read by an official of the National Universities Commission (NUC), it reflects President Muhammadu BUhari’s long-standing views on tertiary education, unionism, and, in particular, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU). His audience probably winced as his remarks rolled out. On the surface, the country appears divided on the president’s handling of the recent ASUU strike, but in reality, most Nigerians support his intransigent and truculent stand. With the minority of Nigerians and ASUU left holding the short end of the stick, and with no immediate electoral consequence looming in the weeks ahead, the president has continued to bask in the euphoria of victory over the dismayed and bitter university teachers.

Here is what the president said at the OAU convocation: “…I want other institutions of higher learning to emulate O.A.U in summarily terminating the appointment or dismissing any lecturer who uses or is using his advantageous position to harass our young, innocent, and impressionable girls. We cannot continue to entrust the lives of our promising young girls into the hands of some reckless individuals masquerading as lecturers on our campuses. I want all of us to know and note that the government alone cannot provide the resources required for funding tertiary education. In fact, in most countries, the cost of education is jointly shared between the government and the people, especially at the tertiary level. This government remains committed to the implementation of the agreement reached with staff unions within the available resources, and we are resolute that we will not sign any agreement that we cannot truthfully implement.”

Ignore his reference to randy lecturers, a malaise that some of the universities are already handling adroitly, as the president himself confessed. What is more apposite to these times is the subject of university funding, especially the general and financial demands of the university union. Here, the president was more than candid: he would not sign agreement he could not implement. He blurted this statement out probably in reference to the serial agreements reached with ASUU by past administrations and routinely broken with gusto. In his uncomplicated rationalisation, the president sees no sense in signing an agreement that would waste everybody’s time or seed future strike. As the president put it, “We are resolute that we will not sign any agreement that we cannot truthfully implement.”

But herein is the problem: is there indeed an agreement that cannot be truthfully implemented? This column can find none, except when a force majeure is declared. The problem, a close study of past agreements will reveal, is not that those controversial agreements with ASUU were grandiose and hard to implement; the problem is that the government has (a) no idea what tertiary education entails, (b) no idea what kind of structure, financially and administratively, should be bequeathed to universities, (c) no idea how to prioritise its developmental goals, and (d) no idea what kind of political and economic structures can best sustain tertiary education and deliver the best dividends in terms of research and development. These are some of the reasons various administrations could not run or adequately fund university education. With an expensive political system that tends towards impoverishing the people, poor institutional controls that encourage leakages and waste, and incompetent and intellectually paralysed officials, some of them appointed or elected, it is impossible to find the money to fund tertiary education.

Not only has the administration failed woefully to appropriately conceptualise education administration and funding, it is also completely paralysed from taking steps to redress the ills of the sector. The Buhari administration says it won’t sign an impossible agreement; but what is it doing about the collapsing education sector, assuming indeed it believes it is structurally and financially distressed? It lacks the will to get parents and students to join hands, through higher tuition fees, with the government to fund education. This lack of will is predicated on the government’s inability to find a formula by which to give succor to financially distressed families to fund their children’s education. So, instead of formulating policy initiatives to resolve the mounting anomalies in the sector, similar indeed to the anomalies in the health sector, the government has been ‘resolute’ in doing little or nothing. The problem obviously is not that the administration does not have win-win choices at its disposal; the depressing fact is that it has taken a fixed and pigheaded approach to the dispute with ASUU – no money, so no deal. There is of course money, but it is frittered on the wrong things, including a swollen and profligate political system.

ASUU is thought to be mulling another strike, perhaps couched in a different format. It should not waste its time. This administration has taken an unalterable position on the matter partly because it does not see itself as an elected administration dedicated to fostering and promoting Nigeria’s greatness in teaching, research and invention. It sees itself as a conclave of masters whose word must be law. ASUU should simply look forward to the next administration, hoping that somewhere in those eternal probabilities of life, a president would be elected above sentiments and falsehood who would be open to the best the universities can offer, someone who is so challenged on the subject of development that he would visualise Nigeria among the best nations on earth. As for this administration, it has anchored its educational responses on the wrong foundations, and will therefore not budge an inch. Nudging them in the right direction is a lost cause, a cause inflamed by emotional, uninformed and misdirected public understanding of complex educational issues.

New naira controversies

FEW months to the end of the Muhammadu Buhari administration, the now unusually fecund Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor Godwin Emefiele has suddenly been jolted into life dishing out new and remade old policies. First was the naira redesign, over which he claimed untrammeled power, subject and second only to the president’s imprimatur. The Finance minister groaned about Mr Emefiele’s unilateralist approach, but both the president and the CBN governor waved the law under her nose, and she hushed up. Inspired and still breathing radical changes, Mr Emefiele revised the over-the-counter and ATM withdrawal limits severely downward, leaving the people breathless. Consternated, Nigerians have complained about the policy overload and the sloppiness of the CBN in taking into cognisance some of the technological and banking ratio limitations. The apex bank grudgingly consented to some tweaking as the implementation goes along.

From changing the colours of the notes to revising withdrawal limits, the point is that Mr Emefiele is in a radical and revolutionary mood, ‘small’ inconveniences be damned. Nigerians always grumbled anyway, and even when deadlines were extended, they always found tardiness an asset. And so, Nigeria is not only stuck with the politicised Mr Emefiele, they must now swallow his alibis hook, line, and sinker. He has convinced the president that redesigning the naira and revising cash withdrawal and invariably spending limits would trap money launderers and put the noses of vote buyers out of joint. The country whoops over these goals, and the president smirks in agreement. Did the president bounce these policy changes off his advisers and economic team? No one can really tell, perhaps not even the Finance minister who was initially flustered by the whole naira redesign affair.

It is indeed remarkable that months before leaving office, President Buhari consented to these radical changes. Where were the president and Mr Emefiele years ago when the economy was slaloming downhill? They claim to be acting in defence of the value of the naira and curbing inflation rate. Noble, isn’t it? But the puzzled public and wary economists will hope that the president and his CBN governor have scrupulously worked out the costs of their policies and calculated their impact to be far more tolerable than the ‘mere inconvenience’ of startling the people into financial stupor.