The Nation Newspaper

Category: Dapo Fafowora

  • On Nigeria’s foreign policy constraints

    On Nigeria’s foreign policy constraints

    In an article titled ‘Still on Foreign Policy’, in his column in The Nation on Saturday, March 18, Mr. Segun Ayobolu, a gifted writer and columnist, argued very passionately for what he called ‘greater coherence, focus and vibrancy’ in Nigeria’s foreign policy. He recalled a previous article in the same paper by him in April of last year in which he characterised President Buhari’s foreign policy as ‘too tepid, tentative and unimaginative’. This time, and more explicitly, he complained that President Buhari has, since coming to power two years ago, assumed a central role in our foreign policy which involves him travelling abroad too frequently. He considers this unnecessary and argues that the president should now allow his Foreign Minister, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama, a man with a very impressive educational background, obtaining university degrees from Columbia, Harvard and Cambridge, to take over fully the running of our foreign policy. As he says  more directly, ‘It is the responsibility of his foreign minister to come up with innovative ideas and initiatives to help actualise the foreign policy vision of the president’ which, according to him, should be the promotion of ‘the highest standards of integrity and governance in Africa’.

    It is not difficult to understand the frustration that Mr. Ayobolu feels about the direction, or seeming lack of it, of Nigeria’s foreign policy. It is a view widely shared by the Nigerian foreign policy community and, possibly, the wider public, both of which want Nigeria, with its huge population and natural resources, to pursue a more dynamic foreign policy, and play a more influential role in African and world affairs. A dynamic foreign policy could even provide a useful diversion from our failures at home. In his article under reference he recalls with some nostalgia and pride Nigeria’s prominent role in the heroic struggle against apartheid South Africa and the liberation of Southern Africa from colonial rule, both of which objectives have since been achieved. With Nigerian immigrants now being violently attacked in South Africa, some critics will argue that the rewards of such a vigorous policy in Southern Africa are not so apparent now. I do not share this view as I believe that Nigeria’s active support for the decolonisation of Southern Africa was in our long term national interests.

    But the international situation and Nigeria’s domestic setting then were vastly different from what they are now. There is a time and season for everything, including foreign policy. Nigeria was not then under such intense domestic tension and internal divisions as is the case now. Our economic situation was far better then. The economy was strong and growing steadily. We were not in a recession then. Even then, Nigeria’s possible influence in world and African affairs is really condign. It remains largely a potential achievable in future after Nigeria has sorted out its huge domestic problems.

    To justify his call for a more ‘vibrant’ Nigerian foreign policy Mr. Ayobolu refers in his article to Professor Bolaji Akinyemi’s prominent role in foreign policy when he served as Babangida’s Foreign Minister. In this regard he mentioned Professor Bolaji Akinyemi’s initiatives on the Technical Aid Corps, the idea of the Concert of Medium Powers, and his advocacy of the ‘black bomb’. These were undoubtedly great ideas and bold initiatives which I have had the privilege and opportunity of discussing with Professor Bolaji Akinyemi several times. Of the three bold foreign policy initiatives he took when he was Foreign Minister, only that of the Technical Aid Corps came to fruition. And the future of this is by no means certain given our current grave economic challenges. The two other ideas he promoted did not quite take off largely for lack of official support from his own government. The Babangida military government was far more preoccupied with domestic affairs and its own survival in power. The idea of the Concert of Medium Powers also failed to materialise largely because of lack of interest and support from the states that were to have formed the group. Many of the prospective members thought it to be a duplication of the Non-Aligned Movement, now virtually dead. In the case of his advocacy of a ‘black bomb’ the idea, coming from a country with a huge power deficit, was obviously premature and impractical. Much more importantly, even the Babangida military government did not give these two bright ideas much support. For all his imaginative and bold initiatives in foreign policy Professor Bolaji Akinyemi was removed as Foreign Minister after barely two years in office. As Foreign Minister Professor Bolaji Akinyemi would have done much better in a well structured, stable, and western prosperous country. His ideas were obviously considered too big and ambitious for Nigeria. I have to refer to the similarly bold ideas of two former Foreign Ministers; General Ike Nwachuku’s ‘economic diplomacy’, and Mr. Ojo Madueke’s ‘citizens’ diplomacy’, both of which equally failed dismally for lack of domestic support and financial resources.

    Now, on the issue of President Buhari’s alleged frequent foreign travels abroad, this was only in the early years of his administration. He has travelled abroad far less than President Obasanjo who spent the first six months of his tenure virtually abroad, or even President Jonathan. And it was President Obasanjo’s frequent foreign travels and personal diplomacy that achieved for Nigeria the huge debt relief from its international creditors. It is common practice that new heads of state, on assuming office, want to travel abroad to get acquainted with their foreign counterparts and  come to grips with the nuances of very complex international issues in diplomacy. Recently, President Buhari has not been attending some of these international summits for health reasons. Besides, he does not seem to me to be unduly interested in foreign affairs, preferring instead to focus his attention on Nigeria’s critical domestic problems where he may make a difference from past governments. In fact, an aggressive or ‘vibrant’ foreign policy by Nigeria is not possible right now because of Nigeria’s grave political and economic challenges which have to be resolved first. Mr. Ayobolu admits this when he wrote in his article that ‘Nigeria lacks a viable economic base to sustain a vibrant foreign policy’.

    In any case the era of powerful and influential Foreign Ministers such as Andrei Gromyko (Soviet Union) who was Foreign Minister for over 40 years, or Dr. Henry Kissinger (USA), or even Anthony Eden (UK) has gone for good as a result of the emergence of new global powers and centres. In addition governments everywhere are becoming increasingly centralised with presidents and heads of state assuming more and more powers, even preferring to run their foreign policies and diplomacy. The new age of rising international summits and multilateral diplomacy also compel presidents and heads of state to travel more frequently abroad and be more visible. Even in Britain the prime ministerial style of government is looking more and more presidential. Many people do not even know who the British Foreign Secretary is. Boris Johnson (UK) cannot wield the kind of influence that his predecessors as Foreign Secretaries did.

    Mr. Ayobolu also suggested in his article that Nigeria should take the lead in ‘promoting democracy and good governance in Africa’. But we must lead by example and he will be the first to admit that Nigeria’s credentials in these two areas are extremely weak. Our democratic institutions remain very fragile while, internationally, we are not known for good governance. With insurgences and ethnic tensions everywhere even the future of the country is by no means certain. Even in Africa there are at least a score of states that are more democratic and better governed than Nigeria. How can we then seek to promote abroad what we do not have at home? No one in Africa will be disposed to treat such an initiative from Nigeria seriously. It was President Obasanjo and President Thambo Mbeki of South Africa who, with the inspiration and support of Tony Blair, the British Labour Prime Minister,  took the lead in getting African states to accept and endorse NEPAD and APRM, two projects on good governance intended to address Africa’s grave political and economic challenges. But nothing has really come out of these two bold initiatives. The commitment of African states to these two great ideas has weakened considerably because of internal problems that its two leading proponents, Nigeria and South Africa, are now facing. In fact, President Thabo Mbeki lost power because of his focus on foreign affairs and his consequent neglect of South Africa’s grave economic problems, particularly his dismal failure to create jobs for the teeming and unemployed black South Africans.

    Even as an Oxford graduate and a former President of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Club in Nigeria myself, I have not met Mr. Onyeama personally. I am impressed by his academic qualifications. But I think he is a ‘realist’, not a ‘theorist’ and that he understands fully the limitations and constraints on Nigeria’s foreign policy. In a paper that a team of foreign policy advisers of which I was a member submitted to President Buhari’s transition team in 2015 after the presidential election, we advised him to pay more attention to our critical domestic issues than on foreign policy issues. I think he has heeded this advice. The only area in which we advised possible new initiatives was the need for Nigeria to forge new links with such regional powers as China, India and Brazil, all of which have something to offer Nigeria in terms of economic cooperation and in technology.

    That remains my personal view and I think Mr. Onyeama is right in not taking any serious foreign policy initiatives now. As is well known the Foreign Service itself is facing very severe financial constraints. It is not being well funded. Both the Ministry and our foreign missions are desperately in need of more funds. The senior diplomatic staff is demoralised and needs to be encouraged regarding their future career prospects. Rather than engaging himself in an unnecessary vibrant diplomatic foray in foreign policy that offers little or no reward, the focus of the Foreign Minister should be more on the much needed funding and restructuring of the Foreign Service. After all, no matter the merit of a foreign policy initiative or idea, it can only be effectively promoted by a dedicated, efficient and committed Foreign Service.

  • Xenophobic attacks in South Africa

    Xenophobic attacks in South Africa

    South Africa has been very much in the global news in recent weeks, but  for the wrong reason. It was because of the massive xenophobic attacks in some key urban areas of the country by black South Africans on African immigrants from Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Ethiopia, Somalia and some other African countries. Shops and businesses owned by  immigrants from these countries were attacked and willfully destroyed by hordes of black South Africans, wielding guns, machetes and other dangerous weapons.  Scores of fatalities were recorded in these wanton, premeditated and barbaric attacks, casting a slur on South Africa’s claim to be a ‘rainbow’ country in which all races and tribes live peacefully together and in harmony. This new wave of xenophobic attacks was perhaps the worst in the long history of attacks on African immigrants by black South Africans. And because of rising tensions it is not likely to end soon.

    These attacks, though more vicious, were really not new. Even before the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa in 1997 and the assumption of power by Nelson Mandela there had been reports of attacks by black South Africans on African immigrants in the country. They have since continued almost with unabated fury and vigour, each succeeding attacks being more vicious than previous ones. Between 2000 and 2007 over 100 fatalities were recorded from these attacks. In 2008 alone 62 deaths were recorded. In 2015 another round of attacks with scores of casualties led the governments of Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia, South Africa’s neighbours, to withdraw their beleaguered citizens from South Africa. The bloody attacks strained South Africa’s relations with its African neighbours and weakened SADDC, the Southern African economic community organisation.

    Global response to the new wave of attacks was swift and strong with many foreign governments and international labour and human rights organisations condemning it as a violation of the declarations of the United Nations on the rights of migrant workers to protection in their host countries. Nigeria also expressed deep concerns over the attacks which appeared to centre mainly on Nigerian immigrants, their families and businesses. The South African High Commissioner in Nigeria, Mr. Nguni, was immediately summoned to the Foreign Ministry in Abuja where Nigeria officially made very strong representations over the attacks on Nigerians in South Africa. He was told that Nigerians living lawfully and peacefully in South Africa had a right to the protection of the South African government and that such xenophobic attack on immigrants could no longer be tolerated or accepted. Shehu Sani, the vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs visited the South African High Commissioner and conveyed to him in very strong terms the concerns of the Federal Government over these attacks from a country that Nigeria considered friendly. An official delegation from the House of Representatives, led by Mr. Gbajabiamila, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Relations, decided to go to South Africa to assess the situation there. The visit is unlikely to be of any effect. A few days later some demonstrators attempted to break into the South African owned MTN, the giant telecommunications company in Nigeria, but were driven back by the Nigerian security forces. There were a few minor protests and demonstrations in Lagos and other major cities in Nigeria over the xenophobic attacks. Despite the justified anger in Nigeria, we must discourage retaliatory action, threatened by Mr. Gbajabiamila, as it does not serve our economic interests.

    The South African government does not yet have a handle on the problem. In 2007, when a similar xenophobic attack on black immigrants occurred in South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, then the South African president, dismissed media reports of the attacks as ‘exaggerated and false news.’ That was an open invitation to future attacks. But this time virtually all South African leaders, including President Jacob Zuma, denounced the attacks as shameful and disgraceful. Shoprite, the South African owned retailing business in Nigeria with many super markets, also denounced the attacks as deplorable. It has to be admitted that this time the South African security forces, though overstretched, acted swiftly to bring the attacks under immediate control. Several arrests of the perpetrators were made and many are being taken to the courts for trial. In the past the South African Police had secured some convictions of those involved in the attacks on immigrants.

    What are the causes of these bloody attacks by black South Africans on black immigrants in South Africa? The attackers complain about African immigrants taking jobs away from black South Africans. It was also claimed that some of the immigrants were bringing drugs and prostitution into South Africa. Post-apartheid South Africa has not been able to fully confront the challenges of job creation for the teeming blacks in South Africa. Political freedom and the fight against racism may have been won, but this has not led to the creation of jobs fast enough for the blacks in South Africa who remain largely marginalised in the domestic economy. Currently, there is rising anger and tension over this, as well as the pervasive corruption in South Africa’s public and private institutions. This competition for jobs in South Africa has no doubt contributed to the xenophobia against African immigrants in the country.

    But the fact of the matter is that African immigrants constitute only four per cent of the total work force in South Africa. Most black immigrants do not enter the South African public service. They are to be found mainly running retail businesses where they employ thousands of black South Africans. In fact, as is usually the case, an investigative commission by the South African government into the economic activities of black immigrants in South Africa reported that they contribute a lot more to the South African economy than they draw in terms of the provision of social services. But this is not all that apparent to the black South Africans who readily find scapegoats in black immigrants from other African countries. Obviously, these black South Africans attacking black immigrants are ignorant and misguided.

    In 1982, or thereabouts, we in Nigeria also made the same mistake when we expelled thousands of ECOWAS citizens from Nigeria with the excuse that they were putting pressure on social services and on the domestic economy. At the time I was serving as Ambassador at the United Nations in New York. I found it disturbing. I knew we had made a terrible mistake and that it had badly damaged Nigeria’s international image almost beyond repairs. It took us years to live down that image. Right now the ECOWAS workers we expelled are back fully in Nigeria and are making positive contribution to our country in all spheres. So, while we have every right to be angry with South Africa over these attacks, we should also treat it as a learning curve for South Africa.

    South Africa, with its long coastline, alluring beaches, affable weather and striking mountain ranges, is a very beautiful country, in which comparatively better economic opportunities appear to abound for African immigrants, particularly from its black neighbours. But all that glitters is not gold. It has always been a violent and bloody country. Even long before the adventure and entry of the Dutch into the territory in the 15th century the blacks, in a wave of massive migration towards the Cape Colony, were already competing for land and massacring one another in a violent and no holds barred competition for land, in what became known as South Africa. The arrival of the British and the Boers intensified the struggle over land among the blacks and whites leading to many bloody wars in the country. In fact, apartheid was initially constructed to prevent the blacks encroaching and seizing land from the whites. It was much later on that it was erected into an obnoxious political, religious and social dogma. This is the terrible legacy inherited by post-apartheid South Africa. Throughout the long struggle against racism and the apartheid system in South Africa the black South Africans  inflicted more fatalities on themselves than they did on the whites. Even today more blacks get killed by blacks than whites. South Africa is one of the most violent countries in the world. It is this terrible bloody legacy that is currently being reflected in the wave of xenophobic attacks on black immigrants by black South Africans.

    What is to be done? In the case of Nigerians, both the Nigerian and South African governments should work together to resolve this nasty problem. This can be done under the aegis of the Nigeria-South Africa Bilateral National Commission that needs to be re-activated urgently. The framework for a settlement should include the right of documented immigrants to the protection of the South African security forces. Those not documented should either regularise their stay, or leave the country. They should be repatriated by our Federal Government as is being done with some Nigerian immigrants in Libya. The Nigerian government should also enlighten would-be Nigerian emigrants about the risks of leaving their own country for foreign lands where they cannot count on the protection of the host governments. But we must also create in our country the economic and social conditions that will make emigration by our people to other countries in search of economic opportunities less attractive.

    It is with some pain that I write this. In my career in the Nigerian diplomatic service I was involved both at home and abroad in the struggle against apartheid South Africa. My professional colleagues and I were totally committed to the struggle. I had hoped that Nigeria and post apartheid South Africa, the two largest economies in sub-Saharan Africa, would work closely together to lift the continent up. We must not let these unfortunate and regrettable attacks on Nigerians by black South Africans destroy this positive prospect. Strategic cooperation between Nigeria and South Africa is in our mutual interests and the collective interest of Africa.

  • Xenophobic attacks in South Africa

    South Africa has been very much in the global news in recent weeks, but  for the wrong reason. It was because of the massive xenophobic attacks in some key urban areas of the country by black South Africans on African immigrants from Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Ethiopia, Somalia and some other African countries. Shops and businesses owned by  immigrants from these countries were attacked and willfully destroyed by hordes of black South Africans, wielding guns, machetes and other dangerous weapons.  Scores of fatalities were recorded in these wanton, premeditated and barbaric attacks, casting a slur on South Africa’s claim to be a ‘rainbow’ country in which all races and tribes live peacefully together and in harmony. This new wave of xenophobic attacks was perhaps the worst in the long history of attacks on African immigrants by black South Africans. And because of rising tensions it is not likely to end soon.

    These attacks, though more vicious, were really not new. Even before the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa in 1997 and the assumption of power by Nelson Mandela there had been reports of attacks by black South Africans on African immigrants in the country. They have since continued almost with unabated fury and vigour, each succeeding attacks being more vicious than previous ones. Between 2000 and 2007 over 100 fatalities were recorded from these attacks. In 2008 alone 62 deaths were recorded. In 2015 another round of attacks with scores of casualties led the governments of Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia, South Africa’s neighbours, to withdraw their beleaguered citizens from South Africa. The bloody attacks strained South Africa’s relations with its African neighbours and weakened SADDC, the Southern African economic community organisation.

    Global response to the new wave of attacks was swift and strong with many foreign governments and international labour and human rights organisations condemning it as a violation of the declarations of the United Nations on the rights of migrant workers to protection in their host countries. Nigeria also expressed deep concerns over the attacks which appeared to centre mainly on Nigerian immigrants, their families and businesses. The South African High Commissioner in Nigeria, Mr. Nguni, was immediately summoned to the Foreign Ministry in Abuja where Nigeria officially made very strong representations over the attacks on Nigerians in South Africa. He was told that Nigerians living lawfully and peacefully in South Africa had a right to the protection of the South African government and that such xenophobic attack on immigrants could no longer be tolerated or accepted. Shehu Sani, the vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs visited the South African High Commissioner and conveyed to him in very strong terms the concerns of the Federal Government over these attacks from a country that Nigeria considered friendly. An official delegation from the House of Representatives, led by Mr. Gbajabiamila, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Relations, decided to go to South Africa to assess the situation there. The visit is unlikely to be of any effect. A few days later some demonstrators attempted to break into the South African owned MTN, the giant telecommunications company in Nigeria, but were driven back by the Nigerian security forces. There were a few minor protests and demonstrations in Lagos and other major cities in Nigeria over the xenophobic attacks. Despite the justified anger in Nigeria, we must discourage retaliatory action, threatened by Mr. Gbajabiamila, as it does not serve our economic interests.

    The South African government does not yet have a handle on the problem. In 2007, when a similar xenophobic attack on black immigrants occurred in South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, then the South African president, dismissed media reports of the attacks as ‘exaggerated and false news.’ That was an open invitation to future attacks. But this time virtually all South African leaders, including President Jacob Zuma, denounced the attacks as shameful and disgraceful. Shoprite, the South African owned retailing business in Nigeria with many super markets, also denounced the attacks as deplorable. It has to be admitted that this time the South African security forces, though overstretched, acted swiftly to bring the attacks under immediate control. Several arrests of the perpetrators were made and many are being taken to the courts for trial. In the past the South African Police had secured some convictions of those involved in the attacks on immigrants.

    What are the causes of these bloody attacks by black South Africans on black immigrants in South Africa? The attackers complain about African immigrants taking jobs away from black South Africans. It was also claimed that some of the immigrants were bringing drugs and prostitution into South Africa. Post-apartheid South Africa has not been able to fully confront the challenges of job creation for the teeming blacks in South Africa. Political freedom and the fight against racism may have been won, but this has not led to the creation of jobs fast enough for the blacks in South Africa who remain largely marginalised in the domestic economy. Currently, there is rising anger and tension over this, as well as the pervasive corruption in South Africa’s public and private institutions. This competition for jobs in South Africa has no doubt contributed to the xenophobia against African immigrants in the country.

    But the fact of the matter is that African immigrants constitute only four per cent of the total work force in South Africa. Most black immigrants do not enter the South African public service. They are to be found mainly running retail businesses where they employ thousands of black South Africans. In fact, as is usually the case, an investigative commission by the South African government into the economic activities of black immigrants in South Africa reported that they contribute a lot more to the South African economy than they draw in terms of the provision of social services. But this is not all that apparent to the black South Africans who readily find scapegoats in black immigrants from other African countries. Obviously, these black South Africans attacking black immigrants are ignorant and misguided.

    In 1982, or thereabouts, we in Nigeria also made the same mistake when we expelled thousands of ECOWAS citizens from Nigeria with the excuse that they were putting pressure on social services and on the domestic economy. At the time I was serving as Ambassador at the United Nations in New York. I found it disturbing. I knew we had made a terrible mistake and that it had badly damaged Nigeria’s international image almost beyond repairs. It took us years to live down that image. Right now the ECOWAS workers we expelled are back fully in Nigeria and are making positive contribution to our country in all spheres. So, while we have every right to be angry with South Africa over these attacks, we should also treat it as a learning curve for South Africa.

    South Africa, with its long coastline, alluring beaches, affable weather and striking mountain ranges, is a very beautiful country, in which comparatively better economic opportunities appear to abound for African immigrants, particularly from its black neighbours. But all that glitters is not gold. It has always been a violent and bloody country. Even long before the adventure and entry of the Dutch into the territory in the 15th century the blacks, in a wave of massive migration towards the Cape Colony, were already competing for land and massacring one another in a violent and no holds barred competition for land, in what became known as South Africa. The arrival of the British and the Boers intensified the struggle over land among the blacks and whites leading to many bloody wars in the country. In fact, apartheid was initially constructed to prevent the blacks encroaching and seizing land from the whites. It was much later on that it was erected into an obnoxious political, religious and social dogma. This is the terrible legacy inherited by post-apartheid South Africa. Throughout the long struggle against racism and the apartheid system in South Africa the black South Africans  inflicted more fatalities on themselves than they did on the whites. Even today more blacks get killed by blacks than whites. South Africa is one of the most violent countries in the world. It is this terrible bloody legacy that is currently being reflected in the wave of xenophobic attacks on black immigrants by black South Africans.

    What is to be done? In the case of Nigerians, both the Nigerian and South African governments should work together to resolve this nasty problem. This can be done under the aegis of the Nigeria-South Africa Bilateral National Commission that needs to be re-activated urgently. The framework for a settlement should include the right of documented immigrants to the protection of the South African security forces. Those not documented should either regularise their stay, or leave the country. They should be repatriated by our Federal Government as is being done with some Nigerian immigrants in Libya. The Nigerian government should also enlighten would-be Nigerian emigrants about the risks of leaving their own country for foreign lands where they cannot count on the protection of the host governments. But we must also create in our country the economic and social conditions that will make emigration by our people to other countries in search of economic opportunities less attractive.

    It is with some pain that I write this. In my career in the Nigerian diplomatic service I was involved both at home and abroad in the struggle against apartheid South Africa. My professional colleagues and I were totally committed to the struggle. I had hoped that Nigeria and post apartheid South Africa, the two largest economies in sub-Saharan Africa, would work closely together to lift the continent up. We must not let these unfortunate and regrettable attacks on Nigerians by black South Africans destroy this positive prospect. Strategic cooperation between Nigeria and South Africa is in our mutual interests and the collective interest of Africa.

  • Health Matters

    Health Matters

    I had not planned to write about Nigeria’s poor health status, clearly evident in my column this week. But last week there was a mild protest in Lagos by health care workers to call the nation’s attention to the deplorable state of health care delivery system in Nigeria and the appalling conditions of health care workers. Then there were one or two articles in the media warning about the deteriorating situation of health care in our country. Shortly after that I received an alarming tweet that Nigeria ranked 187 of 190 nations whose health status was surveyed in 2000 by the World Health Organization (WHO). I found this shocking and disturbing. I had no idea that health care in our country was that bad. Of the African countries on which the survey was carried out, only the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR) ranked below Nigeria in terms of health care, with Myanmar bringing up the rear.

    Even though I was fully aware of the appalling state of Nigeria’s health care delivery system and its deterioration in recent years, I still found the alarming report attributed to the WHO incredible. I decided I would google the WHO report myself. What I found out about the global health ranking of Nigeria was even more disturbing. The WHO report for 2014 showed that of the 200 countries surveyed, Nigeria ranked 197 in health care delivery. Again, only the DCR the CAR and Myanmar still ranked below Nigeria. All other African countries on which the WHO carried out a medical survey in 2014 ranked above Nigeria. Absolutely shocking.

    Here are some of the randomly selected incredible WHO rankings for African states in health care: Morocco, the African leader (29), Senegal (59), Libya (87), Benin Republic (97), Burkina Faso (132), Ghana (135), Cote d’Ivoire (137), Burundi (143), Uganda (149), Zimbabwe (155), Cameroon (164), Rwanda (172), Chad (178), Somalia (179) and Ethiopia (180). All those countries, including war- torn Sudan (134) and Somalia (the failed state), ranked incredibly above our own country, Nigeria. How come Nigeria, an oil producing country, touted as the largest economy in Africa, ranked so low in WHO’s ranking of global health care? All our relatively poorer West African neighbours, including Chad, Niger, Togo, Burkina Faso, were ranked higher than Nigeria in health care delivery. So were Ghana and Cameroon.  Further afield, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Burundi, all vastly poorer than Nigeria, were reported as having better health care delivery systems than Nigeria. Now, Nigeria’s low ranking is not due solely to its large population. China, India and Brazil have large populations too, but rank far ahead of Nigeria. They spend a lot more on health care than Nigeria.

    When I checked the WHO data for health care in Nigeria it was even more disturbing. In virtually all cases we were worse off than other African countries. From 85 in 2000, infant mortality has increased to 110 per 1000 live births in 2014, globally one of the worst. The rate of maternity deaths has also increased substantially. The WHO had recommended that all states should commit 15 per cent of their annual budgets to health care. Nigeria signed the protocol to this WHO recommendation, but it has always fallen way below it. In the last two or three decades Nigeria’s total annual expenditure on health care has averaged only 3.7 per cent instead of 15 per cent prescribed by the WHO. The average for Africa was given as 8 per cent, more than double that of Nigeria. In 2016, while Nigeria spent only US$40 million on its health care, Kenya, a much smaller and poorer country, spent over US$100 million on its health care. It was only in 1998/9 and 2002/3 that Nigeria spent 5 per cent of its budget on health care. These figures include expenditure on health care by the states. The WHO recommends the annual expenditure of US$3400 per head on health care. Nigeria’s average as at 2014 was only US$217. As the WHO report observed, “Nigeria lacks a serious approach to health care”. In fact, the situation is worse at the level of primary health care which, due to wilful neglect, has declined very rapidly over the years. When he was Minister of Health, the late Professor Olikoye Ransome Kuti tried very hard, and with some success, to reform and stabilise our primary health care system.

    But the improvements he made in our primary health care have not been sustained largely due to our failure to increase public expenditure on health care. The WHO report also referred to poor training facilities for health care workers and lack of the necessary medical equipment in our hospitals, including the most advanced. We have over 50 university teaching hospitals, but they all lack the necessary medical equipment to function maximally. This situation applies to the private hospitals as well. Very often surgeries cannot be performed on patients because of the irregular and uncertain power supply, In both urban and rural areas of our country, access by the poor to health care is very poor. The limited private health care available mostly in the urban areas is very expensive. Children, women and the elderly are highly vulnerable to this appalling lack of an efficient and affordable health care delivery system. Where it exists at all, the facilities are very poor and inadequate. The national health insurance scheme is a total failure. It covers only a negligible few. To further complicate matters, drugs, most of which are imported, have become outrageously expensive, due to the exchange rate adjustment of the naira.  Only the rich can afford them. The poor now resort increasingly to self medication, quacks, or dubious herbalists for their health care. It is estimated that there are 4,000 Nigerian trained doctors now living and working in the US and Britain. There could be another 1,000 of them working elsewhere. Most of them emigrated abroad because of poor pay and poor working conditions here at home. Our rich now routinely go abroad for medical treatment because they know what is available locally is wholly inadequate. And because they can afford private health care they care very little about the appalling state of public health care in our country. Right now, President Muhammadu Buhari is receiving medical attention abroad. President Yar’Adua died while receiving medical care in Saudi Arabia. This is a national shame and embarrassment.

    Now, despite competing financial needs, I believe Nigeria can afford an efficient and respectable health care delivery system. What is lacking is the commitment of its leaders to this objective and the vast public corruption that diverts huge financial resources away from investment in human development. Cuba, under its late leader, Fidel Castro, showed, within a generation, what a committed leadership can do for health care, particularly at the primary level. Cuba, despite its financial constraints, has one of the most advanced health care delivery programmers in the world. It concentrates mainly on primary health care. The development of physical infrastructure (roads, electricity and public transportation) is important. But the development of social infrastructure (health and education) is even more important. Investing in the development of social infrastructure is even more profitable. It should be treated as a priority in public expenditure. It creates more jobs and has a more positive effect on the economy.

    Health care matters. Health is wealth. A healthy nation is a prosperous nation. Its workers are more productive. Some of the social divisions and conflicts in our country are made worse by the existing poor health care. Though there can be no justification for it, the poor are tempted to take to crimes, such as kidnapping and armed robbery when they are unable to meet their health challenges and medical bills. A good and affordable public health system will reduce some of the violence in our country. Nigeria does not lack the financial resources to improve on its health care. In 1953, when Chief Obafemi Awolowo introduced his free health programme in the then Western Region, he committed 50 per cent of his government’s budget to health and education. That gave the Western Region a good start in health care, which it has maintained since. The region is far ahead of other regions of Nigeria in health care. We must find a way of getting our governments at all levels to commit themselves to meeting the WHO prescription of spending 15 per cent of our annual budgets on heath care. The National Assembly must take the bull by the horns. It should pass the necessary legislation that will compel the Federal Government to meet its financial obligations in that respect to a better health care delivery system. In addition the importation of vital drugs should be made easier and cheaper by lowering the tariff or duty on imported drugs.

  • Will the Trump US presidency hurt Nigeria-US relations?

    Will the Trump US presidency hurt Nigeria-US relations?

    Very few in Nigeria expected Donald Trump to win the presidential elections in the US. His election was received in Nigeria, as in most foreign countries, with some concern and consternation. Public opinion in Nigeria favoured Hillary Clinton, his democratic opponent and former US Secretary of State. Her husband, Bill Clinton, was quite popular in Nigeria when he was US president. He had a street named after him in Abuja. As a political figure Donald Trump was largely unknown, and his disturbing campaign rhetoric with a tinge of xenophobia was the source of much global concern. Some of the things he said he would do if elected are quite disturbing. He said he would restrict immigration, particularly of Moslems, Africans and Mexicans, into the US; that he would build a wall on the Mexican border with the US, and that he would, if elected, repudiate some of the bilateral and multilateral trade agreements concluded by the US with other foreign countries. Very few thought this possible, Many thought  that if elected he would be compelled by global realities and strong domestic opposition to drop some of these wild ideas. Like Hitler before him the world underestimated his resolve to make America ‘great’ again, even if it means destroying long standing friendly diplomatic and political relations with America’s allies.

    Within two weeks of being sworn as President of the US, Donald Trump has, through Executive Orders, begun implementing some of the weird policies many thought were impossible. He is brave, brash, unconventional, hugely controversial and unpredictable. It is early days yet, and no one knows how far he will go in seeking to make America ‘great’ again by breaking the existing international system and order. His narrow, limited and illiberal world view has serious global consequences. He says it is ‘America First’. This is a negation of the principles and liberal philosophy that have made the US such a great and admirable nation. Under him the US will become increasingly isolationist as it turns its back on the rest of the world including its allies. It is a misguided approach, and one that will not make America a great nation again.

    In the case of Nigeria and Africa, it is safe to say that Donald Trump is not really interested in Africa. He does not know Africa, has no direct business investments there, and has probably never visited the continent, at least sub-Saharan Africa, before. Africa is really low in his world view and agenda. During his election campaign he hardly ever mentioned Africa. On the few occasions he did it was to denigrate and condemn her, particularly Nigeria and Kenya, for corruption. From that perspective, he is not likely to show much interest in African affairs. That will be good for Africa as he is unlikely to pursue any interventionist policy or strategy there. A blundering American president will not do Africa any good. China’s growing influence and economic relations with African countries may spur him to seek to engage Africa to counter Chinese influence there. But US trade and economic ties with Africa are insignificant when compared to its dominant share of world trade. Africa accounts for less than 5 per cent of world trade and most of the meagre US investments in Africa are in oil and gas and the extractive industries. America has little or no investment in the development of infrastructure in Africa. In fact, China and India now trade more with Africa than the US. So, Africa will not lose much by a possible Trump policy of benign neglect towards it. It has strategic interests in Africa (in Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa) that it will seek to maintain and protect. But the period of the cold war and competition for political influence in Africa by the great powers is over. That accounts for the relative political stability in Africa in recent years. Foreign meddling in African affairs has diminished. For now, China is in Africa largely to seek new markets for its bludgeoning exports.

    How will Donald Trump’s foreign policy affect Nigeria? On November 27, 2016, the Vanguard published excerpts of an interview with the new permanent secretary in the Foreign Ministry in which he assured the nation that the election of Donald Trump as the US president will not disrupt, or have any negative effect on Nigeria’s long standing cordial relations with the US, under successive US presidents, Republican and Democrat. That view is broadly correct. Though there have occasionally been strains in our relations with the US (Angola and Africom), particularly during the process of decolonization in Southern Africa in the1980s, our bilateral relations at all levels with the US have remained mature and cordial. Both sides recognize the strategic need to maintain the amity between them carefully developed over five decades, since Nigeria’s independence in 1960. In fact, the US was one of the countries that sponsored Nigeria’s admission into the UN soon after its independence in 1960

    However, the new permanent secretary in the Foreign Ministry was careful enough to add that, though there was really little or nothing to worry about in Nigeria over a Donald Trump presidency, the Foreign Ministry was holding a retreat for its top diplomats in Abuja on Monday, November 28, 2016, to brainstorm and deliberate on what Donald Trump’s presidency of the US could mean for Nigeria’s relations with the US. Although such retreats are not unusual and  are held when occasion demands, the retreat on the possible repercussions for Nigeria of a Trump presidency indicate some uneasiness in the Foreign Ministry about the possible effects of a Trump presidency on our bilateral relations. He said this retreat was being held to consider all the possible scenarios, options and eventualities that could have some effect on Nigeria’s relations with the US.

    Broadly, there are three issues, immigration, security cooperation, and economic co-operation that underpin Nigeria-US bilateral relations. These have to be handled by Nigeria deftly and professionally. The first is immigration which could lead to tensions with the US.. Until recently the emigration of a large number of Nigerians to the US in search of new economic opportunities to escape poverty at home was not a major issue in bilateral relations between the two countries. Now it could become one. It is estimated that there are over 1 million Nigerians now living and working in the US. Most of them are there legally and have made an immense contribution to the US in the health, education, transportation, housing, IT, and cultural sectors. Some of them are making waves in medicine, computer, engineering and computer science. There are hundreds of Nigerians teaching in American Universities as well as a preponderant number of Nigerian doctors and nurses making an outstanding contribution to the US health delivery system. Donald Trump has been reported as complaining that Nigerians were taking away jobs from white Americans. He was reported as even threatening to build a transatlantic wall to stop Nigerians going to the US. But this is totally unjustified and reprehensible.  We are very proud of the immense contribution some of our people are making to the US. Nigeria’s loss in this regard is America’s gain. It is the duty and responsibility of our government and diplomats to ensure that these Nigerians are treated fairly all across the US; that their rights are protected by the US government as legal US residents. Some of them have dual nationalities. As I write this there is as yet no Nigerian Ambassador in Washington who can begin to engage the new Trump US administration expeditiously. This is regrettable as early contacts with the new administration are vital to Nigeria’s interests in the US. It is important for Nigeria to let the new US administration understand at the highest levels how we feel about President Trump’s hostility to African-Americans in the US. For many would-be immigrants the American dream is now a nightmare.

    There are some Nigerians, possibly in their thousands, who are in the US illegally in breach of US immigration laws.  But Nigeria is not one of the seven Moslem dominated countries on which the Trump government has imposed a ban or restriction on entry into the US. This is in recognition of the fact that Nigeria does not sponsor Islamic jihadist terrorism in the US. It is a multi religious secular country. It is itself a victim of the Boko Haram terrorists that claim association with ISIS, Trump’s bogey. We have a common interest in this regard. Nevertheless, these illegal Nigerian immigrants will face a hard time under these new restrictions or travel bans introduced by the Trump administration. The travel ban order is being challenged in federal circuit courts in the US and could go as far as the US Supreme Court for final determination. Until this matter is judicially resolved Nigerians living illegally in the US may lose their jobs and possible deportation. A few, including those who have valid US entry visas, are already being denied entry into the US. The US is a nation of immigrants of diverse race and culture. But it is largely white and racist. Its loss of global power and influence will make it increasingly racist and isolationist. It will be less tolerant of new non-white immigrants. As under Trump America turns inwards one should expect that it will seek to shut its doors on Africans, including Nigerians, which constitute the largest number of African immigrant communities in the US.

    At the economic level, Nigeria cannot expect new US investments from the US. Trump has made it clear he wants American companies to invest more in the US and bring back jobs allegedly lost to foreign companies. US oil companies are doing good business in Nigeria but there are little or no US investments in other sectors of the Nigerian economy. Total US trade with Africa in 2015 was only $35 billion; its investment was a paltry $6billion, in both cases far lower than Chinese trade and investments in Africa. The African Growth Opportunities Act (AGOA) under which America seeks to promote trade with Africa by lowering American tariffs for African exports has not worked out because of poor African response and trans shipment by Asian countries of their manufactured exports for African exports. In addition African economies face an uphill task developing local industries that can compete effectively with Asian economies in the US market. Globalization of world trade has not worked very well for African economies. It has led to loss of industrial production and capacity, worsened by the global recession that has hit African economies very badly. The Joint US-Nigeria Commissions intended to promote economic cooperation between the two countries have remained largely moribund. The US is not seriously interested in these commissions. Under Trump the US may abandon them completely.

    It is in the area of security that both countries have been cooperating in recent years. ISIS threatens US security while Boko Haram presents a serious threat to Nigeria’s internal security. The US has been assisting Nigeria with non-lethal American military supplies. It has also been sharing military and security intelligence with Nigeria. The US takes the stability and security of Nigeria very seriously. Nigeria’s peace keeping role in Africa is recognized as vital to American security interests in Africa. Nigeria is still a fragile country threatened from within by ethnic, tribal, and religious divisions. America’s continued support for the stability and viability of Nigeria as a strong, democratic, peaceful and stable country is vital to Nigeria. But ultimately, it is up to Nigeria and its leadership to move Nigeria in a more positive direction that will create new jobs, reduce mass poverty and make Nigeria an economic success story. The US or any other foreign country cannot do that for us. And if Nigeria implodes you can be sure that under Trump the US will feel obliged to intervene massively to stop further emigration of Nigerians to the US.

  • When will recession end?

    When will recession end?

    Nigeria is in a deep recession, a grave economic quagmire, with no respite in sight yet. In 2015, after a decade of impressive growth of nearly seven per cent annually, the economy stalled and went rapidly into a tailspin. There is now palpable and widespread public concern that the recession may slide into a depression. It has led to a massive loss of jobs, increased unemployment, spiralling inflation and infrastructure decay. The macro economy is in complete disarray. The poverty level in the country has worsened considerably as more and more people are falling into the poverty trap daily. At both the federal and state levels the governments have fallen into arrears on salaries and pensions. The FG and state governments are now borrowing to meet their financial obligations. Technically, our country is now almost insolvent. The CBN is reluctant to lend the FG more money.

    The long recession, possibly the worst in Nigeria’s recent economic history, has virtually wiped out the limited economic gains of recent years. For most Nigerians the future has never been more bleak or uncertain. The country was already in a recession and a grim economic situation when President Muhammadu Buhari took over in 2015. But he is now in charge and it is his government’s responsibility to end the recession and restore the economy to stability and growth. The buck stops with him. But the recession will not yield to quick fixes. It is largely structural. The solution to it has to be equally structural. The government has got to be more serious about introducing the painful structural reforms now needed. Basically, this task involves cutting imports and increasing non-oil exports. The trade balance has to be restored.

    Though baffled that its stimulus spending is not yet working, the Federal Government remains upbeat this strategy will soon begin to yield some positive results. In fact, the Governor of the CBN was reported a few months ago as declaring that the recession had virtually ended, that it had bottomed out, thereby raising false hopes among the people. But this was premature. Recessions do take a long time to resolve. To work effectively the stimulus spending has to be complemented by a range of fiscal and monetary policy instruments that are not yet fully in place. Until these measures are implemented fully, we cannot begin to talk about ending the recession. In its report for the third quarter of 2016 the National Bureau of Statistics announced that the economy recorded a negative growth of -2.24 per cent, down from -2.06 in the second quarter of the last FY. The report for the last quarter of FY2016 is not yet out. But it will almost certainly show that the recession is not yet over. A negative growth of that magnitude cannot be restored in a single quarter. If it does it would be a major economic miracle. So, a lot of work still has to be done by the financial authorities to tackle the root causes of the recession before we can even begin to think of economic stability and growth. This is by no means an easy task. It requires an appropriate, determined and consistent response to a financial crisis caused mainly by external shocks, triggering off maladjustment in the domestic economy. Is the government up to the task?

    The Federal Government appears optimistic that the measures and strategies it has introduced for ending the recession will impact soon positively on the economy. A few weeks ago, President Buhari assured the nation that the recession should end by the middle of this fiscal year. We can do with a dash of optimism all round, but this prediction may prove to be premature as well. It is overly optimistic and based more on hope than on the current economic realities in our country. We can forget the optimistic predictions of the religious seers and prophets who, as usual, have predicted our economic recovery this year. They are equally off the mark. These predictions are totally misleading and speculative. They should be totally ignored as voodoo economics.

    Now, why do I take a dim view of these optimistic predictions about the economy? Why do I believe that the recession is not about to end soon? It is simply because I believe the fundamental problems and challenges of the economy have not yet been fully grasped and addressed. Basically, we are in a recession because of the sharp fall in oil exports and revenues. The recession will end only when there is full recovery in oil exports and revenues. Earnings from non-oil exports have remained insignificant: less than eight per cent of total foreign exchange earnings. In the short run, earnings from agricultural exports cannot fill the gap in our foreign trade balance and foreign exchange earnings. This will take decades even if there is some expansion in agricultural exports. The much needed diversification of the economy away from its over dependence on oil revenues has not materialised over the years, despite record income from oil exports. This was easier to achieve during the decades of the oil boom. But that opportunity was lost again. Imports grew as rapidly, if not more rapidly, than exports, including the oil revenues. The overall cost of governance also increased significantly due to massive corruption in the public sector, and the half-hearted measures to bring it under control. There has recently been some recovery in oil prices rising from $30 per barrel to nearly $60 now. But this is still far short of our normal oil revenues before the economy went into a recession. This means that we are still short of the financial resources needed to pull the economy out of its deep recession. Without massive spending the economy cannot be pulled out of recession. And Nigeria’s financing gap, even with the record oil revenues of the last decade before the recession, was estimated at over $10 billion annually. With the massive loss of oil revenues, the financing gap has obviously grown much wider. Hence, the massive external borrowing by the Federal Government: another future debt burden.

    To this huge revenue deficit must be added Nigeria’s high import dependency. It is estimated that Nigeria spends well over N1 trillion a year on food imports alone. Its manufacturing industry, based on import substitution, a failed strategy, is also largely dependent on imports. And there is virtually little manufactured exports going on. It is the food imports, raw materials imports for industry, and other imported luxury goods that collectively put the domestic economy under intense foreign exchange pressures. This may seem elementary, but it is a lesson that Nigeria’s political leaders have consistently failed to learn over the years. Nigeria was in a similar dire financial predicament following the oil shocks of 1983-5, and a structural adjustment programme had to be reluctantly introduced by the Babangida military regime to address the problem. The economic situation in 1983-5 was, in fact, worse than it is now. There was a recession then too, far worse than what we have now. Nigeria fell into balance of trade and payments disequilibria as it could no longer pay for its vital imports. It was in payment arrears and its creditors cut it off from further credits. At first, we refused to even consider devaluation as a policy option. But later, when it became clear that we had limited options, the Babangida military government was forced in 1986 to devalue the naira. The strategy worked. It was painful as prices soared, but it worked. It was this painful economic stabilisation programme, particularly the naira exchange rate adjustment that ended the recession. Imports began to fall. Coupled with an increase in oil exports and revenues the economy returned to the path of stability and growth, averaging 5%. But regrettably, once the economy appeared to have recovered, Babangida undermined its future growth by frittering away the gains of the recovery on frivolous public expenditures. This was to hurt the domestic economy very badly.

    To some extent, this is what President Buhari has to do now with some modifications to end the recession. As we have no serious balance of payments disequilibrium now, the challenges involved are less serious than those that confronted Babaginda. But Buhari’s economic strategy has to be broadly similar to that of Babangida. He has very reluctantly ended some of the wasteful subsidies in the economy. You cannot pay subsidies with borrowed funds, but from a budget surplus. He was initially strongly opposed to any adjustment of the naira exchange rate, but he has now been forced by compelling circumstances and the realities of Nigeria’s economic situation to come to terms with this measure. But much valuable time was lost by the delay in deciding promptly to allow any devaluation of the naira.

    Timing matters in devaluing a currency. In fact, the devaluation of the naira should have begun in 2013 as soon as it became clear that global oil prices were falling. President Jonathan should have started that process. But by that time political pressures in the PDP, then the ruling party, had begun to build up in preparation for the 2015 elections. When a national currency such as the naira comes under exchange rate stress early devaluation as a policy adjustment has to be introduced promptly. By the time Jonathan left office the prevailing exchange rate of the naira was no longer tenable or sustainable. It had become grossly overvalued. It made imports attractive and cheaper and exports unattractive. And right now, the issue of the naira exchange rate is not yet fully resolved. The present inter-bank rate is N305 to the US dollar, while the rate in the parallel market is now close to N500 to the dollar. The gap between the two rates is much too wide and bad for economic planning of any kind. It is speculative and allows for much round tripping. This regime of multiple exchange rates creates financial uncertainties and is bound to hurt the economy badly, as it constrains foreign investment in the Nigerian economy. Already, because of the recession and other economic uncertainties in our country, Nigeria is no longer the first destination of foreign investors in Africa. It has been replaced by South Africa, Angola, and the Maghreb countries of North Africa, where there is far greater economic and exchange rate stability than here in Nigeria.  To restore our position as the first destination in Africa of foreign investors, we must bring to an end this system of multiple exchange rates. We should allow the naira to float freely. Yes, costs and prices will go up, but it will also restrain and reduce imports. There is no need for bans as they can be counter- productive. A combination of a unified exchange rate and appropriate tariffs on non-essential imports will stabilise the exchange rate of the naira.

    As for the possible impact of this year’s proposed N7.3 trillion budget on the economy and the recession, I doubt whether it can achieve much. Nominally, it is a huge budget. But when discounted for inflation and exchange rate adjustment it is not that huge. The budget deficit is very large with the government hoping to borrow nearly half of the budget at home and abroad. It is unlikely that it can meet either its revenue target or loans. Even if it does there is the perennial problem of budget implementation, the bugbear of budgets in Nigeria. It was estimated that last year only 56% of the budget was implemented due to financial and administrative constraints. It is unlikely that things will be different this year. As for the planned foreign borrowing, the government should instead seriously consider selling off some of its core assets in the oil industry. For instance, it holds 60 per cent in Mobil. There is no longer any need to hold a controlling share there. If the Federal Government sells only 20% of its shares in Mobil Oil, this will immediately yield US$20 billion, which will reduce its resort to foreign borrowing considerably. And this can be used for infrastructure development. The government must put its thinking cap on and be more serious and focused on tackling the recession more vigorously. Otherwise, it will take much longer than predicted for the recession to end.

     

  • A tribute to Olujimi Jolaoso OFR (1925-2016)

    A tribute to Olujimi Jolaoso OFR (1925-2016)

    Last Friday, November 11, Ambassador Olujimi Jolaoso, one of our most distinguished and accomplished career diplomats, was laid to rest in his hometown, Orile Ilugun, in Ogun State. News of his death in Lagos on September 25 was received with shock and sadness by all his friends and former colleagues in the Nigerian diplomatic service. He was 91, but we had always thought of him as being ‘immortal.’ Some of us were at his residence on August 19, barely a month before his death, to felicitate with him on his 91st birthday anniversary. Even though he was ailing, he seemed to have recovered and was in good spirits. We had all hoped that he would be here with us for a few more years. Such was his immense stature and the personal esteem in which we held him. Among his former diplomatic colleagues his huge physical presence was always reassuring. He inspired a generation of younger and capable Nigerian career diplomats. His departure is a terrible blow to our country, his family, his former colleagues and friends.

    Personally, my long and memorable professional association with Ambassador Olujimi Jolaoso goes back to 1964, soon after I entered the Foreign Service, on graduating from the University College, Ibadan. I had known of him by reputation as a former highly respected school teacher, a great sportsman, and a former distinguished Chief of Protocol in the Foreign Ministry, at Nigeria’s independence in 1960. But I had never met him until I had cause to call on him officially on a small official matter one Saturday afternoon in October, 1964, at his official residence at Cooper Road, Ikoyi, Lagos. He had just returned home on posting from the Congo (Leo). I had looked forward eagerly to our first meeting but I was a little nervous as, in those days, senior colleagues were held in awe. Rank mattered a lot among diplomats, including Nigerian diplomats. The first thing that struck me was how clean his Ikoyi premises were. And when he came down with his wife to receive me, he put me completely at ease at once and talked to me, over drinks, about the Foreign Service. Unlike many of his colleagues that I had met in the Foreign Office, he was not stiff, stuffy or overbearing. He immediately left me with a favourable impression as an immensely agreeable and friendly person; a gentleman of pleasant and graceful manners. Mrs. Jolaoso, who received me equally graciously, complemented him in their friendly disposition to me. They were always gracious hosts to their numerous friends and former colleagues. Over the years Ambassador and Mrs. Olujimi Jolaoso treated my wife and I with the same unfailing courtesy and warmth whenever we visited them at home, even after we had both retired from the Foreign Service. He was a man you could trust completely, one in whom you could repose and share confidences. Though he was not exactly an extrovert, he was charming and sociable. He had friends from diverse backgrounds and professions. His great tact in dealing with people made this possible. He hated to cause offence to anyone unnecessarily. He was never self righteous and said very little about himself despite his impressive personal accomplishments.

    I was to spend over 20 years with him as a junior colleague in the Foreign Service. Over the years I grew to respect and admire him even more for his diligence, professional integrity, patriotism, fierce loyalty to his friends and colleagues, and a profound sense of decency and fairness, attributes that, regrettably, are in short supply in our country today. He seemed to rise above the petty bureaucratic squabbles in the Foreign Ministry. Twice, he got some absurd and irritating postings, intended to dampen his spirits, but shrugged them off. He did not even mention this in his memoires. Unlike some of his colleagues in the Foreign Service he never fought to advance his own personal or professional interests through intrigues, but would not hesitate to fight for a worthy cause in the professional interest of the diplomatic service, of which until the end, he remained very proud. He was disdainful of tribalism, and when this bugbear began to rear its ugly head in the Foreign Service it saddened him terribly. He would have no truck with it. He was married for nearly 60 years to a graceful lady from Ibusa, in Delta State, and spoke the Igbo language very fluently.

    In whatever capacity he served in the diplomatic service, at home and abroad, he always wanted the best for our country, Nigeria. But that vision of a truly professional and competent Foreign Service, one based solely on merit, was not one that many of his colleagues shared. Some of them ruthlessly pursued their personal career advancement and cared very little about the future of the Foreign Service. Wherever he found himself in the diplomatic service Amb. Jolaoso insisted on the highest possible professional standards. He disliked humbug and sloppiness of any kind. He was taciturn and reticent. He hardly ever betrayed his emotions. I never once heard him speak ill of his colleagues. Whatever their personal differences were, he never ran them down or sought in any way to denigrate them. As for his junior colleagues, some of whom he had taught at school, he was always solicitous of our welfare, gracious to us, and, if he could help it, would not allow any one of us to be treated unfairly. An urbane, cultured and immensely confident man, he recognised and encouraged merit among his junior colleagues. This was because his own illustrious career in the Foreign Service was based entirely on his personal merit.

    Ambassador Jolaoso was a man of great character, an icon in the diplomatic service, widely admired by those who were privileged to have known him and worked with him. He was an outstanding public servant in our country, Nigeria, first as an Education Officer, and later as a foremost diplomat, who, in the course of a long and distinguished career, served as Chief of State Protocol in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Deputy High Commissioner in London, Charge d’Affaires in the Congo (Leo), Consul General in New York, Ambassador in the Federal Republic of Germany, Ambassador in Liberia, and finally as Ambassador in Washington, the USA, the last of his plum diplomatic postings.

    His illuminating dispatches from all his diplomatic posts were of the highest quality and always a delight to read. As he showed in his memoires, In the Shadows, a diplomatic and literary classic, he was a master of ‘diplomatese’ and of the English prose. As an undergraduate, he had won the Faculty prize in English at the then University College, Ibadan. His style of writing was simple, witty, precise and elegant, perhaps the best in the Foreign Service. One Foreign Minister, Dr. Okoi Arikpo, enjoyed reading his dispatches so much that he recommended his style to all Nigerian diplomats. He ended his successful and glorious diplomatic career as a Director-General in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His contribution to the growth and development of the Foreign Service was immense, as was his kindness and encouragement to younger colleagues who will always remember him as their friend and mentor. After his retirement, he was a foundation member and later served as President of the Association of Retired Career Ambassadors of Nigeria. (ARCAN), to which he made an outstanding contribution.

    Ambassador Olujimi Jolaoso was educated at the Igbobi College, Yaba, (1939-44), the Yaba Higher College, (1946-48), the University College, Ibadan, (1948-52), the Institute of Education of the University of London, (1953) and the Queen’s College, Oxford. (1959) for his mandatory Foreign Service course.

    He was blessed with a loving and adoring wife, our dear ‘Auntie Marcie’, whom he married in 1957, two adorable sons, Abayomi, and Bankole, and several grandchildren. My wife, Bose, and I extend to the Jolaoso family our deeply felt condolences on the passing on of Ambassador Olujimi Jolaoso, OFR. We pray God to console them and grant them the grace and strength to bear this sad and irreparable loss.

  • Ex-President Jonathan at Oxford Union

    Ex-President Jonathan at Oxford Union

    On Monday, October 24, former President Goodluck Jonathan was a guest speaker at the famous Oxford Union where, at his request, he delivered a long and rambling speech on ‘Youth Empowerment, Entrepreneurship, and Corruption’ in Nigeria. The speech was intended to defend his record in office as president. I have obtained and read the full transcript of his speech in which he made some astonishing claims about the contribution of his government to job creation in Nigeria, through youth empowerment and the development of youth entrepreneurship in Nigeria. He claimed that, under his administration, the country achieved an average annual growth rate of 6 per cent, the third fastest growth rate in the world. That may be correct, but this high growth rate was fuelled largely by the stupendous growth in our oil exports and revenue, the highest ever. Sadly, it did not translate into a significant economic development of our economy; a classic case of growth without development. As we have seen in media reports of financial scandals, under his watch the rich in Nigeria got richer and the poor poorer. Today, youth unemployment and mass poverty are at highest levels in our country.

    Specifically, he claimed that his tenure in office as president marked ‘an era of unprecedented growth for Nigeria’. But where are the jobs he created through the so-called youth empowerment and entrepreneurship programme? The fact of the matter is that his so-called youth empowerment and entrepreneurship consisted largely of handing over vast sums of money to unemployed youths and warlords, the Tompolos, mostly in Bayelsa,  his state, who lacked any skills or much education to make use of the funds. Instead, the funds were diverted, possibly with his approval and knowledge, by the so-called ‘avengers; and militants to acquire weapons to wage a war against their own country, and sabotage oil installations and pipelines in the country. We were even threatened by these militant youths that unless Jonathan was re-elected in last year’s presidential election, they would make our country ungovernable. Is that not what the current violent militancy in the Niger Delta is all about? These were the youths Jonathan financially empowered to wage a war of attribution on our country.

    His claims about creating jobs are a lot of ridiculous hogwash.  Many domestic and foreign observers have already dismissed his government as inept, inefficient and corrupt. Suffice it to say that oil revenues during his administration were the highest in Nigeria’s fiscal history, and that he could have done a lot more with this huge oil revenue to address the critical infrastructure deficit and other economic challenges in our country. As we now know, most of the vast income from oil was simply squandered and frittered away on vast public corruption and unbridled foreign imports under his watch. Little, or nothing, was done by his government to diversify the economy and start the whole process of moving the national economy away from its over dependence on its oil revenues. In his last year in office the high growth rate had begun to plummet due to the fall in oil exports and revenue. It had fallen to less than 2 per cent. A year after the country is in a deep recession. If he had been re-elected president, our economic situation would have been far worse now. We needed an urgent review of our fiscal and monetary policies to stop the financial haemorrhage. Because of powerful domestic vested interests which he tended to protect and support he did nothing about the wasteful and corruption ridden oil import subsidy, or the exchange rate adjustment that had become necessary. He chose to ignore the danger signals in the economy in the hope that he could bribe his way to re-election as president. Even the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) of $1bn, a kind of investment abroad for the proverbial rainy day, was virtually depleted before he left office after his woeful defeat in the presidential elections.

    As regards public corruption under his watch, the most astonishing claim he made in his Oxford Union speech was that his former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd), did not steal the $2.2bn for which he is being detained and for which he may face trial in court shortly. Instead, he said the funds in question were used to buy military aircraft and weapons for the Nigerian Armed Forces. In fact, Jonathan said the issue of public corruption in Nigeria was being ‘overblown’. But in a swift reaction to his absurd claims, the Nigerian military has said the three Alpha jets and two helicopters Jonathan bought for the Air Force were largely ‘unserviceable’. It said the jets were ‘not weaponised and the helicopters were cannibalised eventually, as they were not serviceable.

    But the real issue that Jonathan failed to address in his Oxford Union speech is where did all that money, the $2.2bn, that Dasuki improperly disbursed to Jonathan’s political hacks and cronies come from, and what purpose was it originally intended to serve? Was it not intended to procure arms for the Armed Forces to fight the Boko Haram insurgency? Why was the fund diverted instead to private pockets? The matter, as admitted by Jonathan, is sub jidice. It is for the courts, not Jonathan, to determine whether, or not, the funds were stolen. Already, in anticipation of his own trial, Dasuki has been reported as claiming that, in those sordid financial transactions, he acted solely and wholly on the instructions of President Jonathan. Well, Dasuki is better able to defend himself in the court of law. When the trial begins, as it should as soon as possible, Dasuki has said he will call President Jonathan as a star witness. The drama in the court between the two will be very interesting and exciting. As he is out of office, Jonathan can no longer claim any immunity from investigation, or trial for gross and inappropriate financial misdemeanours. Presidential immunity does not cover criminal actions by the president. It is intended merely to protect him from frivolous civil litigations for actions taken by him while in office. Dasuki’s lawyer has been reported as calling for a ‘political settlement” of the matter. This will be a terrible disservice to our nation, as the price we have had to pay collectively for this financial heist is just too high. In any case, President Buhari does not even have the constitutional power or authority to go for a political settlement of the case pending in court.  Even if he does, prudence will require him to let the sordid matter be determined by the court. Otherwise, he will undermine the fight against public corruption in our country. It will amount to a negation of accountability in governance in our country.

    The Oxford Union speech is obviously the first salvo by former President Jonathan to fight back on the allegations of corruption against him and his government. We can expect more foreign speeches by him. But he is better off giving the speech here at home. He did not impress the members of the Oxford Union as the reactions of the Union to his speech were reported to have been largely negative. Oxford students are well informed about world affairs and are very discerning. The few Nigerian students who are now able to go to Oxford and who were at the Union were reported as heckling him. As a Life Member of the Oxford Union and a former Commonwealth post-graduate scholar at Trinity College, Oxford, I was privileged to have attended and participated in some of its debates in the late 1960s and early 70s. I am proud of its noble and liberal traditions and of the fact that the Union provided Jonathan with a platform to air his views freely. That is the hallmark of the Oxford Union. Oxford students work incredibly hard. The Union provides them a relaxed place they can go to for robust debates and speeches from distinguished guests. It also has an excellent bar and a good library.

    The Oxford Union prides itself on being the world’s most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing to Oxford international guests and speakers. Steeped in history the Oxford Union was founded in 1823 as a forum for debates and discussion at a time when free speech was still largely restricted in the universities and in Britain. Many of its Presidents go on to become British Prime Ministers. One of these, William E. Gladstone, was President of the Union in 1830, and went on to become one of Britain’s greatest prime ministers in the 19th century. Because of its collegiate system, Oxford University does not have a central students’ union. The Oxford Union is independent and has no political leanings. It provides, instead, a forum for debates on controversial issues in the university. Its previous guests include Tariq Ali, Malcolm X, Richard Nixon, Gerry Adams and O.J. Simpson, all of them controversial public figures. In 1933, when Hitler and the Nazis were rising in Germany, the Oxford Union passed by 275 votes to 153 a motion that “This House will under no circumstances fight for King and Country”. Winston Churchill dismissed the motion as an unprecedented disavowal of the country. It had no effect in Britain. Every year a motion is routinely debated in the Union that “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”. It is usually passed but has no political significance. It is merely symbolic. It is in keeping with its proud and irreverent debating reputation that the Oxford Union accepted Jonathan as a guest speaker. His speech there will not in any way influence British public opinion of him as an inept and corrupt leader. It was all done in good humour.

  • 21 freed Chibok girls: What next?

    21 freed Chibok girls: What next?

    Last week, after nearly three years in captivity, 21 of the abducted Chibok school girls were freed. They regained their freedom following intense, long and complex negotiations between representatives of the federal government and their captors, the Boko Haram terrorists. The deal was brokered by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), representatives of the Swiss government and senior officials of the federal government. Over 200 of those abducted girls still remain in the custody of the terrorists. We can only hope that further negotiations with the terrorists will soon lead to the release of the remaining and unfortunate but innocent girls. It does not matter right now whether or not any financial ransom, or an amnesty by the federal government for some of the Boko Haram terrorists in detention, led to the release of the girls. Since their violent abduction nearly three years ago, the nation has agonised over the ordeal of these innocent school girls. It shamed our country. Any price is worth paying for the freedom of these school girls, who were snatched from their dormitories at night while preparing for their final year examinations. Hopefully, in future, when the insurgency is over, those responsible for the heinous abduction of the Chibok school girls will be brought to justice.

    The federal government and all those involved in the release of the 21 girls should be commended for securing the release of these girls. We must also applaud and show some appreciation of the tireless efforts of the Bring Back Our Girls (BBOG) campaign, led by Oby Ezekwesili and other civil rights organisations, for not giving up on their tireless campaign that the girls be brought back. They made sure the girls were not forgotten by our country and the international community. Quite often, they were bullied, vilified, frustrated and demonised in their long campaign to bring the girls back by a petty officialdom that did not show any real concern about the plight of these innocent girls. These petty officials denied the BBOG leaders access to the President in pursuit of their laudable campaign for the freedom of the girls. But now that the 21 girls have been freed, the petty and uncaring officials want to share in the glory of bringing freedom to the girls.

    As may well be expected, news of the release of the girls was greeted with much joy and relief, not only by their parents who had waited patiently so long for their release, but by the entire nation, which should be grateful to President Buhari for not giving up hope and for tenaciously seeking the release of the girls, a concern that was not shown by Jonathan, his predecessor. Very few, including the parents of the girls, could have believed their release possible after nearly three years of their abduction. Media reports of their return to safety were carried on the front page of most newspapers, displacing, for some days, media reports on the scurrilous financial scandals of some federal judges and justices. When they were first abducted, Mrs. Patience Jonathan, the former First Lady, was even reported as expressing serious doubts that there was any abduction in the Chibok school at all. Under Jonathan the Army and security forces were neither given funds nor supplied with the weapons needed to fight the BH terrorists in the Sambisa forests, or to conduct any search and rescue mission. They were no match for the terrorists. Instead, money meant for the purchase of weapons to secure the state and free the girls was diverted by the National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuku (retd.), to private pockets to fraudulently secure Jonathan’s re-election as president. Whatever we may think or say about President Buhari, publicly, or privately, the tables have been turned against the terrorists and some of the abducted girls have now been freed. There is a palpable sense of joy, relief and pride that our nation has achieved this remarkable feat. It will restore some of our lost pride, hopes and past glories as a nation that cares for its citizens, and that will go to any length to defend and protect them. That is the first and most important duty of a state. Any state that fails, or proves incapable of fulfilling this basic duty and responsibility to its citizens, is not worthy of being respected by either its citizens, or the international community. It has to be deemed a failed state.

    Now, what next after the release of the first 21 of the abducted school girls? The girls came back from their captivity after nearly three years looking haggard, ragged, deranged and emaciated. The emotional trauma and physical abuse these innocent girls had suffered in the custody of the terrorists break one’s heart. Only their parents can truly feel what their loved ones went through in the hands of the terrorists. It is an experience that neither they nor their parents will ever forget. The nation too should not forget. Time may heel some of the emotional trauma they have suffered. As a people and nation, we must help them recover as quickly as possible from their horrifying ordeal in the hands of the BH terrorists. What should we as a people and nation do now to help these innocent school girls who could not be helped when they needed our collective assistance?

    First, now that they have regained their freedom, the privacy of these girls and that of their parents must be respected by all, including the media. Until they tell their own stories whilst in captivity, their identities must be protected. They need time to recover from the emotional trauma they have been put through over a period of nearly three years. It is better for them to remain in their localities where their full emotional recovery will be made much easier. Any unprofessional intrusion into their private lives should be discouraged. After their necessary debriefing by the state intelligence agencies for security reasons, the state should provide the girls with a complement of professionals, such as psychologists and psychiatrists, to help them regain their emotional and psychological balance. There are many such international humanitarian agencies, including the ICRC that can offer this assistance to the girls at little or no cost to the state. Some of our local humanitarian and relief organisations can also offer some assistance in this regard and should be used. But they must be kept under close monitoring and observation to ensure that funds meant for the rehabilitation of the girls get directly to them. We must not allow them to be treated callously like the internally-displaced persons. Much more can be achieved in this regard with modest funds if officialdom is kept at bay. All aid offers to the girls should be channelled through the federal government. But, at a time of recession with its limited financial resources, all this cannot be done by the government alone. The religious organisations, particularly the churches and mosques, must be encouraged to make some financial donations for the rehabilitation of the rescued girls. In addition, security must be tightened in all our schools to ensure the safety and security of our children. We must make the schools safer for our children. In fact, it has become necessary now to provide special security for all the schools in our country. This will cost money, but it is well worth it. The time has also come to have a rethink about the idea of neighbourhood and state police that should enhance security in our schools.

    Secondly, those among the freed girls who wish to return to school to complete their secondary school education should be encouraged and fully supported by the state to do so. This is an essential part of their rehabilitation. It is in the interest of our country to encourage these girls to complete their secondary school education without any further interruption. Despite the trauma they have suffered, they can still make a useful contribution to the future growth and development of our country. If we fail to do this, these girls will remain alienated from the society and, through their frustration, could become radicalised and constitute a security danger to our nation. Secondary school education in the North is generally free. Their returning to school will not cost the state much money. But even if it does, it is well worth it. The federal government should designate a modest and special fund to help these girls recover from their tragic plight and continue with their education from which our country can only benefit.

    Finally, the government must begin to think more seriously about the sources and causes of the general state of insecurity in our nation, as reflected in the frequent media reports about kidnappings, abductions, assassinations and other violent crimes in our country, and how to tackle these social problems. There will always be petty crimes in any society. But in the case of our country, these are made worse by the situation of mass unemployment, mass poverty and the prevailing social and economic inequalities in our country. These social problems will not be resolved simply by hectoring, or by a resort to draconian measures, or by persuasion, or by appeal to religious sentiments. They will only be resolved when the authorities are seen as being more caring of the poor and taking practical economic measures to create jobs and end the vast income inequalities in our country. To reduce violent crimes in our country, we must strive to create a caring and more compassionate society in which all our people enjoy equal opportunities.

  • Why security votes should be scrapped

    Why security votes should be scrapped

    Media reports early this week that some federal and state judges had improperly benefitted from the state security votes are very disturbing. These reports should be a matter of grave concern to the public in view of their implications for the criminal justice system in our country. The reports came to me as a shock, as this practice is subversive of the rule of law and the democratic process. Only a few weeks ago, the National Judicial Council (NJC) announced that, in the last five years, 70 judges, including a state chief judge, had been sanctioned for improper conduct. Those identified as being involved in the security votes financial scandal should be severely punished. In fact, if convicted they should be jailed as a deterrent to other highly placed public servants.

    It had been known for a long time that the security votes operated by the presidency and governors were being subjected to a massive abuse. But only those involved could have guessed that even their lordships were benefitting improperly from the scam. I could hardly believe that this sort of thing was taking place in our judiciary. Dasukigate and the flurry of investigations by the EFCC over the 2015 general election confirmed what had long been suspected, even known, that improper disbursements from the security votes were being used by practically all the governments of the federation to influence and subvert the outcome of elections in our country. Even though there have been strong allegations of corruption in our judiciary at all levels, I could not imagine a situation in which some senior judges, the supposed bastions of justice in our country, were directly being paid improperly and regularly from the security votes. The reason for the payments is obvious; simply to compromise the judges and subvert the rule of law and pervert the justice system in our country. This accounts for the baffling, inexplicable and conflicting judgments being made recently by our judges.

    Now, it is doubtful that the security votes from which these improper payments are being made to all and sundry are either legal or constitutional. In fact, they have little or nothing to do with the personal safety of the president, or the security of the nation or the states. Colonel Sambo Dasuki, President Jonathan’s disgraced National Security Adviser, was at the centre of this huge and scandalous scam involving the diversion of funds meant for the Armed and Security Forces to cronies of the PDP federal government. The funds were, instead, used for whatever purpose the president or governors decide to use them for, including the acquisition of expensive and choice personal properties locally and abroad, as well as other material comforts that are irrelevant to the well-being of the citizens, or the security of our nation.

    The security funds are not authorised by the national or state assemblies. In fact, the details about these security votes are never shown in the budget estimates or approvals. They are simply concealed from the tax payers. They are not part of the federal or state budgets, and the beneficiaries are totally unaccountable for disbursements from the votes. We do not even know how much is involved or who gets what, except on occasions such as this. We owe the EFCC a huge debt of gratitude for uncovering the free and illegal handouts from the security votes. We are talking here about vast amount of funds in local and foreign currencies totalling billions of naira and in foreign currencies. As we now know, it is not only the politicians who benefit from these disbursements. There are other political hacks and hangers-on who get themselves involved in the despicable act of fleecing the nation of its financial resources by gaining access to the security votes.

    Many elected governments in the country have had to contend with hangers-on demanding access to, or even control, of the so-called security votes. In the old Oyo State, Chief Lamidi Adedibu, a rough but influential Ibadan politician, demanded from Governor Rashidi Ladoja, almost a half of the security votes. When payments to him were stopped, he successfully organised the impeachment of the governor, a brazen act of subversion of the democratic process for which he should have been punished. But nothing happened to him. Instead, the party leaders pleaded with him to accept less than what he had been demanding from the security votes of Oyo State.

    Now, it is not exactly clear when this ugly phenomenon of the abuse of the security votes started. Certainly, under colonial rule, such a practice was totally unknown. The colonial governors were not entitled to security votes from which they could draw. They lived modestly on their salaries. After independence, in the First Republic, neither the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa, nor his regional colleagues, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and the Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello, had access to any security votes from which they could give financial handouts to their supporters, or cronies. The Sardauna, a generous man, was known to have, on occasions, given a few of his political colleagues from the North, and a few senior civil servants, financial assistance drawn from the government funds. I was once told by a British expatriate, who had served as a permanent secretary in the Northern Regional Government when the Sardauna was premier, of how his application for a car loan had been returned to him by the Sardauna who, instead, bought and sent him a new car. Knowing that the Sardauna would be offended if he rejected the car gift, he sent it back to the dealers with a request that the amount paid for the car should be returned to the treasury. Soon after that, he resigned his appointment and left Nigeria for good after 20 years. But that was a simple gesture by the Sardauna. There was no pretence that the funds were from a special security vote to which only he had access. The three major political parties were financially self-supporting and politically-independent. They depended wholly on their internal resources.

    It can also be said with some degree of certainty that as a military head of state, General Yakubu Gowon had no access to any security votes when he was in office, including the three years in which he led the country in a savage civil war against the secessionists. But, somewhere along the line, possibly during the long period of military rule, the security votes were introduced clandestinely, ostensibly to ensure the security of the state, but really the security of military rule in Nigeria. The funds under the security votes were intended for funding the repression of the people and for smashing any civilian revolt or rebellion. This is the hallmark of a dictatorship, civilian or military, that should have no place in a democratic system of government. The American President does not enjoy the privilege of a personal security vote. Funds meant for national security are appropriately passed by Congress and disbursed to such national security agencies as the CIA, the FBI and the Defence Establishment. Similarly, the British Prime Minister has no security votes directly under his control. Security funds are appropriated by the British parliament and disbursed directly to the security agencies, such as the MI5, the M16, the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police and the Defence Intelligence Agency. This is the situation in all Western and other European countries. Even in China, it is unlikely that the Chinese leader has access to a secret security vote.

    Regrettably, the idea and practice of security votes have now become deeply embedded in our system of government, causing quite an extensive financial and moral damage to our country. It is morally reprehensible and subversive of our sense of decency and values. It should no longer be tolerated. It is substantially directly responsible for the massive looting of the national treasury, particularly during the tenure of the Jonathan PDP federal government, when a determined and irresponsible effort was made by a cabal to subvert the general election and ensure his re-election through slush funds from the so-called security votes.

    In the light of the preceding observations, I believe the time has come to scrap and do away with these so-called security votes. They add nothing to our state security and are not in our national interest. Instead, they are the source of social divisions in our country, as they aggravate the existing economic and social inequalities in our country. President Buhari owes it a duty to our country to put an end to this sordid source of massive financial leakages in our country. He should take the initiative in ending it. If he does not, then the National Assembly should take the initiative in passing the necessary legislation to bring the security votes to an end. The nation will be immensely grateful to him. This thought should also apply to the so-called ‘other charges’ through which our country is being fleeced of billions of naira.