Category: Barometer

Barometer

After observing with unapologetic satisfaction the furore that attended his controversial obituary to former senator Esho Jinadu (Buruji Kashamu), former president Olusegun Obasanjo has wasted no time in forcing himself into the limelight once more. This time, perhaps forgetting the role he played in what he now sees as some sort of gerontocracy, he called on youths in Africa to squeeze out the older generation from office. He was still basking in the publicity that attended his sarcastic dismissal of Senator Kashamu  when the opportunity to stir more controversy presented itself in the form of an invitation to deliver the keynote address at an interactive session organised by the Youth Development Centre, an arm of his library, in Abeokuta.

There, he was reported to have speechified the following words to a diverse audience of African youths: “Unless you squeeze out those who are in office and those who want to remain in office perpetually, some after the age of 80, unless you squeeze them out, they will not want to be out.”

He was right, and he knew he was right because he was probably talking about himself. He once surreptitiously tried to amend the constitution to grant himself a third term in office as president. There is no evidence, however, to show whether he regrets that action or if he is only still sulking from losing that needless battle.

Nonetheless, he went on to clarify: “For instance, if you say, in the constitution of a political party, not less than 50 percent of those who hold executive office within the party will be less than 40 years; you can even go beyond that and say that people who will be put up for election should not be less than 40 years of age.” For lack of a premise, his logic keels. Why does the former president believe that younger people will perform better in office or do anything substantially different in the face of a retrogressive and stultifying political structure? There has been no proof that the younger generation alone can do what it takes to move the country forward.

What the country needs is not a generation of youths or adults to propel the country forward. Apart from a progressive and liberating structure, it needs a generation of principled leaders  a herculean feat, going by the abject sparsity of credible mentors everywhere that knows there is right, there is wrong, and that everything betwixt is compromise. From the young Pharaoh Tutankhamun to Alexander the Great and now France’s Emmanuel Macron, history is not wanting for tales of younger leaders. Not age, not gender, and definitely not tribe will determine the quality of leadership; vision, strength of character and principles will.

Barometer

When the Eighth National Assembly rejected the National Water Resources Bill (Water Bill) in 2017, it was partly but probably mostly because the bill divided them along party, religious and ethnic lines. Although that assembly was much criticised, they seemed adept at standing their ground in the face of executive pressure. Somehow, the presidency has pushed the same nuisance bill on to the Ninth National Assembly. Many commentators hope the current assembly will display at least the same grit and mettle of its predecessors.

The bill claims that it “seeks to establish a regulatory framework for the water resources sector in Nigeria, provide for the equitable and sustainable development management, use and conserve Nigeria’s surface water, groundwater resources and related matters.” But does it?

The embattled Minister of Niger Delta, Godswill Akpabio, who was at the time in the senate, led other ministers to vehemently oppose the bill. He is, these days, weathering a storm of his own and is not in much of a position to save the day. The legal framework for the bill asks many questions. Section 2(3) of the bill proclaims that, “The right to use, management and control of all surface water and ground water affecting more than one state pursuant to item 64 of the exclusive list in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 and as set out in Schedule 1 to this Act, together with the beds and banks thereof, is vested in the Government of the Federation to be exercised by the Government of the Federation in accordance with the provisions of this Act”. Item 64 of the Exclusive list in the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, referred to as a framework for the bill reads thus, “Water from such sources as may be declared by the National Assembly to be sources affecting more than one state.” The bill goes further to attempt to derive a legal framework for itself from within itself by quoting its own first schedule. That should be a nullity. The only valid legal framework the Bill should rest upon is from a higher statute  in this case the constitution. And, going by the provisions of the constitution, it remains to be seen how groundwater in a person’s plot of land affects ‘more than one state’.

Section 3(1)(a and b) of the bill provides that a person may, without a license take water from a water source for the use of his household or for watering domestic livestock. The wisdom of this bill in a country that is fuming at what its citizens have described as incursion and trespass of herders remains unclear. Already, public commentators see the bill as nothing more than a legal perambulation to grant herdsmen access to water areas in their lands. Their fears are justified. If a person no longer owns the water bodies in his land, and the owner has permitted everyone to use the water for watering livestock, then the person must keep spectrally quiet if a herdsman enters his land to access the water body. The rejection of the RUGA bill not too long ago and the plethora of accusations, ranging from tribalism to despotism, that followed remains a blot on the federal government’s reputation and image. Now this.

If Nigerians feel that the proposed bill is a bit too thick, they cannot be blamed. Many Nigerians blanch with horror at the adverse impact of the federal government’s takeover of the crude oil resources in the Niger Delta. They were inclined to let it slide because the mineral resource in question affected only a particular region. The same is not the case now. Nigerians have threatened to rise in their numbers to combat the suspected attempt to deprive them of their rights to own the water bodies in their lands.

More than the people, however, the governors may also find it in the best interest of true federalism to denude the centre, not cede more power to the federal government. Nigeria has long been suspected to be hovering dangerously on the brink of operating a unitary government even though it claims to be federal. The issue of restructuring constantly arises because Nigerians complain that the federal government controls far too much. If the state governors can muster the same courage that helped them vent their objections against executive order 10 of 2020, which granted financial autonomy to the state legislature and state judiciary, surely they can address this even more pressing and truly vexatious issue.

Barometer

The Federal Government, through the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, announced last Tuesday that the fine for hate speech had been increased from N500,000 to N5 million. According to the minister, the presidency was acting in what he called national interest, and that the decision to increase the fine was approved to reposition the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to perform its regulatory role better, mostly in the areas of political broadcasting, local content, coverage of emergencies, advertising, and anti-competitive behaviour.

Both on the surface and under the microscope, nothing can conceal the draconian nature of the minister’s Orwellian doublespeak, prompting eminent legal practitioners and the immediately affected press to give vent to many words echoing the same sentiment that the unconstitutional fine was a military-styled impediment to democratic freedom of speech.

The constitutionality or otherwise of the Hate Speech Bill will remain a source of debate for a while, and that is only because Section 39(3)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended derogates the right of every Nigerian to freedom of expression. Many countries have enacted laws against hate crimes, but it is not directed at only the media. Nigeria’s hate speech bill, if it should ever see the light of day, must adhere to the constitution strictly. Moreover, until it has become an act, the presidency cannot issue orders on it, and if the act does not authorise the office of the president, then the presidency should humbly refrain from giving such frivolous orders. The body empowered to edit the fines in the bill is the legislature.

It is in view of this that many lawyers have kicked against it. They argue rightly that the Hate Speech Bill has only cleared first reading at the legislature, and mere executive orders are not enough to derogate the fundamental rights of citizens. The presidency should know this, as the Quarantine Act drama, which preoccupied itself among other things with the rights of Nigerians to movement, is barely six months old.

The increased fine for hate speech does not represent the best deterrent to hate crimes in Nigeria. There are underlying factors causing ethnic animosity, part of which is the mindless attacks and killing of Nigerians an issue the federal government has been rather tardy in addressing. In fact, the western world, with its more functional jurisprudence, has long recognised the inanity of remedying every crime with fines or jail sentences and have taken a more psychological approach to correcting social crimes.The questionable fine that the hate speech bill proposes is a heritage of the brusque military culture of unbridled force, which birthed the idea that everything from force to ideological differences must be met with superior force and high-handedness. That panacea is jaded.

The federal government needs to address and eliminate the causes of hate speech. Fining a person will not kill the idea in the person. The catastrophic failure of the death sentence as a deterrent to crimes such as armed robbery and kidnapping has not stopped the prevalence of capital crimes in the society. It is also telling that the federal government’s policy is more lenient towards Boko Haram militia and is willing to force what it thinks are rehabilitated individuals back on the uncompensated victims of Boko Haram attacks. It is counterproductive to apprehend, reform a rapist and then force the victim to house him once again, paying no heed to her trauma. Is there any wisdom in this indulgency towards terrorists and severity towards hate speech? Does the government not think it is time to revivify the field of psychology and psychiatry in the country such that hate criminals can be sent to compulsory psychiatric sections and forced to pick the bill?

It is not clear why these failures and jaded legislations remain part of the laws of Nigeria, but without doubt, these laws still occasionally enjoy judicial interpretation to the dismay of many eminent legal minds. It may be instructive to note that no law is foolproof, but some laws are more foolproof than others. A bill will never be binding until it is enacted (passed by the legislature and ratified by the executive), so can the president eat his maize before cooking it?

Barometer

When Kaduna State governor, Nasir el-Rufai, whimsically challenged the monarchs of Southern Kaduna to point out lands that had been taken by what they alleged to be incursionary-minded aggressors, he displayed, yet again, his reluctance to open-mindedly address security concerns in his state. The world is appalled by the killings, and the responsibility of ending the problem lies squarely with the governor. But he has seemed to quibble endlessly.

The governor does not mind that whatever steps he believes he has taken have so far been unsuccessful and have only worsened the crisis. In coming to a conclusion, and so that he does not appear one-sided, he should have taken cognisance of the fears of the Southern Kaduna Elders Forum (SOKAF) and the Southern Kaduna People’s Forum (SOKAPU). Both bodies have insisted that the attacks were by land grabbers and not by herdsmen focused on vengeance.

Said SOKAPU’s Jonathan Asake last month: “Each time there is an attack on a community, he (el-Rufai) imposes a curfew on the community and it becomes double jeopardy for the people. Even with the curfew, the invaders still return to kill more people. Their motive is clear. It is the land in Southern Kaduna. The people that come to kill in Southern Kaduna do not come with cattle and they don’t kill people in their farms. They kill people on their beds while sleeping. They invade the communities at night or very early in the morning to kill women and children. Are the women and children farmers? Government knows more than what is going on. We know that the motive is to take over the lands. They want to sack the communities from their ancestral lands and change the demographics for their own interest.”

Last week, SOKAPU again alleged that 33 people were killed in the attacks on Wednesday, August 5, and that “truckloads of armed Fulani militia made their way through military checkpoints under the curfew and stormed Apiashyim and Kibori villages, killing, looting and burning houses…While the attackers were busy killing, no attempt was made to stop them.”

These allegations are too grave to be taken lightly. But Mallam el-Rufai remains unconvinced, Said he: “Part of the misleading narrative on the crisis is a false claim of genocide and land grabbing that is being made now, just as they were made without any basis during the 2016/2017 crisis. As governor, I authorise any traditional ruler to tell the media about any inch of land within their domain that has been forcibly grabbed or illegally occupied by anybody or group.” Forcibly? Well, the devil is in the detail.

But it is now his word against theirs, that is, they who were witnesses to the tragic killings. He is, as he has been careful to note, the governor of the state, and has a responsibility to provide security and welfare for the people. Their cries were first for help, before they became accusations. The governor may find it more responsible to display sympathy in both his official and personal capacity if he is to be believed as caring about the victims’ plights. More importantly, his first task is to stop the killings before tackling the disputed narratives.

Barometer

Following the discovery of a nebulous clause in a 2018 loan agreement for the sum of $400m, which is interpreted to cede part of Nigeria’s sovereignty to the China Export-Import Bank should the country default, Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi, has repeatedly opened his mouth and put his foot in it.

The commercial loan agreement signed on September 5, 2018 was for the Nigeria National Information and Communication Technology Infrastructure Backbone Phase II Project, but Mr Amaechi’s stake in the affair concerns a loan his ministry hopes to secure by December this year for the completion of certain railway projects.

He has also been summoned by the House of Representatives to provide details of the loan he hopes to secure on behalf of the country.

On July 29, the minister reportedly urged the House to pause its investigations until his ministry had secured its own loan.

He said, “My fear is that if this probe continues, at the end of the day, some sections of the country may suffer. In oversighting, there is what is called national interest.But in asking questions on these loans now, it may jeopardise these loans.

Let the Government of China not say there is a disagreement in the government on this loan and so we will not give this loan.

So, I appeal to the chairman to give us from now till December when we are likely to secure the loans. Then, from January, February, you can resume this investigation.” Really? Could this poor rationalisation come from a public official?

The controversial clause in the 2018 deal, Article 8(1) reads, “The borrower hereby irrevocably waives any immunity on the grounds of sovereign or otherwise for itself or its property in connection with any arbitration proceeding pursuant to Article 8(5), thereof with the enforcement of any arbitral award pursuant thereto, except for the military assets and diplomatic assets.”

Asked his thoughts on the problematic clause in the loan deal, the minister said: “It’s simple. The loan to construct the rail from Ibadan to Kano is $5.3bn. It is not that we’re ceding the sovereignty; you can’t take away the sovereignty of Nigeria.

The implication is that ‘if at the end of the day you don’t pay us back our money, whatever we need to take, we will take from you without you telling me about sovereignty.’ But most times what the Chinese do is that they go after the same asset that they have constructed to recover their money. So what’s wrong with that? You are asking for $5.3bn and they say just waive the sovereignty.”

He went on to refer to the legislature as wise men, and ominously pointed out that they would jeopardise the ability of the executive arm of government to raise money if they continued with this curiosity, for it would make the Chinese and the Russians, from whom they hoped to secure more loans for more projects, apprehensive.

Continued Mr Amaechi, “Are they saying that we should lose these loans because they are asking whether it is right to cede sovereignty? It is not ceding sovereignty in the technical sense of it, it is ceding sovereignty giving them the power to recover their assets if they need to recover it to be able to recover their money.

So I don’t see what is wrong with that.” Is Mr Amaechi blind? Could he predetermine what assets the Chinese would impound in the case of default? Does he not feel mortified that he had engineered a suspicious contract upon Nigeria, one which he probably never properly scrutinised in the government’s obsessive hunger for loans and more loans?

The minister has at least seen the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Section 2 of which enshrines the indissoluble sovereignty of the country. No loan therefore should purport to even lease the sovereignty of Nigeria to another country, or a bank in that other country.

Nigerians have, through the legislature and the media expressed fears concerning the details of the contract that secured the loan. All the parties responsible for the acquisition of the loan(s) in dispute have been summoned to explain these confusing terms, yet the minister carries on like he appointed the people for the country and not the other way round, and that securing the loan takes pre-eminence.

Mr Amaechi has tried to justify the Federal Government’s loan-happy financial roadmap by pointing out the juicy interest rates, time lengths and moratoria in the loan contracts.

Does he believe it is wiser and more sustainable to indebt future generations of Nigerians by taking loans to execute projects than to establish, fund and task national think-tanks to conceive ways to deploy the country’s underutilised resources for infrastructural development? His narrow-minded deference to the liberal acquisition of loans is a reflection of the lamentable policy formulation of Nigeria’s over-expensive and lavishly-maintained government, which has not held back its penchant for indebting the country’s future and mortgaging its territories.

No one wants to cede their inheritance  not for a pot of porridge, nor for any loan , and Nigeria’s territorial integrity is part of her inheritance.

It may well be that the loan agreement does not actually violate the country’s sovereignty, but until that is proved, he has no business asking the legislators to suspend investigations pending when he can secure fresh loans, which will push Nigeria’s debt profile further than its $27bn 15-year high, and which no one is sure will not worsen whatever damage is feared to have been done to the country’s sovereignty.

Barometer

Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Godswill Akpabio, is not enjoying the best of times. Having unceremoniously removed acting Managing Director of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Joi Nunieh, his woes commenced. The victim lashed out, levelling allegations of corruption against him, which he deflected by attacking her virtue. She countered by alleging he was a lecher, who had made inappropriate advances towards her, which she rewarded with a slap. She had, however, put the country on the scent of his blood when she mentioned that he had forced her to award contracts illegally.

Her replacement, Professor Keme Pondei, finding things getting too warm for him during a resultant probe by legislators, outmatched her in thespian performance by promptly fainting, according to cynics. He has bought himself time; something no one is willing to sell to the embattled Mr Akpabio.

The minister is being tossed left, right and centre by both the people and their representatives with ultimata and the courts looming ominously large in his nightmares. He had let himself go while appearing before the House of Reps Committee on Niger Delta by alleging that 60 percent of NDDC contracts were awarded to lawmakers. He said he had the records to prove it. Since then, the cry on every lip and the voice in every mouth has pressured him to publish these names. He has half obliged everyone.

Reluctantly, he addressed a letter to the Clerk of the House of Representatives containingsome names, but mostly attempting to reseal the can of worms he had opened when he was overcome by his passions. The House has rejected the letter and warned him to desist from these diversionary tactics.

Mr Akpabio’s position is not an enviable one, and it is hard to see an imminent end to his woes.He clearly knows things he has deemed impolitic to reveal, and he will drag this drama on for as long as possible. It remains to be seen whether he will eventually cave in and make more damning revelations or if he will quietly submit to the hangman’s noose.

Barometer

After initial turbulence and frostiness in their relationships, the first family and its predecessor appear to be mending fences and affecting congenial attitudes towards each other.

It is no secret that Patience Jonathan, wife of the former president, cried foul over the manner the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) hounded her distraught self and her family directly after they left power.

A witch-hunt, she had said, was what the EFCC was on about, as she was dragged in and out of the courts. Former president Goodluck Jonathan, for his part, was the recipient of ample public chagrin, as he watched his successor onerously narrate and allege (following reports from anti-graft probes and panels) that his government had done so much damage that democracy was standing in the way of swift judicial retribution.

Gone are those days. Hatchets have been buried at train stations.

Only last week, happy news filtered forth from the presidential stables indicating that President Muhammadu Buhari had christened the recently completed 276km Warri-Itakpe rail station in Agbor, Delta State, after his predecessor.

A grateful Dr Jonathan was, three days later, observed at the Presidential Villa, discussing earnestly with the president the situation in Mali, statesman to statesman.

So the image conveyed. In February this year, the inimitable Dame Patience was espied getting along rather nicely with the First Lady, Aisha Buhari, and discussing the affairs of women in Nigeria.

These are good times for both families, and they obviously hope that this newfound spirit of statesmanship will close the curtains on the entertaining but grating vaudeville of accusations that the country knows both families are more than capable of scripting effortlessly.

Strikingly, Dr Jonathan noted while addressing the press on the purpose of his visit that the completion of the rail project was a sign of continuity.

He is right. Successive governments in Nigeria have been accused of lacking a culture of continuity, and uncompleted projects lie strewn across the country, amounting to unaffordable waste of state resources.

The good grace and rapprochement that both families are exhibiting, forgetting the initial locking of horns, should serve as a template for successive first families in Nigeria.

There is much to be said for diplomacy and respect when investigating suspected mismanagement of funds by preceding first families, for there is more to be gained from working with than drawing weapons against each other.

But as Sudan is demonstrating, there is the unresolved dilemma of what to do with a predecessor who clearly flouted the law and abused office.

How does the country get its catharsis?