Barometer

Advice is not in short supply on how the federal government should handle the coronavirus war. The government has not been as coordinated in the war as most Nigerians expect, and sometimes targeted measures have come late or spasmodically. Former Catholic Archbishop of Lagos, Anthony Cardinal Okogie, is one of those advisors, if a sceptical one, the government should listen to. His press statement on Nigeria’s COVID-19 war remains one of the most succinct and exceptional. After making a few political statements, all of them apt and relevant to the subject matter, he zeroed in on the war and how, if care is not taken, it could easily unravel.

Said the cleric: “But government could and ought to have used this moment to encourage Nigerians to open bank accounts. A more transparent means of giving out the money would have been to ask each person for his or her bank verification number and to send the money into their accounts. Apart from the fact that it would have encouraged more Nigerians to open bank accounts, it would have made it possible to account for every naira that is given out. In the same vein, we have heard how billions of naira are being donated to government without government telling Nigerians how the donation will be spent.”

See how uncannily his views tally with SGF Mustapha’s fears on the management and coordination of the fight against coronavirus. Hopefully, the government — and who by the way is the government being referenced? — will put its act together and prosecute the war firmly, sensibly and coherently.

By Barometer

When he began to confront what he described as the suzerainty of the APC national chairman, Adams Oshiomhole, Edo State governor Godwin Obaseki felt the need to ramp up his response by embarking on extraordinary and extra-constitutional measures.

The governor completely ignored his own failings, including many antidemocratic measures, and instead concentrated largely on Mr Oshiomhole’s excesses. He even managed to frame and control the narrative, painting the party chairman as a hypocritical godfather and a remorseless tyrant who must be dethroned.

To achieve his twin goals of neutralising Mr Oshiomhole and securing a second term nomination, Mr Obaseki implemented a cornucopia of measures that saw his government splitting the state APC, cajoling his opponents some of whose houses were either demolished on one pretext or another or their papers withdrawn and rendered vulnerable, muscling nearly all opponents from organising rallies on the pain of severe punishment, and virtually introducing pass laws to bar unwanted Edo indigenes, no matter how highly placed, from coming into the state. The government not only became entirely and enthusiastically repressive, it also promises to get worse except the governor gets the nomination, and perhaps wins the election.

In their response to his initial struggles with Mr Oshiomhole, when the issues involved in the acrimonious battle for the soul of the state were still foggy, Edo indigenes were ambivalent towards their governor. First they suspected that Mr Obaseki was becoming too frantic; but second, they also feared that Mr Oshiomhole might in fact still have his hands on the plough. But when the governor sexed up his manifesto against the party chairman, introducing many draconian measures to castrate not only the chairman but anyone opposed to him, Edo indigenes began to be wary. Now, that wariness has grown to outright revulsion.

Mr Obaseki’s last throw of the dice was his joint effort with some rebellious APC governors and leaders to overthrow their chairman. Had Mr Oshiomhole been overthrown, Mr Obaseki’s stock would have risen slightly in Edo, and disgruntled Edo indigenes would have had no one to rally around. But the coup failed, and Mr Obaseki has been left high and dry. Having largely alienated key political personalities in Edo, and having displayed high-handedness, the governor’s camp has been depleted significantly. It is hard to see him recovering from his self-inflicted injuries.

By Barometer

Following a point of order raised on Wednesday by Danjuma Goje, a senator and former Gombe State governor, the Senate has asked President Muhammadu Buhari to address the nation on his government’s efforts to contain the dreadful coronavirus that began in China and is now ravaging Europe, United States and other parts of the world, including Nigeria. The Senate’s call is not knew. It is probably a reflection of the mood of the country, with many Nigerians wondering why their president has been reticent on the crisis. The presidents of a few other African countries have either addressed their countries or led prayer sessions attended by thousands of their citizens.

Already, seeing the reluctance of President Buhari to heed the call for a national broadcast outside of a solitary and depersonalised twitter post, enterprising Nigerians have taken to social media to poke fun at the absence of their president and what they term as leadership failure in this trying moment. The puns may be inappropriate or even inaccurate, it is, however, a reflection of Nigerians’ perception of the urgency of the situation which has led them to show their displeasure at the lack of a prompt presidential response. A television and radio address, especially in the early days of the outbreak of the disease in Nigeria, would have been of tremendous help and reassurance to a people agitated and frightened by a novel and relentless disease.

But presidential spokesman, Garba Shehu, feels differently. With harsh words that probably mask his frustrations over the constant public needling of the president, and undoubtedly underestimating the need for such an address, Mallam Shehu has dismissed the call for an address as unnecessary populism. It is not clear why he thinks it would amount to populism for the president to address the nation, nor is anyone convinced by any stretch that his logic is right, but he seems so defensive and aggressive about his argument that it is fair to assume that he believes his own story. He is, however, wrong.

Said Mallam Shehu of the public demand for an address on coronavirus: “In this regard, populist advocacies such as the one accusing the President of “complacency” simply because he has not made a television address by ranking members of our respected parliament are cheap and sensational. These are not the times for populism and cheap politics.” Mallam Shehu constantly deploys weighty denunciations against public criticism of the president’s failings, but his latest attack is simply mindboggling. Not only does the Senate have the right, if not duty, to ask the president to make an address, they were absolutely not disrespectful about it. The senators have not failed to acknowledge that managers of Nigeria’s healthcare sector were discharging their responsibilities, but they insist that it would be helpful if the president weighed in. Indeed, they are right to ask for a presidential address, just as the presidency is absolutely wrong to deny them one.

The president may wish to be different, but it is conventional for a president in a time of crisis to spell out the framework of the government’s response to a major crisis, particularly an existential crisis probably second only to the Nigerian civil war. It is only after that framework has been spelt out that officials manning various aspects of the response can fill in the gap. Yes, there has been some kind of response to coronavirus, but it is evident that the response has not exhibited the kind of comprehensiveness and coherence the public imagined the situation demands.

The Health minister, Osagie Enahire, has marshalled some form of response, and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Godwin Emefiele, has also announced government’s economic intervention, but the public would have loved some overarching statement on all aspects of the government’s response, including specifics and timelines. Mallam Shehu must not blame Nigerians if they fail to get a comprehensive sense of the government’s response. They want to be inspired, first and foremost, before they are filled in on the details. To blame them for that perfectly legitimate craving is unkind and even insulting.

Despite Mallam Shehu’s needless umbrage, Nigerians must hope that sooner than later the president will find sense in addressing the nation on this terrible existential crisis triggered by coronavirus. If he had great advisers, and if the cabinet was not so grovelling, someone among them should have suggested the need for a broadcast. It is unlikely that such an adviser would have been shouted down. Furthermore, Nigerians should hope that when the president finally gets round to that task, he would do it far better than any other country’s president has done so far, without his customary slip-ups and exasperating blame games and politicisation, precisely the same proclivity he attributes to the opposition. This is a time the president should be president. He should ignore Mallam Shehu’s perfunctory denunciation of critics, and carry out his duties.

Barometer

It has taken the weighty voice of business tycoon, Aliko Dangote, to remind the federal government of the need to look at both sides of the coin, particularly on the economy, before jumping to conclusions. In addition to reminding the government to constantly do cost-benefit analyses, he also gently cautions them over their simplistic interpretation of economic indicators. Since January, the government has been exulting over its savings from partial border closure, periodically dishing out statistics of how much had been saved and how smuggling of arms had also been curtailed. The government also proudly proclaimed how much it had raked in through import duties, a feat it celebrated without pondering the drawbacks.

Economic matters and statistics are not as straightforward as the government makes them, warned Alhaji Dangote. Though he did not speak directly to the land border closure, nor to rice importation, he zeroes in directly on the issue of import duties collection, describing the huge figure raked in by the government as heart-rending. “My heart bled when I read that Nigerian Customs collected N1.35trn import duties last year,” grieved the mogul. “It means the economy isn’t working. If the economy is working, the Customs shouldn’t collect that much money, it is the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) that should.” It is unlikely the federal government has in recent years thought of the correlation between the health of the economy and import duties collection. Consistent with its tunnel vision, the federal government always lauded revenue collection without examining its harmful correlations.

For instance, having shut land borders for months on end, the government has not for once indicated how much the economy has lost by that action, almost as if there have been no losses. The government speaks to increase in duties collection but says nothing on the huge losses to manufacturing companies whose goods are traded on the West coast through land borders. The government is at liberty to conceive whatever economic policies it deems fit, though it has seldom felt the need or urgency to persuade the citizenry, but it has a corresponding duty to honestly let the people know the consequences of the policies. To pretend there are no negative consequences is dishonest and cheap. And to further pretend that no diplomatic consequences follow its economic measures, no matter how salutary, is also to engage in self-deceit.

The overall conclusion of Alhaji Dangote is that the Nigerian economy is not working, citing for instance the huge losses some of his companies sustained in the past one year. Said he: “Government lost so much money last year in the traffic logjams of Apapa. Our three companies lost N30bn in profit. Which also means government will collect less tax from us. So, we need to look at infrastructure, we need to look at power because without power there won’t be growth. That is what will propel MSMEs to grow and be everywhere and spur manufacturing.” More tellingly, the tycoon gave the following advice: “We can diversify the economy through agriculture and manufacturing. Manufacturing creates a lot of jobs, creates middle class and transforms families. These are the areas we need to focus on. But how do you diversify into manufacturing and make it an inclusive growth? You need to do more of backward integration or import substitution. Our economy is great because we have a local market. The economy of Asia is focused on exports. But we have a domestic market with our about 200 million population apart from the ECOWAS market. Our import last year was almost $47bn. It is not sustainable. We cannot have 200 million people, growing at an average 2.7 percent and we are importing most of the things we consume…We need to be more serious so we don’t keep talking about diversification. It has been very elusive. I don’t know why. It is possible but people are not focusing on.”

Alhaji Dangote may be peeved by the country’s economic management, but he is definitely not irrational or emotional. Indeed, what is beyond doubt so far, and flowing from the business tycoon’s observations, is that the Nigerian economy is not being managed with the breathtaking expertise the size of the economy demands. The government’s assumptions are simplistic, and they draw wrong inferences from economic indicators redirecting their attention elsewhere. There is also huge scepticism that anytime soon, the economy would come under the kind of management and coordination that would reassure investors, citizens and even economic planners. Rather than take umbrage at Alhaji Dangote’s slap on the wrist, it is hoped that this largely uncoordinated government will take cognisance of the people’s displeasure, abandon its ad hoc approach to economic management, and proffer remedies that will and can work.

By Olarinde Yesufu, The Nation’s legal analyst

The Supreme Court of Nigeria last Tuesday finally put to rest, the self-inflicted judicial conundrum over the sack of Emeka Ihedioha as governor of Imo State. The apex court refused to reverse its judgment of January 14, 2020. The Supreme Court in its judgment of January 14 had ordered the removal of Mr Ihedioha and directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue a certificate of return to the candidate of the All Progressive Congress (APC), Hope Uzodinma. Mr Ihedioha and his party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), approached the Supreme Court to review its judgment, stating that the decision was given in error.

In a split decision of six to one, the apex court refused Mr Ihedioha’s application. It held that the application was an invitation for the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its own judgment. In the majority judgment delivered by Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, the apex court, without addressing or examining the facts of the application, summarily dismissed it as it did in the Bayelsa State governorship tussle few days earlier. The apex court, for some inexplicable reasons (which, once again, exposes its inconsistencies), however, lacked the courage to penalize the counsel that brought the application, as it did in the Bayelsa case. With a wave of the hand and a tone of finality, Justice Ariwoola held, “It is settled law that this court has no power to change or alter its judgment.”

A member of the apex court panel, Justice Chima Centus Nweze, disagreed with the lead verdict and gave a dissenting opinion that allowed Mr Ihedioha’s application. Justice Nweze said he was satisfied that the judgment that declared Senator Uzodinma winner was entered in error. In the circumstance, he further held, the apex court had a duty to set aside its decision that was given in error. According to him, the Supreme Court in other jurisdictions had “set itself aside per incuriam where it realized that its judgment was given illegally or misled.” He made reference to House of Lords, United Kingdom Supreme Court, US Supreme Court, and Australia Supreme Court and held further that, “This Court has the power to overrule itself which it has done in the past for the sake of justice.”

Read Also: Can Uzodinma heal the wounds in Imo?

Beaming his searchlight on the facts of the application, Justice Nweze found that Sen Uzodinma misled the court into accepting the allegedly excluded results in 388 polling units without indicating the votes polled by other political parties. He also faulted the results from the said polling units without indicating the number of accredited voters in the polling units. Justice Nweze recalled how Sen Uzodinma admitted at the election tribunal that he hijacked the result sheets from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s officials and completed the result sheets by himself. He said the results could not be valid without indicating the number of votes of accredited voters and that the apex court’s verdict of January 14 gave rise to a situation where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of accredited voters. He commended Mr Ihedioha’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, for having the courage to file the application for the review of the judgment.

The dissenting judgment of Justice Nweze is a magnificent achievement, given the judicial conundrum the Supreme Court imposed on itself in that case. The facts of the case were brilliantly analysed by Justice Nweze. His dissenting ruling itself was elegantly written, prodigiously researched, and compellingly adumbrated and packaged. It indeed stands out as an extraordinary and exemplary contribution to Nigerian jurisprudence. It is a masterpiece of rigorous scholarship and courage. One fundamental truth emerges from his solitary voice: Supreme Court of Nigeria had, in the past, though sparingly, reviewed its previous judgments and even had reasons to overrule itself or set aside its previous judgments where interest of justice dictated. So, we now know that it is not an aberration for an apex court to review its previous judgments as there are precedents in other Commonwealth countries.

The problem with the majority judgment is the inability of their lordships to descend from their Olympian height to assume the enviable position of intellectual and judicial humility, by admitting their error. And, for this reason, the judgment of the Supreme Court will continue to haunt, not just the electoral jurisprudence of this country, as Justice Nweze ably puts it, but many people.

Ghana, is one country that has developed this aspect of its law to an admirable level. The authority of the Supreme Court of Ghana to review its own decision is entrenched in Article 133(1) of the Constitution of the Republic Ghana, which provides that the Supreme Court may review any decision made or given by it on such grounds and subject to such grounds and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules of court. Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C1 16) made pursuant to the authority of the Constitution, spells out the grounds for review as: a) Exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice; b) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decision was given.

Before the extant Ghana Constitution, the review jurisdiction of the court derived from the inherent jurisdiction of the court as espoused in Fosuhene v Pomaa, which held that the Supreme Court of Ghana had jurisdiction to correct its own error by way of review and that application for review must be founded on compelling reasons and exceptional circumstances dictated by the interest of justice.

It is sad that the Nigerian Supreme Court in this 21st Century is still being ruled from the grave of its conservatism and fettered by shackles of finality and certainty. God alone is the dispenser of absolute justice. Judges are subject to limitations of human fallibility. Therefore, the duty to enthrone justice ought to prevail over policy of finality. Ghana has set a good example for Nigeria to follow.

Barometer

In some seven months to come, Edo voters will troop out to elect their next governor. They will have the option of revalidating the incumbent, Godwin Obaseki, or electing a fresher. If Edo people are apprehensive of the influences their choices might be subjected to, they have not shown it. Indeed, they have been quite sanguine about the coming vote. They trust that despite the initial hullabaloo, the electoral process would go on fairly smoothly, and their choices would be made and respected. The security agencies in the state are, on the contrary, less optimistic. They have sounded a note of warning suggesting that the September poll might be undermined by bloody politicking. In the coming months, the electorate will find out just how bad the problem is.

The police and the Department of State Service (DSS) have both warned that the auguries are bad. According to the state police boss, Lawal Jimeta, and the Zonal Director of the DSS, Mohammed Waziri, Edo could witness very dire situation if the worsening security problems in the state are not addressed by politicians who have the responsibility to tone down their bellicose discourses. The indicators are frightening, warned the zonal DSS boss. There are no independent means of verifying the fears of the security officers. In fact, indications are that they appear restrained in their warnings.

Everyone in Edo knows that there has been a falling-out between Mr Obaseki and his mentor and current national All Progressives Congress (APC) chairman, Adams Oshiomhole. The dispute between the two Edo politicians has grown increasingly fierce and irreconcilable. Indeed, few now expect that there would be a rapprochement between the two leaders before the September plebiscite. The election process will be kick-started in the next few weeks with a party primary. It is that primary that many believe could end up being turbulent and bloody. No one is sure that a reconciliation would take place between now and that fateful primary election, an election only the national APC can superintend, hopefully without court wrangling that could end up costing the party dearly.

Mr Obaseki has now considerably stiffened his opposition to Mr Oshiomhole, and the party chairman has in turn burrowed very deep to plant a depth bomb under the governor’s seat. With every passing month, and from one measure to another — some of the measures involving targeted revocation of certificate of occupancy, demolition of property said to violate building laws, denial of rally permits, and request for the arrest of Mr Oshiomhole — the governor has gradually upped the ante. Among other factors, the misunderstanding seemed to have begun with what the APC chairman stated was a  surreptitious proclamation of the state legislature by the governor, a proclamation described as anti-democratic and unlawful. Since that fateful step, the problems have worsened so badly that they now seem irreversible.

In turn, Mr Oshiomhole himself began to nurture groups and associations in the Edo APC which became unalterably opposed to the governor. With both sides becoming implacable, even to the extent of deploying incendiary devices, the security agencies are at sixes and sevens how to respond to the intra-party bickering. Had one of the sides been the opposition, perhaps the security agencies would have been more sprightly in their response. But since both sides belong to the ruling party, the security agencies have walked on eggs, unsure how to respond beyond issuing dire warnings and painting frightening scenarios. Neither the police nor the DSS thinks the situation will end well. They fear the worst.

Without prejudice to who is right or wrong between Mr Oshiomhole and Mr Obaseki, the security agencies have the responsibility to discharge their duties without fear or favour. They were there when things began to build to a crescendo, when the disagreements started turning violent, when the combatants began to threaten fire and brimstone. It is unlikely they would have been shackled had they carried out their responsibilities in accordance with the law. When the governor banned rallies, the security agencies should have waded in and told him he was exceeding his mandate as a democratically elected governor. When he sought to bar the APC chairman from visiting his home state, they should have told him that he could not lawfully give that kind of order. And when violence ensued during one of Mr Oshiomhole’s visit, the police should have done the needful, even if those arrested were the APC chairman’s close aides.

Had the security agencies done their jobs without fear or favour, had they acted promptly without waiting to be nudged, irrespective of whose toes they stepped on, it is unlikely the situation would have deteriorated to the point where they are now painting terrible forebodings of the future in Edo State. The politicians, whether Mr Oshiomhole or Mr Obaseki, might wish to exceed themselves; it is, however, the responsibility of security agencies to restrain them within the bounds of the law.

Now, no one is sure just how the primary  in Edo will go, whether one party could find the room to threaten the peace and wellbeing of the state or not. The violence in the state is worsening, and is expected to peak during the primary. Rather than whining and engaging in handwringing, the security agencies should firmly restrain lawbreakers. Neither the governor nor the party chairman must be allowed to threaten the peace and stability of the state simply because both or one of them is unable to properly interpret and appreciate the meaning of democracy and party politics.