Category: Barometer

Barometer

Shortly after the electoral commission, INEC, declared All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate Smart Adeyemi winner of the Kogi West senatorial rerun, party chairman, Adams Oshiomhole, issued a statement mocking the loser, Dino Melaye of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The chairman is entitled to his exultation, considering that what matters to him is bagging as many states as possible and aligning them with the APC column for 2023. He was emphatic that Senator Melaye’s loss was a confirmation of the wages of rebellion which has seen the 16 APC senators that defected to the PDP  before the last polls losing their seats.

Said Mr Oshiomhole: “I have always believed in the ability of the people of Kogi West to elect leaders who will make them proud in the Senate and not the defeated Senator Melaye who is among the 16  Senators who rebelled against our party. As it stands today, the broom has swept away the entire 16 Senators, Dino being the last, who tried to destabilise our democracy for their personal interest, jettisoning the interest of the electorate. On behalf of our great party the APC, I congratulate my brother and friend, Senator Smart Adeyemi, once again and we look forward toward working with you in this resolve by our dear President Muhammadu Buhari to take the nation to the ‘Next level’.”

Mr Oshiomhole puts a noble spin on the Melaye gang of 16 loss. He says that loss is tantamount to a moral sacrifice that fittingly consumed the defeated senator and his other cohorts. But moral sacrifice? Well, since Mr Oshiomhole has become very philosophical, could he please find the noblesse oblige to speak to last week’s desecration orchestrated by the Department of State Service (DSS) against the judiciary in the Omoyele Sowore case? Surely, the APC cannot afford to be silent on this grave issue or fail to be counted when it matters most.

During President Muhammadu Buhari’s first term, the DSS had invaded the legislature and caused widespread outrage. Now it has invaded the courts in a replication of its shocking contempt for Nigeria’s endangered democracy, and has dared anyone to carp at their power abuse. Would Mr Oshiomhole keep quiet, railing only against defeated political foes? Does he not see the more pressing danger, the larger picture?

Barometer

Until the National Assembly decides one way or the other what to do with President Muhammadu Buhari’s external loan request of about $30bn, there will continue to be episodic controversy over the propriety of borrowing such humongous amount in one fell swoop. Critics suggest that the 9th National Assembly seems pliant, at least less questioning than the Bukola Saraki/Yakubu Dogara-led 8th NASS.

They, therefore, fear that this parliament may be well disposed to the president’s long-standing loan request, but be intent on leaving the unpleasant questions surrounding the loan unanswered. Indeed, the 9th NASS has done little to dispel the notion that it seems more eagerly subservient to the executive arm, thus unwisely substituting oversight with cooperation. In any case, how the parliament handles this loan request will tell just how independent the legislature is, or even how mature and responsive it is to its constitutional responsibility.

It is not clear why President Buhari sees no viable alternative to the loan request, a request that was first put before NASS in 2016 as a 2016-2018 external borrowing plan. It was barely dignified with a consideration. Brusquely flung out, the borrowing plan came to grief as sensationally as it was initiated. The 8th NASS thought the executive should consider other means of funding infrastructure, and merely singled out two or three items out of the borrowing plan for approval. Much has obviously changed in the economy and in the country’s finances between November 2016 when the request was declined and now. It is significant that the borrowing plan has, however, been represented almost without alteration.

If approved, the loan would see Nigeria’s external debt ballooning from about $27bn to $57bn. As it is, the federal government’s component of the external loan stock is $22.8bn, while the states and FCT owe some $4.2bn. Added to a domestic debt stock of $57.7bn (FGN–$43.7bn; and states/FCT — $12.9bn), the approval, if given, would see total public debt shooting astronomically from about $83.8bn to $113.8bn. Ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo plotted Nigeria’s exit out of a debt trap in his first term, arguing that servicing the debt was suffocating the country. There were contending arguments in his day over whether exiting the Paris Club of Creditors was as beneficial as converting the money to building or renewing infrastructure, especially infrastructure that could generate catalysing economic activities. In the end, sentiments laced the argument, and in 2005 Nigeria received debt forgiveness for about $18bn after paying some $12bn.

It is unlikely that the Buhari presidency has considered the disturbing parallel between his loan request and the Obasanjo presidency’s costly and , in some views, questionable, exit from the debt burden his government contended with. By asking for such a huge loan, and potentially nudging the country’s debt burden to a dizzying height, President Buhari seems to be saying that Chief Obasanjo should not have asked for debt relief or exited the Paris Club of Creditors.

There is little to show that Chief Obasanjo made the better decision, but there is everything to show that he has a more realistic perception of the workings of the Nigerian economy than President Buhari. The present government has approached the economy with less savvy, first tilting the economy into recession, and then frittering away a lot of resources clawing the country out of the doldrums. It is feared that the fundamentals behind this new loan request is as simplistic as it is befuddling.

Economists have argued that what matters is whether the loan can be put to good use, or as the government itself puts it, whether “The ratio of Total Public Debt-to-GDP  is still below Nigeria’s self-imposed Debt Limit of Total Public Debt to GDP ratio, and far below the World Bank’s debt sustainability threshold of 56% for Nigeria and other peer countries, based on its Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) index ranking.” Indeed, some have suggested that the president’s anti-graft reputation might clinch the argument for a new loan.

But has the anti-graft war really amounted to anything beyond loot recovery? Many financial managers insist that nothing fundamental and scientific has been done both to prevent looting of public funds and ensuring efficiency in the management of the country’s resources. In addition they argue that very little is being done to modernise the economy and align its macroeconomic trajectory to benefit from an increasingly complex and interconnected global economy. The partial border closure is an example of a sudden and archaic policy measure deployed to fight complex and sophisticated supranational crimes.

By far more important is the sensible argument that, unable to come to terms with the complexities of the modern economy, President Buhari has avoided contemplating all the other options helpful in rebuilding infrastructure than simply indulging in bloated federal spending. This government is borrowing today to massage its glory and receive accolades while pushing the burden and responsibility to future generations. Indeed, according to the Debt Management office, total public debt as at Dec 2015 was $65.4 billion or N12.6 trillion. As at June 2019, public debt has risen to $83.8 billion or N25.7 trillion.

Debt has doubled in naira terms. It would be reckless to borrow more and risk an impossible debt service regimen. As many developed economies are showing, it is not enough to think for today, it is also important to think for tomorrow, to think for future generations by anticipating the issues they will grapple with and proactively precluding the complications that might encumber them, make life and living unbearable, and make them less competitive. By asking for $30bn, President Buhari has not pondered nor answered what the consequences would be for future generations.

President Buhari’s request was first presented in 2016 and rejected by the 8th NASS. There is no foundation for bringing it up again. Not only is it not hinted in the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), the government has provided no clue how it hopes to harmonise the new loan, if approved, with the 2020 budget, since the loan is even higher than the entire budget. Already the budget contains a deficit of about N2.8trn that will not be serviced from the proposed borrowing plan presented before the 9th NASS.

The budget also contains a debt service outlay of over N2.45trn in excess of the proposed capital spending of about N2.14trn. And with external loans expected to be serviced through first-line charge, there is no argument about which obligation comes first. Capital spending will, therefore, depend on available funds, as actual fund releases have sadly proved over the years, and only after recurrent expenditure of about N4.8trn has been settled. The economics of the new loan, not to say the fatal willingness to embrace higher debt service burden, is puzzling.

It is time the federal government restructured the country, as offensive as the word might be to them, lighten the burden on the head of the federal government, devolve power and responsibility to states, and recognise that rather than throwing money at the country’s infrastructural deficit, it is more important to scientifically design structures and policies that would free the country’s developmental potential.

The 9th NASS may be complicit in many things, and be even pliant and ingratiating, it however owes Nigerians this once to at least look closely at the president’s loan request and convince itself that giving the approval would not place an intolerable burden on coming generations in the name of bridging infrastructural deficit. The 9th NASS has so far not given the country confidence to hope that it can work and think at the same time; it must find the boldness to dispel the misgivings many Nigerians have about their competence, independence and rationality. They should have the courage to tell the president to look for better and more lasting solutions to the country’s problem than going a-borrowing.

• ADEKUNLE ADE-ADELEYE

Barometer

In September, as the piece above indicates, the Police Service Commission (PSC) took the police, Inspector General of Police (IGP), Police Affairs minister, and the Attorney General of the Federation and Justice minister to court to help determine which organ of the constitution had the final say in the ‘appointment’ of policemen. It followed a protracted dispute between the police and the PSC, a struggle that began during the Olusegun Obasanjo presidency and has still not been resolved even now.

But mid-way through the determination of the suit, the IGP forswore the existing co-operation between the police and the PSC and simply concluded the recruitment process by ordering the 10,000 constables being processed for employment to assume duty. In the piece above, Barometer captured the fight between the two organs and denounced the deliberate and prejudicial action of the IGP in presenting Nigeria a fait accompli.

During the week, incredibly, the attorney general filed a counter-affidavit to the PSC suit and, among other things, asked the court not to heed the PSC request to void the recruitment of 10,000 constables because so much had gone into it and too much money would be lost. Really? Was it not clear at the beginning that so much money would be lost if the needless police fait accompli was reversed? Did the IGP, as a law officer, not know the implications, both financial and legal, of acting contemptuously by concluding the recruitment process when its propriety was still being questioned in the courts? The IGP brushed aside the PSC’s reservations and acted unilaterally; now the AGF is asking the court to mind the money that would be lost if the peremptorily concluded recruitment process was voided.

One of the reasons the PSC opposed the conclusion of the recruitment exercise was the refusal of the police authorities to tabulate the appointments state-by-state. Doing so would have given Nigerians a sense of the recruitment process’ fairness and inclusiveness. If the courts associate with the arguments of the AGF and refuse to take a very strong view of the IGP’s contemptuous behaviour, it would be difficult to weigh the fairness and fidelity of the recruitment exercise. Worse, it would also rubbish the courts and further reinforce the ongoing subversion of the rule of law in Nigeria. Whether money would be lost or not, it is important to let public officials know that they cannot defy the law and whimsically present the public a fait accompli.

It is all too clear that top government officials connived at the IGP’s action, brazenly, defiantly, and contemptuously of public feelings. The AGF argued that by his own interpretation the IGP acted constitutionally. But he is not a court. Obviously he and the police authorities, not to say many other shadowy characters in government, have acted conspiratorially to defy the courts and put the nose of the PSC out of joint. If they had nothing to hide, and no agenda or ulterior motives to foster, it would have cost them nothing to wait a few weeks for the courts to determine the order of precedence between the police and PSC. This is truly sickening, and the IGP, AGF and others involved in this desecration of the law all know it. The courts should not indulge them by refusing to void the recruitment; no, not by a mile.

Barometer

Weeks of unbridled struggle between the Police Service Commission (PSC) and the Nigeria Police deteriorated further in September when a court was invited to mediate between the two constitutional bodies controlled by the federal government. The PSC and the police had sparred over which of the two organisations had the final say on the recruitment of 10,000 constables.

Before the dispute was taken to a Federal High Court in Abuja for resolution, the government had had the opportunity to settle the long-standing tussle for supremacy in the recruitment of policemen. That tussle is as old as the Fourth Republic. Filed in late September, the case was still being heard when the police authorities released the approved list of recruits despite a court order ordering stay of action on the recruitment process.

The recruitment process did not suffer hiccups until a dispute arose between the police and the PSC over the compilation of shortlisted constables, particularly on a state-by-state basis.  According to the PSC, when the misunderstanding seemed intractable, the police simply unilaterally took over the final stages of the recruitment and published the list despite court order. Police authorities insisted that the order was not served on the Inspector General of Police, Mohammed Adamu. Whether he evaded service or not is not proved. But it is clear that the police had already taken an inflexible  position on the matter, believing that the fuss over the recruitment process was both unnecessary and misplaced. The police seemed to think that presenting a fait accompli to the PSC and the nation amounted to no misjudgement on their part.

This is, however, indefensible. Without prejudice to which of the two bodies must have misinterpreted its constitutional role, it was necessary for them to gather at a table to finally and sensibly resolve a logjam that has lasted for as long as the Fourth Republic. Four attorneys general, including the current Justice minister, had waded into the dispute under different IGPs and PSCs. No solution had been found before the latest flare-up. But this is the first time a party to the dispute has approached a court to interpret the constitution. Hopefully, despite the fait accompli presented by the police, a solution can still be found to the dispute, a solution that would be acceptable once and for all.

Sadly, however, it is disappointing that four presidencies could not find a solution to the constant disagreement over the constitutional roles of the police and the PSC in the recruitment, appointment and promotion of police personnel. The dispute should not have lasted for so long, even if it had to be the presidency that would approach the courts for interpretation. It is unhealthy to make the combatants adopt the attitude of letting the chips fall where they may. Both the IGP and the PSC were appointed or constituted by the presidency. It is unlikely they could go on defying their employers if the attempt at resolution was meaningful, urgent and comprehensive. It is deeply unsettling to let the dispute simmer for so long, let alone deteriorate into litigation.

The presidency must be wary of a situation where the police, by their actions, make the PSC irrelevant or toothless. By publishing the shortlist before either the courts or the presidency had the chance to find a constitutional solution to the rift seems both unhealthy and a ploy to complicate the misunderstanding. The list has been published and new recruits threatened with forfeiture of their appointment should they fail to present for training. But if the courts should give judgement in favour of the PSC, what would become of the recruits who have already shown up for training? The government should have reflected on this conundrum before folding their arms as the police and PSC battle for supremacy.

• First published November 3, 2019

It probably came to Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu in an epiphany that titles have significant spiritual connotations capable of sustaining or marring the future and reputation of a title holder. Last Wednesday, he announced that henceforth, he would want to be addressed as Mr Governor rather than Your Excellency. Scoffers may argue that titles mean nothing in the face of a governor who has seemed slow in addressing the problem of bad roads, whether they are federal or state, and other challenges of governance. As far as they are concerned, the governor should simply ‘perform’ regardless of how he chooses to be addressed. But some other commentators urge a rational understanding of the merits of the case the governor has made.

Was this epiphanic digression meant as a red herring? For a governor who has chosen not to use siren as he drives around Lagos, it may be uncharitable to conclude that Mr Sanwo-Olu (is it really Sanwo-Olu or Sanwoolu?) is merely creating a distraction from the mountain of problems that assail his government. It seems genuine, given his rationalisation, that he is idiosyncratically opposed to exalted and highfalutin titles. He appears, in particular, genuinely discomfited by the title of Your Excellency. Whether his detractors think he has done enough in his five months in office or not, the governor is at liberty to set any philosophical tone for his government even in matters that appear secondary and seemingly inconsequential. Has it cost the state and taxpayers some money? No. Well, then, let him have his way.

Here is his argument rendered convincingly at length: “It has come to my consciousness to review certain features of citizen-government relations which impede the genuine expression of the democratic spirit of our society and the meaningful exercise of the sovereignty of our people. The Office of the Governor has been celebrated as the paragon of excellence, a temple of perfection and a throne of purity. This demi-god mystique spreads over the entire machinery of the executive arm of government, symbolising an authoritarian disposition on the governed. It has deformed the orientation of elected and appointed persons who are paid from the taxes of the people to see themselves as oppressors who can do no wrong and must be served, rather than serve the people. Only God, the Almighty, the Creator, the Protector is the Most Excellent. No man can share His eternal qualities. Thenceforth, I wish to be addressed simply as Mr Governor, a title that will constantly remind me that I have been chosen out of so many fellow compatriots to lead a collective salvage of our political economy. To give official effect to this announcement, I shall issue tomorrow an executive order that will formally ensure full compliance with this new policy.”

There are indications, in the case he has made for both simplicity and the bridging of the chasm that separates the government and the governed, that Mr Sanwo-Olu is a convinced democrat who wishes to narrow the ever-widening gulf between the government and the people. There are also indications that he is gradually coming to his own, reassuring himself who he is in government, evaluating the misgivings he has about the governance culture he seeks to deodorise, and determining how he wishes to position himself and be remembered, not only in terms of infrastructural legacy but more importantly also in respect of the intangibles of governance. Most leaders ignore the intangibles, that is why their legacies do not endure. If Mr Sanwo-Olu has chosen to set what looks like a philosophical cum spiritual undertone for his government, he must be encouraged to solidify the process and make it permeate his entire governorship.

Is there any doubt about the existence of a chasm between the government and the governed in Nigeria, with the former feeling and acting as viceroys and deputy God, and the latter helplessly submitting themselves as indentured servants to feudal lords? There is no doubt whatsoever. And is there any wrong, therefore, in acting purposefully to bridge a yawning gap every Nigerian knows to exist? Again, there is no wrong. Mr Sanwo-Olu’s observations and conclusions about the metaphysics of governance are unimpeachable. He is right, and he is setting the right tone. What remains is to encourage him to go the whole hog by setting a deep and sound democratic culture for Lagos State, quite unlike the feudalism that is inundating most other states and particularly the federal government. The Lagos governor must brace up to be tested in the months ahead, and he will have to determine whether he would retain his simplicity in the face of glaring provocations or become a teflon governor unable to match words with action. Tests will come; and he will find out whether he to eat his words, fall on his sword, or gradually rise in the esteem of his countrymen as a formidable character.

Perhaps he should be given the benefit of the doubt. It should be assumed that the governor will stand pat in the face of provocations. But it is even more important for him to, in line with the new metaphysics of governance he is trying to project, begin to take steps to take ownership of his government in the face of unscrupulous law enforcement agents derogating and polluting governance in Lagos. For instance, it was shocking that four policemen accused of extrajudicial murder of two suspected phone thieves were last month exonerated by the state’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Babajide Martins. The state recanted only when public outrage overwhelmed the case. Such missteps that encourage impunity and rights abuses of all kinds should never occur in Lagos. Mr Sanwo-Olu must set the ethical and cultural tones for law enforcement in Lagos and summon the discipline and courage to enforce them. Too much perversion is authored by security and law enforcement agents in Nigeria. The governor should rein it in Lagos State considered rick picking for security agents. He should also probe the exoneration of the four policemen. It was suspicious and insensitive.

In line with Mr Sanwo-Olu’s thinking and understanding of democracy and the philosophy of governance, he must also set a benchmark for the enforcement of the rights of Lagosians against invasions orchestrated by feudal governors from other states. Alleging social media infractions and other sundry crimes that border on free speech, some governors and police commissioners from other states have invaded Lagos and arrested suspects. That is outrageous. Mr Sanwo-Olu should in line with his thinking set the bar very high to make such invasions permissible only under civilised and strictly legal bounds. If a Lagosian commits a free speech or even libel infraction against anyone from any other state, be they governors or individuals, it is important that a hearing must first be conducted in Lagos before arrests are carried out civilly, lawfully and according to the pace-setting standards enunciated by the state. The governor should insist on this standard despite the constricted boundaries of the malformed federalism allowed by Nigeria’s unitary lords.

Mr Sanwo-Olu is encouraged to intensify his efforts to narrow the divide between the government and the governed, and to scrupulously pursue and consolidate his infrastructural and democratic agenda. He will be criticised or even mocked along the deplorable considerations of ‘stomach infrastructure’. Let him stay the course in executing what he earnestly believes in. The future is his to make. Let him also remember that the country has produced hundreds of governors, and that among them only a few are today remembered, honoured, or celebrated. Let him remember that even his predecessor, Akinwunmi Ambode, despite building bridges, lost the affection of his people because of a poor understanding of the intangibles of government and power. The re-designated Mr Governor is laying the philosophical basis of his government; shortly after, it will be time to commit himself to the arduous task of rebuilding Lagos and setting it on an enviable course for the future.