The Nation Newspaper

Category: Dapo Fafowora

  • New strains in Nigeria-US relations

    New strains in Nigeria-US relations

    A fortnight ago, new strains (never too far away from the surface) emerged in relations between Nigeria and the United States. The US Embassy in Abuja and the US military training mission in Nigeria issued public statements that the Federal Government of Nigeria had suspended the third phase of the agreed military training programme for the Nigerian Army.

    Two phases of the programme, initiated by the two countries to counter the current Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria, had been completed. In the circumstances, the US military training mission understandably expressed its regrets that the third phase, which it considered crucial to the success of the entire programme, had been unilaterally cancelled by the Federal Government.

    The announcement by the US of the cancellation of the training programme was obviously intended to embarrass the Federal Government. The Nigerian government had not announced the cancellation. It should have been more appropriate for any announcement of the cancellation of the programme to have been made by the Federal Government, rather than by official US sources. It is a serious breach of protocol on the part of the US military training mission to have pre-empted the Federal Government.

    If it became necessary to cancel the third phase of the programme, or review the entire programme itself, a joint statement by the two parties involved should have been made, instead of a unilateral statement by the US military mission. Since the entire US military training programme was not popular in Nigeria in the first place, and it has not really had any positive impact on the war against the insurgency, it is doubtful that any serious damage was done to the Federal Government by its cancellation. From its independence in 1960, the Nigerian public has never actively supported defence agreements with foreign powers. In 1962, the Balewa Federal Government was similarly forced to cancel Nigeria’s defence pact with Britain, its erstwhile colonial master, due to widespread domestic opposition to the pact.

    In its own defence of the decision to cancel the third phase of the military training programme, unidentified spokesmen of the Federal Government claimed that the training programme was cancelled in response to the refusal of the US to agree to the purchase of arms, particularly US military helicopters by Nigeria, weapons which, they claim, are badly needed by the Nigerian military to successfully prosecute the ongoing war against the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria. It was also claimed that the US military training mission in Nigeria had demanded that some of the military hardware being used in the war against the insurgents be transferred from the war front to the sites of the training programme. This, the federal authorities considered absurd and unwarranted at a time of serious military engagements with the insurgents.

    The federal authorities also claimed that the recent mutinies by some elements of the Nigerian Armed Forces were encouraged, if not directly sponsored, by the US military training mission in Nigeria. This claim is absurd and the US has denied it as spurious. If true, it would be a grave charge that would justify the cancellation of the entire programme by the Federal Government. We cannot have foreign training missions in our country encouraging mutinies in the Nigerian Armed Forces. That is not the reason they were invited here in the first place. But the military doctrine imparted by the US military training programme is quite capable of creating in the minds of the Nigerian military doubts about the integrity of their officers. This could easily lead to a mutiny by the soldiers. The US Army represents an advanced industrial and democratic country. Nigeria is different and, whether intended or not, American military doctrines can easily become subversive of discipline in the Nigerian Armed Forces. It should also not be forgotten by the US authorities that Nigerian leaders have become increasingly suspicious of the US as a result of non-official reports from the US that Nigeria could break up in 2015. These reports, though not official, are resented in the country, and have had a negative impact on US-Nigeria relations.

     On the question of the refusal of the US to authorise the sale of specific military weapons to Nigeria, the US authorities have stated that this refusal was in compliance with the American Congressional decision that arms sale by the US should not be made to countries listed by the human rights organisations as being in serious breach of human rights, particularly by the use of torture. Nigeria is so listed, and it is common knowledge that torture is freely used by the Nigerian security agencies to obtain intelligence from suspects. This practice is reprehensible and cannot be tolerated in any decent, civilised and democratic society governed by the rule of law. It has been widely condemned by the media in Nigeria as well. The Nigerian public is totally against the use of torture on suspects. It is true that the Boko Haram insurgents are just as guilty of the resort to torture and other violent means in pursuing their military objectives in their war against Nigeria. And it is equally true that Nigeria is involved in a non-conventional war in which it would be difficult to fully apply the rules of the Geneva Convention on military engagements of the kind we now face in Northern Nigeria.

    But, though condemnable, it is not only in Nigeria that suspects are subjected to torture. The US is equally guilty of this reprehensible practice. The recent report of the US Senate on the widespread use of torture by the American CIA shows that the US is also seriously involved in the use of torture to obtain intelligence from suspects. The US Guantanamo military base in Cuba, in which prisoners detained by the US have been subjected to severe torture underscores the complexity of this matter. In this respect, the US cannot claim to be better or ‘holier’ than other countries practising torture, particularly in a war situation. The Americans should also not forget the use of torture by their armed forces during the long war in Vietnam, or in Iraq and Afghanistan in which combatants and non-combatants detained by the US have also been subjected to torture to obtain intelligence considered vital by the US Armed Forces.

    The US refusal to allow the sale of arms to Nigeria allegedly because of its breaches of human rights is within its competence. But the US has not been consistent in its application of this rule, which ties arms sale to human rights records of countries seeking to buy US arms. In 1982, when I chaired a session of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, I could see quite clearly the hypocrisy of the Western powers on the issue of human rights. Despite strong and persistent African opposition, the US sold arms openly to the apartheid regime in South Africa, which was guilty of complete disregard of the fundamental human rights of the Blacks in South Africa. It sold arms openly to Iraq when it was evident that there were serious breaches of human rights by the Sadam Hussain regime in Iraq. The Egyptian military have, until recently, received considerable arms supply from the US during the long period of military dictatorship there. Right now, Israel, a country notorious for its appalling human rights record, in relation to the Palestinians, is the largest recipient of US military aid and sale in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a country that is openly disdainful of human rights, buys virtually all its weapons from the US. If the US authorities want to sell arms to Nigeria, they would easily find a way of explaining to the US Congress that it is necessary to do so because of the strategic interests of the US in Nigeria. Nigeria has made it clear over time in its foreign policy that it does not want to become a ‘client-state’ to any foreign power. That was why in Angola in 1975 Nigeria rejected overtures from the US that Nigeria should support the FLNA in the Angolan civil war, instead of the MPLA, which had the support of virtually all African states. American policy makers have not forgotten this episode when Nigeria decided to act in defence of its national interest by according the MPLA government its recognition. It was the most popular decision ever in foreign policy by a determined Nigerian government.

    From the Nigerian perspective, a number of lessons should be learnt from this distressing episode in US-Nigeria relations caused by the refusal of the US to sell arms to Nigeria. It was not the first time that the US had refused arms sale to Nigeria. During the Nigerian civil war, President Nixon of the US refused Nigeria’s request for arms sale, pleading the neutrality of the US in our civil war. The first lesson is that like India, Nigeria should develop its defence industries to reduce its dependence on foreign arms supplies. After over 50 years of independence, Nigeria should be self-sufficient in arms supplies, and should not have to depend on foreign powers. It cannot adequately defend its national interests if it has to continue relying for its arms supplies on foreign powers. The second lesson we should learn is that we should not entrust the training of our armed forces to any foreign power. If our military officers require any further specialised military training, then they should be sent abroad, instead of inviting foreign military training teams to Nigeria. As we have seen, this could easily compromise Nigeria’s military security. The third lesson is that Nigeria should diversify the sources of its arms supplies and not rely on only a few foreign powers. We did this successfully at independence when both the training of the Nigerian military and its sources of arms supplies were diversified. We should revisit that strategy that served us well in the past.

  • In defence of freedom and democracy

    In defence of freedom and democracy

    In a recent article by me in this column, I echoed the thoughts and assertions of liberal philosophers that it is very difficult for any society or nation to achieve freedom for its people, and that, once achieved, it is even more difficult to defend and sustain such freedom. This was what led one philosopher to warn that ‘vigilance is the eternal price of freedom’.

       This has been the experience of our country, Nigeria, and its people, since independence from colonial rule was achieved in 1960. Three recent events illustrate how easy it is for our rulers to trample on our collective freedom, and how easy it is for them to get away with it. The first was the shameful manner in which a combination of the police and agents of the security forces  invaded the premises of the National Assembly and prevented members from holding a scheduled meeting specifically called to consider President Goodluck Jonathan’s request for an extension of the existing emergency rule in the Northeastern part of Nigeria where the insurgents, Boko Haram, have been on the rampage with heavy civilian casualties, including the over 200 Chibok girls that have not yet been recovered from their abduction. The second assault on our fledgling democracy was the invasion by the security agencies of the private office of the opposition party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), in Lagos, and the seizure by them of valuable documents of the party, including vital papers on the party’s register of members, and relevant information needed by the party in respect of the Permanent Voter Card (PVC) distribution. The third disturbing event was the unlawful manner in which Ayo Fayose, the newly elected Governor of Ekiti State, removed the Speaker of the House and got three of his nominees as commissioners approved by a House which was not legally constituted as required by the rules establishing the House.

      In all three cases, the police and security agents offered very lame and disturbing excuses for these disgraceful and deplorable assaults on our collective freedom. In the case of the police invasion of  the National Assembly, during which some members, fearing a possible impeachment of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, scaled the perimeter fence of the National Assembly, the Inspector- General of Police, Mr. Sulaiman Abba, claimed falsely that he ordered the lock out of members of the National Assembly because of the intelligence reports he received that some thugs were about to  invade the National Assembly and prevent members from meeting.

      Obviously, this claim is spurious, and fabricated, to justify a brazen and reprehensible police invasion of the National Assembly. For, if it was true that the police chief had received such an intelligence report, he should have informed the principal officers of the National Assembly, Senator David Mark, and Tambuwal, and sought their approval to shut the National Assembly. There is no evidence that the police chief passed such security information to these two. The decision to lock out members from the House was plainly political and intended to humiliate and embarrass Tambuwal for defecting from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the ruling party, to the All Progressives Congress (APC), the main opposition party. Subsequent events and political manoeuvres, including the attempt by the PDP members of the House to impeach Tambuwal reveal the real intentions of the police chief and the security agencies in locking out members of the House. It was to stop the House from meeting to perform its legitimate and lawful duties.

      In the second case, that of the break in by officials of the Department of State Security (DSS) into the APC office in Lagos, it was claimed by these agents that they broke in because they had received intelligence reports that the APC office was being used as the site for the cloning of the Permanent Voter Cards for next year’s general elections. Again another brazen lie used to justify an unlawful and reprehensible act. If it were not so, the DSS would, by now, be showing the public evidence of such cloning of voter cards. It has not yet done so, and has irresponsibly ignored a court ruling that the invasion was illegal, and that all documents taken away by the security agents in this disgraceful abuse of power, should be returned to the office of the APC. This incident is reminiscent of the Watergate break in, which drove President Richard Nixon from office in the United States. It is unthinkable in any democratic and civilised country.

      In the third case, that of Governor Fayose’s manipulation of the Ekiti House of Assembly, to remove the Speaker and secure the approval of the rump of the House for his nominees as commissioners, again this is no less than a flagrant breach of the democratic process, in which the independence of the legislature is constitutionally guaranteed against any form of abuse by the executive branch of government.

      In all three cases being considered here, the President has not uttered a word in condemnation of these brazen assaults on our fledgling democracy. But his silence is deafening, as it represents an explicit approval by him of the abuse of power and office by the police and the security agencies. In other civilised climes, those responsible for these breaches of the rule of law would have been dismissed immediately and handed over for prosecution. None of these has yet happened. Instead, they are being tacitly defended to the extent that the police chief, an unelected public official, could tell members of the House of Representatives that he no longer recognised Tambuwal as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, even though the House has not yet removed or replaced him.

     This is a dreadful and dangerous road our country has travelled before with grave consequences. In 1962, during the constitutional crisis in the old Western Region, the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa, in an evidently partisan and unconstitutional manner, ordered the police to invade the Western Region House of Assembly, in which there was a fracas, and ordered the closure of the Assembly. Subsequently, he declared a state of emergency in the region, and handed it over to a sole administrator. It was a script written and acted upon to destroy the Action Group (AG) government of the region. This wanton assault on democracy in the West eventually led to the first military intervention of January 15, 1966, in Nigeria, an event that eventually led to our bloody three-year civil war in which millions of our people died. We have not yet fully recovered from the consequences of that single action by Prime Minister Balewa of taking over the government of the Western Region in circumstances that were plainly absurd and unconstitutional.

      Now, one would have thought that the entire country would unite in condemning and resisting these serial assaults on our democracy and freedom. But that is not the case. Instead, it is being viewed in partisan terms as a matter solely for the opposition party. As usual, tribal considerations have blinded some of our people to the possible tragic consequences of this onslaught on our freedom. But freedom and democracy cannot be divided, or denied to those who, today, may be in opposition. Freedom denied an individual, is freedom denied to all. Let me end this column by recalling what Lord Palmerston, a 19th century British liberal Prime Minister once said about the defence of freedom;

    ‘There is a passion in the human heart stronger than the desire to be free from injustice and wrong, and this is the desire to inflict injustice and wrong upon others. Men resent more keenly an attempt to prevent them from oppressing other people than they do the oppression from which they themselves( once) suffered”.

  • Nigeria’s financial and economic prospects for FY 2015

    Nigeria’s financial and economic prospects for FY 2015

    In recent years, Nigeria’s financial and economic conditions have been generally favourable. Although it has not translated into any significant alleviation of mass poverty in the country, the annual economic growth rate of over six per cent is quite impressive.

     But, right now, economic prospects for next year do not appear to be good. Falling global oil prices this year have forced the Federal Government to review downwards both its revenue and budget estimates for the 2015 fiscal year. Referring to the grim situation and the report of the WB/IMF on the global impact of the slump in oil prices, the Finance Minister, Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has warned that the fall in oil prices ‘presents (Nigeria) with a serious challenge’, and that everyone in the nation should be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices called for by the slump in the price of oil.  In spite of the determined efforts over the year   s to diversify the structure of the domestic economy, revenue from oil still accounts for over 85 per cent of the total national revenue.

      Already, because of the fall in oil revenue, the excess crude oil account (ECA) from which both the federal and state governments draw has declined from $11.5 billion at the end of 2013 to only $4.11 billion now. Evidently, the drastic draw down is due to financial pressures that were not envisaged and for which there was no provision in the current budget. The states are currently demanding the further release to them of US$ 2 billion from the excess crude oil account. Anticipated revenue for the current year is N7.23 trillion. The Federal Government’s projected revenue for 2015 is N6.83 trillion, a staggering estimated loss in revenue of almost N500 billion.

      In response to the looming financial crisis, the Minister for Finance has announced several austerity measures to deal with the situation. First, instead of the current budget oil benchmark of $77 per barrel, the budget for next year will be based on a bench mark of $73 per barrel. A fall of only $4 per barrel in projected oil benchmark should not be unduly alarming, as the loss of oil revenue involved can be easily recovered from the slack in public taxation and a more stringent adherence to budget proposals. As is well known, one of the main problems with Nigeria’s public finance is its poor budget implementation and the lack of budget discipline. Extra budgetary public expenditures on non-critical sectors of the economy tend to aggravate the financial situation. Privatisation was intended to reduce public expenditure. But this has not happened, as the cost of government has continued to increase inexorably with the replication of several government agencies. The fight against public corruption has to be intensified.

      The cautiously expansionary budgets of recent years have certainly stimulated economic growth in the country. Most of this impressive economic growth is due to vastly increased foreign direct investment (FDI), including remittances from Nigerians abroad. But it is doubtful that these favourable economic and financial conditions can be sustained for much longer in view of the expected downturn in the global economy in the immediate future. Economic recovery in the European Union is sputtering. Even growth in China and India, the two fastest growing economies in the world, is beginning to slow down. China and India are now Nigeria’s largest oil importers. But next year and beyond, these two nations will import less oil from Nigeria due to the slump in global demand for manufactures. The United States has not only stopped importing oil from Nigeria completely, but has itself, thanks to its shale oil, become quite a big player in oil exports. So the lucrative American oil market has been lost to Nigeria- perhaps for good. But Nigeria has not yet made the necessary adjustments called for by the loss of the lucrative American oil market.

     The logic of these negative trends in the global economy has not been lost on Nigerian economic planners, and Mrs. Okonjo-Iweala’s dire economic prognosis and warnings should be well taken. Highlights of the austerity measures proposed by the Minister of Finance include a tight fiscal policy, a reduction in the allocation to the states and local governments from the federation accounts, a reduction in the general cost of administration, including a ban on non-essential foreign travels by public servants, better administration of the tax regime still, being largely evaded, and a cut in both recurrent and capital expenditures next year. Although she did not specifically say so, the Federal Government will be thinking of reviewing and eliminating some of the subsidies being enjoyed by the public. Of these, the so-called oil subsidy is the most obvious, but also the most contentious. Removal of the subsidy will increase the burden on the poor and increase the cost of doing business in the country as well. And there is no guarantee that the savings from the removal of the oil and other subsidies will be used prudently to mitigate its effect on the poor. Okonjo-Iweala has said agriculture and housing will be the core areas of investment next year. To these must be added the upgrading of the poor infrastructure, particularly power and public transportation, as well as the social sector of education and health.

     Obviously, the proposed austerity measures are intended to return the economy to a fiscal balance. They are no doubt necessary, but care should be taken to ensure that the cost -saving measures do not lead to an economic recession in the country. The Minister of Finance underlined the risks involved in a deflationary financial strategy when she said that there was no need to panic over the anticipated decline in oil revenue for next year, and that the economic fundamentals in the country were still quite strong. But there is going to be increased pressure on the naira exchange rate, which the government has been trying desperately to shore up by drawing increasingly on the foreign reserves. Given the expected decline in foreign exchange earnings from oil, which constitute about 75 per cent of all foreign exchange earnings from exports, the government may be forced to abandon its defence of the naira exchange rate, and allow some devaluation of the national currency. The naira exchange rate, currently at N160 to the US dollar, may go up as high as N180, or more next year. Of course, this will have negative consequences for the economy in terms of inflationary spiral and the creation of jobs, the Achilles heel of the domestic economy. This will be accompanied by a rise in the cost of living, and this expected development could lead to widespread demand for wage increases in all sectors of the economy. We can expect some Labour strikes next year in response to an increase in the cost of living. Fearing the possible devaluation of the naira, foreign investors have begun moving their capital from the domestic economy to other economies where there are better and more stable fiscal and monetary policies, particularly the exchange rates.

     It has been suggested in some powerful quarters that, to mitigate the negative effect of the decline in revenue on the domestic economy, the Federal Government should resort to deficit financing which will allow the public sector to borrow massively from the banking sector. Whatever might be the attractions of this alternative strategy, care should be taken to control and effectively manage the level of deficit financing so as not to completely crowd out the private sector from borrowing from the banks. There is some palpable fear in the private sector that any increase in the public sector borrowing requirements will damage the much desired expansion in the industrial sector, and consequently the prospects for job creation. Already, the domestic debt stock is much too high, and the foreign debt is beginning to mount again. Yet, the Federal Government is seeking to borrow some US$ 1 billion to better equip the Armed Forces to enable it tackle the growing Boko Haram terrorism. But a political resolution of the insurgency is more likely to succeed than a military solution.

     Elections are due in the first quarter of next year. This will lead to a slow down in public sector economic activities, as all energies will be diverted to the elections, particularly the presidential. The second quarter too will not generate more economic activities, as the new governments at both the federal and state levels will need some time to settle down. In the circumstances, some decline in the growth rate in 2015 should be anticipated. It is unlikely that the current growth rate of 6.5 per cent will be achieved next year. Altogether, 2015 is going to be a more difficult economic and financial year for the country.

  • On the memoirs of Pa Victor Adetunji Haffner

    On the memoirs of Pa Victor Adetunji Haffner

    I should like to join previous speakers in commending and offering Pa Engineer Victor Adetunji Haffner my warmest congratulations on the public presentation of his remarkable and interesting memoirs, including his reflections on Nigeria from independence to 1999. He was a living witness and major player in the epochal events he so vividly describes in the memoirs. I have had a preview of the book and, at his personal invitation, I am delighted to make the following comments on his memoirs. In inviting me, he said I should speak for only 10 minutes. That is going to be difficult. But it is a measure of Pa Haffner’s modesty and disregard for humbug and protocol, despite his outstanding service to the nation as a telecommunications engineer of international repute.

    Pa Haffner’s antecedents are quite remarkable. He is a thorough bred Lagosian of creole descent. He was born at Haffner Street in Central Lagos on September 1, 1919. When he turned 95 last September, I gave him a copy of my own memoirs, not knowing that he had written one himself. The chairman of this occasion, Pa Akintola Williams was with him to celebrate the happy occasion with h8im. Pa Akintola Williams, is only a few weeks older than him. They were classmates at the CMS Grammar School, Lagos, from 1933-38 and have remained close friends. I think that of the 1938 class at the CMS Grammar, that also included the late legal icon, Chief Rotimi Williams, only the two of them are still alive alive. My late father, Chief Olagunju Asaolu Fafowora, who was their classmate at the school, passed on in 2003 at the age of only 88. It is a remarkable feat and achievement for him to have written his memoirs at such an advanced age. Unbelievably, his memory of the major events in his life, spanning nearly a century now, is still remarkably good. He has been blessed with good health, which he attributes to his genes. When he and his family were attacked by armed robbers in his Ikoyi home, he single handedly fought them back, wrestling their leader to the ground. In the process, he was shot and lost his left eye.

     Considering his distinguished family ancestry, one could say that he was born with a silver spoon and that with such a privileged background personal success for him was inevitable. But he has had to work very hard for his professional success as a telecoms engineer in a remarkable career that took him to the top as the first Nigerian Managing Director of Nigerian External Telecommunications (NET). He has an excellent pedigree of which he remains very proud. His father, Mr. Frederick Mathew Haffner, was a civil servant in the Lagos City Council during colonial rule. As he says in the memoirs, the family originally migrated to colonial Lagos from Freetown, Sierra Leone, after the abolition of slavery, when many of those who had been freed from slavery traced their roots back to either Lagos or Abeokuta. His grandfather was the brother of the distinuguished John Otunba Payne of the Orange House fame, a brilliant lawyer, the first African Registrar of the Supreme Court in Nigeria, and a church warden at the Cathedral Church of Christ, Marina, Lagos. He was also the publisher of the famous Lagos Almanac, which was very much in demand in those days. His mother, Victoria Adepeju, was also a niece of John Otunba Payne. Remarkably too, Dr. Henry Rawlinson Carr, who graduated from Durham University at the tender age of only 19, and had such a brilliant career in the colonial civil service, was his grand uncle. When Pa Haffner was at the CMS Grammar School, he lived with Dr. Henry Carr, his grand uncle, at his mansion at Tinubu Square, Lagos. Dr. Carr was never married and regarded Pa Haffner as his adopted son. For a young lad, and given the fame and reputation of Dr. Henry Carr, this was a rare privilege which, no doubt, had a profound effect on him. Though an engineer, he is one of the most cultured professionals it has been my pleasure to know. This trait must have been passed on to him by Dr. Henry Carr. The old federal Ministry of Finance, now abandoned, was the site of Henry Carr’s residence. I knew it when I was growing up in Lagos. In 1928, at the age of 9, Dr. Carr encouraged and inspired him to join the choir of then Christ Church, Marina. That was when his love of music began. It was Dr. Carr that moved at an Anglican Synod in Lagos that Christ Church be elevated to a cathedral, and he became the first chancellor of the Anglican Diocese in Lagos

     To digress a bit, Dr. Henry Carr was a brilliant administrator in the colonial service and was appointed Inspector of schools, and later, the Resident for Lagos colony. In fact when the colonial Governor of Lagos went on leave, Dr. Henry Carr acted as the governor of Lagos. In his time, he was the highest ranking African in the colonial civil service. Because of his brilliance, the white colonial officials grudgingly accepted him as their intellectual equal and, in some cases, as even their superior. It is a pity that Dr. Henry Carr left no memoirs but he bequeathed his large library to the University College, Ibadan.

    Pa Haffner is a pioneer of the engineering profession in Nigeria. After his brilliant career at the CMS Grammar School, Lagos, the oldest secondary grammar school in Nigeria, having been founded in June, 1859, he proceeded to Northampton College, London (now City University), where he did the first part of his engineering course. After that he studied at the famous Regent Street Polytechnic (now Westminster University), graduating as a Chartered Engineer, and a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, specialising in telecommunications, the first in this field. He remained in England for a while, gaining further useful professional experience as a telecoms engineer with the British firms of Cable and Wireless and Standard telephones. It was from there that he was recruited in November by the colonial government in Nigeria as a Pupil Engineer in the old P&T

     In 1957, Pa Haffner married Grace Olubunmi Majekodunmi, from the well known and highly respected Majekodunmi family from Abeokuta. Regrettably, she predeceased him in 2007 at the age of 81.

    Now, these memoirs have to be seen in the context of the manner Nigeria evolved after its independence from colonial rule in 1960, and the role of the first generation of Nigerian engineers and other professionals in Nigeria’s development.

  • Defining real issues in the 2015 presidential election

    Defining real issues in the 2015 presidential election

    The two main political parties in Nigeria, the APC (the opposition party) and the PDP (the ruling party at the federal level) are preparing feverishly for the presidential election due in March next year. Baring any unforeseen developments, the PDP will again present President Jonathan as its candidate for re-election. Despite some opposition to his candidacy from some disparate PDP groups in the North, the probability is that he will emerge as a consensus candidate in the party. But in the case of the APC, the main opposition party, the situation regarding who will emerge as the party’s presidential candidate is not so clear. Three candidates, General Muhammadu Buhari, a former military ruler, Abubakar Atiku, a former vice-president in Obasanjo’s PDP federal government, and Rabiu Kwankwaso, the governor of Kano State, are clearly in the lead for the party’s nomination as candidates for election as the president. All three APC candidates have public records by which they can be judged. But General Buhari, despite his perceived faults, appears to be in the lead. Last week, he declared his interest in the contest with a powerful speech outlining his vision for Nigeria. In the case of President Jonathan, his “Transformation Agenda” offers a basis for determining his effectiveness, or not, in office.

    However, regardless of who emerges from both parties as presidential candidates, it is desirable that the main issues of this critical election be well defined and understood by the electorate, which should be guided in its choice by the challenges now facing the nation, and who they think by his record in office is best qualified among the candidates to effectively tackle these enormous challenges. Despite several divisions in the nation, the focus of the electorate should be on which of the candidates has the vision and the leadership qualities to resolve some of our deep seated problems that cut across the ethnic, religious, and social divide in our nation.

    The question of national security.

    By far the biggest and most pressing challenge now facing our country is the destructive Boko Haram insurgency in the Northeast of Nigeria that has claimed hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. Over 200 school girls abducted in April in Chibok, Borno State, by the insurgents have not yet been released. Regrettably, this grave and disturbing threat to the national security is being increasingly politicised, with both parties blaming each other for the situation. This menace should, instead, be treated on a bipartisan basis with a full consensus on the strategy to be adopted to end the insurgency. Evidently, despite its best efforts, the PDP federal government has failed to deal adequately with the insurgency. There have recently been some false hopes raised on this security issue, and the FG is currently involved in delicate negotiations with the insurgents to free the girls. As I write this, there is a glimmer of hope that the girls will be released, even if only in batches. Let us hope that the FG will succeed in pulling this off.  Otherwise, the credibility of the FG on the handling of this traumatic problem will be badly dented.

    But it is not only the rampaging insurgency that Nigeria has to cope with. In addition, we have political assassinations, kidnappings, vastly increased armed robberies and other violent crimes to grapple with. Then there are the various armed militias all over the country operating with virtual impunity. The current state of internal insecurity is the worst our nation has ever had to face. Some observers even doubt that, in the light of this appalling state of internal insecurity, next year’s elections can be held, or that it can be free and fair. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to hold elections in Borno State in present circumstances. All this undermines our economic growth as a nation. We would expect to hear in details from the contenders for the presidency how they intend to tackle this long and festering sore in the nation.

    It has to be said that of the contenders, General Buhari is better placed to take a tough and uncompromising stand on the issue of national security. As a former military officer and ruler, he acquired a reputation as a fine soldier who is willing to take risks if necessary, as he did in Chad, to protect Nigeria’s security. He is the only military candidate and, despite some reservations about his regard for caution and prudence, he certainly has the military background and experience to deal effectively with the insurgency and other growing challenges to our national security. As far as the issue of national security is concerned he will certainly do much better than President Jonathan who, on the whole, has tended to deal with the insurgency in Borno state with kid gloves.

     The economic challenges: Job creation and poverty reduction.

    Nigeria has been touted as the largest economy in Africa. Its annual economic growth rate of nearly seven per cent in recent years is certainly impressive. But this high economic growth has been fuelled largely by surging oil revenues and high foreign direct investment. The economy remains basically fragile and highly vulnerable to a decline in either the oil revenue or foreign direct investment. For instance, South Africa’s economy, the second largest in Africa, is more balanced and mature than Nigeria’s economy. It does not have any oil income to depend on for growth. South Africa is better placed to withstand the looming global oil shocks. Unlike Nigeria, its economy is export -led. The current projection is that Nigeria’s oil revenues will continue to fall in the coming years as the U.S. has virtually ceased importing oil from Nigeria. China and India, Nigeria’s two major oil importers, are also cutting back on oil imports from Nigeria because of the slow down in the global economy that is also affecting their own economies negatively. The slow down in global manufacturing, particularly in the European Community, will have a negative impact on global oil supplies.

    In fact, Nigeria is already feeling the negative effect of the decline in oil revenues. For months now, there has been very little money in the federation account to share among the states and the federal government. The excess crude oil fund has been virtually depleted. The foreign reserves are falling steadily due to CBN’s efforts to shore up the naira. Virtually all the governments of the federation now have to contend with falling revenues, and this will slow down Nigeria’s economic growth. Already, the World Bank and the IMF have offered Nigeria much needed advice that, on account of these negative developments in the global economy, it should increase the tempo of its efforts to diversify the structure of the economy. It is nearly 30 years since the IMF- inspired Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) was introduced by Nigeria with very high socio-economic costs, but very little diversification of the economy has been achieved, particularly under this PDP federal government. Implementation of the budget of the federal government has been generally tardy. Thirty years after the Structural Adjustment Programme, the rate of poverty in our country has not been significantly reduced. The programme on job creation has not really made any impact on the millions of the unemployed at every level of the society. This is driving the unemployed but well educated youths to commit violent crimes.

    The electorate will need to know in greater details how the parties, particularly the opposition APC, intend to tackle these severe economic crises in the coming years. Detailed analyses of public finance and the party’s strategies to cope with these economic  challenges at the national level are necessary. The APC has issued its manifesto and much of what is in the manifesto is sensible. But with the danger of falling national revenue looming, the party needs to revisit its manifesto to take account of the new economic and financial realities.

    Public corruption, decaying infrastructure and the rule of law.

    These three items together present our country with enormous challenges. Under the current political dispensation, public corruption has become more pervasive in our country than ever before. Almost on a daily basis, the media is awash with news about the high level of corruption in our country, the latest been the arms sale scandal in which South Africa seized some $15 million of Nigeria’s money. President Jonathan has not been forthcoming on this issue despite its extensive damage to Nigeria’s image abroad and bilateral relations with South Africa. A World Bank report some years ago on corruption in Nigeria, estimated that nearly 20 per cent of all public expenditure in Nigeria goes towards corruption. Today, the figure is definitely higher with obvious consequences for our economic development. This high level of corruption is directly responsible for the inability of the FG to make the necessary investment in the development of our woeful infrastructure. It is also the source of the negation of the rule of law in our country. The electorate needs to know how the contending parties and candidates intend to meet these challenges in future. These are the issues that should determine the outcome of the elections next year.

  • When will Nigeria earn international respect again?

    For some years now, Nigeria’s role in international affairs has been on the decline steadily. With its immense size and huge population, our country ought to play a more significant role in world affairs. But that is not the case now. It is not being treated with the respect that should be normally due to it as the most populous country in Africa and the continent’s largest economy. In a study, “Gulliver’s Troubles’, a collection of essays on Nigeria’s international relations by distinguished Nigerian and foreign scholars, published a few years ago, to which I made a contribution, the consensus of the scholars was that Nigeria’s role in world and African affairs had declined significantly, and that given Nigeria’s immense resources and wealth, it was punching very much below its real weight.

    Now, what is the basis of this consensus? Although Nigeria has continued to participate actively in African affairs, it no longer commands the influence it once had in regional affairs. As the largest economy in Africa and the biggest contributor to the budget of the African Union (AU), its counsel ought to be taken seriously in the organisation, as was the case until recently. When it contests for top positions in the AU, or some of its economic agencies, it loses consistently to member states that should wield less clout financially than Nigeria. Twice, it lost such vital positions in the AfDB. This is clearly an indication that, unlike in the past, Nigeria is no longer able to mobilise support for its candidates in such vital regional organisations. Even among its immediate neighbours, such as Niger, Chad, Benin and Cameroon, Nigeria’s influence is steadily on the decline. When Nigeria needed the support of these countries to effectively tackle the Boko Haram insurgency, it was summoned to Paris by the French government to a meeting with its own neighbours. This sort of thing would not have occurred in the 70s and 80s when Nigeria’s voice in African affairs was strong, and when most African countries still held it in high esteem as the leading country in Africa.

    But since then, our country has become the object of crude and disrespectful jokes among many African leaders. Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, a country that enjoyed Nigeria’s unstinted support during its liberation struggle, was reported as denouncing Nigeria for its widespread corruption. Specifically, he derided Nigeria as a country where planes would not take off until the pilots were bribed. Of course, this was an exaggeration for which Nigeria should have demanded from him an immediate apology. But I am not aware that we demanded such an apology from this man to whom Nigeria gave $500,000 in 1980 to fight the crucial independence election in Zimbabwe in 1980. The money was handed over to him personally in his residence by the late Chief  S.G. Ikoku and I. Similarly, the President Of Uganda, Museveni, was reported as criticising Nigeria for asking for foreign assistance in tackling the BH insurgency, adding that his country, Uganda, would never ask for foreign military assistance in dealing with its internal difficulties. Yet, in 1962, when there was a mutiny in the Ugandan Army, it was to Nigeria that the Ugandan government turned for help. The Nigerian Army helped put down a similar armed rebellion in Tanzania.

    But President Museveni was quite right in admonishing Nigeria for seeking to rely on foreign powers to help it solve its insurgency problem. Uganda is a country that I know quite well, having once served there during the terrible years of Idi Amin’s infamous rule. It is far less endowed than Nigeria and, in normal circumstances, should hold Nigeria in high esteem. But that is no longer the case. It was expected by other African states that a country with Nigeria’s immense resources, and the erstwhile reputation of its armed forces in peace keeping operations all over Africa, should be able to bring the BH insurgency to an end without recourse to foreign powers. And what has been the practical effect of seeking foreign assistance for an insurgency that we should have put down easily? It has been very little. As recently admitted by the Nigerian Armed Forces, the foreign powers that we brought in to help the country have virtually abandoned us. They complain that Nigeria was really not serious about tackling the insurgency headlong, and that Boko Haram has infiltrated the highest levels of government, a fact that even President Jonathan once admitted. How could we expect much military collaboration from foreign powers when President Jonathan is seen in Chad in the company of Modu Sheriiff, a former governor of Borno, who has been openly accused of complicity in the emergence and rise of BH? They have concluded rightly that military collaboration with Nigeria involves high risks to their military which they are unable to accept.

    However, Nigeria’s loss of influence in African and world affairs goes beyond our failure to end the insurgency in our country. Nigeria is increasingly being thought of as a failed state that, despite its huge resources, has been steadily on the decline in terms of the quality of governance. The World Bank and other multilateral financial agencies are up beat about Nigeria’s impressive growth rate, estimated at over 6 per cent. But what is the practical effect of this impressive and steady economic growth rate? It has been very insignificant. Nigeria continues to have some of the lowest human development indices, even in Africa. With more than three times the population of South Africa, its closest economic rival, it generates less than a third of South Africa’s electricity supply. Its educational, health and infrastructure deficits continue to lag behind those of South Africa and some other African countries.

    Why is it so? It is because of the widespread corruption in Nigeria, which has continued to undermine economic and social development. Virtually all the state institutions, including the executive, legislative and the judiciary, have broken down completely. The other day, the Chief Justice of the Federation was reported as complaining that the judiciary was rotten, with many judges openly taking bribes to distort justice. The bench too is believed to be just as corrupt. I need not mention the vast sums of money that routinely disappears from Nigeria, including the recent attempt to launder $9.3 millon in a so-called arms deal in South Africa

    All of these negative developments impinge on our foreign policy the quality of which ultimately depends on foreign perceptions of our country. It is our domestic situation that determines our foreign policy and our role in international affairs. Our foreign policy will not be taken seriously or effective if we are held in low esteem internationally. Our role and influence in international affairs will inevitably decline. The Foreign Minister was recently reported as saying that Nigeria was sending nearly 600 delegates to the current UN General Assembly session. If this is true, it must be the largest of any delegations at the UN, including that of the United States. When I served at the UN, we did not have more than 12 delegates at any UN General Assembly session. Even then, I thought our delegation was too large, particularly as most of the delegates were not really interested in the work of the UN. After attending one or two meetings and collecting their huge allowances they simply disappear from sight, without contributing anything to our work at the UN.

    A few days ago I told a former colleague of mine that Nigeria no longer had a foreign policy, a claim that I also made to a former foreign minister. Both of them agreed with my observation, and blamed the sad situation on negative developments at home, particularly the preoccupation of the federal government with the unstable domestic situation and political tension in Nigeria. This situation takes too much of the time of the President leaving him with little or no time for strategic planning in foreign affairs. He is not short of good advice from the Foreign Ministry, and many of the foreign affairs agencies and institutes that are obliged to offer him advice. But, despite his frequent foreign travels, he has little or no time to engage his advisers in a strategic review of Nigeria’s foreign affairs. This is the reason for the drift in Nigeria’s foreign relations and why Nigeria has lost much respect globally.

  • Boko Haram and the Stephen Davis Clanger

    Boko Haram and the Stephen Davis Clanger

    The Boko Haram insurgency appears again to be gathering some momentum. The insurgents have seized more towns in Borno State and have declared a Caliphate there. The conflict is widening with press reports about some limited military incursions by the insurgents in Adamawa State. Now, in the midst of all this, Mr. Stephen (or Steven) Davies, the unknown and mysterious Australian mediator in the conflict, has dropped a political clanger about the identity of the sponsors of the insurgency. In a widely reported interview in The Cable, an online newspaper, Mr. Davis claimed that, in his meetings with the leaders of Boko Haram in an undisclosed location, he was told that among the main sponsors of the insurgency were Ali Modu Sheriff, the former governor of Borno State, now a Senator, and Lt. -General Azubuike Ihejirika, the retired army chief of staff. Mr. Davis also claimed he was told that an unnamed senior official of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) had been facilitating the transfer of funds to the insurgents from an unnamed Nigerian based in Cairo, Egypt, with strong ties to Al Qaeda. These claims have sent ripples across the country and beyond. The identity of the sponsors  of the insurgency has become a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

    These are grave allegations bordering on treason on the part of those allegedly involved in sponsoring the insurgency. Both men named by Mr. Davis have vehemently denied the claim, with Ali Modu Sheriff threatening to sue Mr. (or Dr.) Stephen Davis for allegedly defaming him. Lt.-General Ihejirika says he was named because of his tough military strategy in the conflict with the insurgents, adding arrogantly that he had no regrets for taking such a tough military stance against the insurgents. It is difficult to understand why he should be tagged a collaborator simply because of his claim that he adopted a tough military strategy against the insurgents. Could this be a decoy by the insurgents?

    But who really is this Australian mediator, who has variously been described as a political geographer, a political scientist, and even a ‘Cardinal’ in the Australian Anglican Church. Until he broke into the news a few months ago, very little was known about his political antecedents or record in mediating in international or national conflicts. At the time, the media claimed that he had been invited by the federal government to mediate in the insurgency and help rescue the over 200 Chibok girls kidnapped and still being held as captives by Boko Haram. The federal government was certainly aware of press reports linking it with Mr. Davis’s efforts to secure the release of the kidnapped girls. But now, a spokesperson of the Department of State Security (DSS), Mrs. Ogar, has categorically stated that Mr. Davis was neither invited by the federal government to help secure the release of the girls, nor were his mediation efforts in this regard authorised by the FG. In fact, according to Mrs. Ogar, the DSS was neither consulted by Mr. Davis about his mediation efforts nor did he submit any report to the federal government, or any of its security agencies, regarding what transpired in negotiations between him and the insurgents.

     Someone is being economical with the truth about this entirely disgraceful episode. It is rather strange and paradoxical that the federal government, which was fully aware of Mr. Davis’s mediation with the insurgents, should now choose this time to deny any knowledge of what Mr. Davis was doing in Borno State negotiating with the insurgents. On what basis was his entry into Nigeria approved? Who sponsored his trip financially and met his expenses in Nigeria? Was it the insurgents or some other external sponsors? How could the federal government claim to be totally ignorant of the presence of Mr. Davis in Borno State, or deny his mediation efforts, when the media reported periodically about this matter and his efforts in mediating in the abduction of the Chibok girls. If the FG did not authorise or approve his role, why was Mr. Davis allowed to come to Nigeria in the first place? Was the FG naïve in thinking something positive could come from his efforts for which it could then claim some credit?

      I should say that, with my long experience in diplomacy as a retired Nigerian Ambassador, I was very sceptical right from the start that Mr. Davis, whose antecedents were not really known, was the right man for the job of securing the release of the kidnapped girls. I thought it to be highly unlikely that Mr. Davis, a Christian for that matter mediating in a religious conflict with the Islamic jihadists, was in any position to achieve this objective. It was my view that, for any mediation to be really successful, and for the abducted girls to be released, Nigerian mediators, preferably from the North and Muslim, were far better placed to realise this objective. Some of these possible mediators are known to have direct links with the leaders of the insurgency and are more likely to be in a better position to persuade the Boko Haram leaders to release the Chibok girls. In fact, there have been press reports of such mediation efforts by some notable Northern Muslim leaders, which should have been encouraged by the federal government. Now, with the passage of time, it is getting increasingly unlikely that the Chibok girls will ever be rescued with, or without, the use of force which the Armed Forces have ruled out as too risky.

     Now, as to the claims by Mr. Davis of the complicity of Senator Modu Sheriff and Lt.-General Ihejirika in the sponsorship of the insurgency, these should be fully investigated by the security agencies. Sheriff, who has been widely linked by the media to the origins of Boko Haram, is believed to have been invited already for questioning by the DSS over the matter. Though I consider it highly implausible that Lt-Gen. Ihejirika was also involved in sponsoring or supporting the insurgents as claimed by Mr. Davis, he too should be invited for questioning to ascertain the truth, or otherwise, of the claims by Mr. Davis, whose reports on the whole have tended to be broadly speculative. There are disturbing reports that the foreign powers that had offered Nigeria limited military assistance with military intelligence and air strikes in flushing out the dissidents were discouraged when they found out that even the Presidency had been infiltrated by Boko Haram moles.

    Regrettably, there has been some unnecessary blame game on this grave and tragic matter, with both the PDP federal government and the opposition APC blaming each other for the dire security situation confronting the nation. This is not what we need now as it will give comfort to the enemy, now on the rampage in Borno State. The situation is one of national emergency and both the government and the opposition must stand together, shoulder to shoulder, in fighting this threat to our survival as a nation. This is no time for partisan and bitter politics. The federal government must take the security threat from the insurgents more seriously. It is certainly not doing enough now to contain and defeat the insurgency. It appears confused and bewildered by the military audacity of the insurgents.

      We must also recognise that the insurgency is a direct consequence of persistently bad governance in the North, characterised by the long period of grinding poverty, lack of jobs, and rampart social injustice, all of which undermine the political stability and unity of our country. Something must be done collectively by all of Nigeria’s political elite to tackle these long standing political, economic and social problems. It is what the insurgents are feeding on. They are steadily gaining the support locally of those who erroneously believe that the insurgents offer them a better future. The insurgency relies heavily on this increasing local support for their military intelligence and audacity.

      The pathetic situation in the Armed Forces is one that is of considerable concern to the public, with desertions from the Army, of which nearly two battalions were reported as fleeing across the border to the Cameroon. Nigeria once had a competent Army with an admirable local and international record of which the nation was proud. It is now at the mercy of a rag tag insurgency of less than 4,000 fighters. Senior Army officials claim consistently that they are ‘on top of the situation’. But the insurgents seem to have the upper hand militarily. This is embarrassing, not only to the Armed Forces, but to the entire nation. There is no record of any such desertions during our civil war fought with even more savagery than the conflict with the insurgents. But the Armed Forces were well armed and motivated then than now. We hear reports of inadequate funding and equipment inferior to that of the insurgents. To increase the fighting capability of the Armed Forces and end the desertion of the troops the National Assembly must look more closely into the funding of the Army and the supply of the much needed arms and ammunition to it. How the huge defence budget is being spent should also be thoroughly investigated.

  • Chief Samuel Olatunde Fadahunsi, CON (1920- 2014)

    Chief Samuel Olatunde Fadahunsi, CON (1920- 2014)

    The death has been announced of Chief Samuel Olatunde Fadahunsi, CON, on August 12. He died peacefully after a brief illness at the Lagoon Hospital, Marine Road, Apapa, Lagos, in the company of his adoring wife, Chief (Mrs.) Elizabeth Iyabo Fadahunsi, his children and family. He was 94 and his death marks a watershed in the engineering profession in Nigeria, of which he was a pioneer and an icon. His contribution to the development of the profession in Nigeria is immense.

    Chief Fadahunsi was one of Nigeria’s most accomplished and celebrated civil engineers. In a public career spanning over 50 years after graduating in England in 1954 as a civil engineer, Chief Fadahunsi established for himself an enviable reputation as Nigeria’s leading water engineer. He initiated and was actively involved professionally in the building of water dams and supply all over the old Western Region. All these dams are still in existence today. In a fitting written tribute to him in 2009, his old friend and equally distinguished professional colleague, the Ven. Engineer P.B. Oyebolu, now deceased, described him as “a legend of our time, an astute and forthright Nigerian, a man of many parts, a great professional engineer, a man of principle and a deeply religious person”. No one who knew Chief Fadahunsi intimately will disagree with that estimation of him.

     Chief Fadahunsi was born on March 17, 1920, in Ora, a village, near Ila-Orangun, into a well known Ijesa family with royal lineages on both sides. His father hailed from the Loro family, one of the ‘warlord groups’ of the Ijesa Council of Chiefs that assisted the Owa in running the Ijesa Kingdom, while his mother was a direct descendant of the ruling Owa, of the Bilaro royal family. It was he who founded the village of Itagunmodi, now famous for its rich gold deposit. Chief Fadahunsi was the nephew of the former governor of the old Western Region, Sir Odeleye Fadahunsi. Among his numerous cousins were Professor Femi Fadahunsi of LUTH, Professor Akin Fadahunsi of Ahmadu Bello University and Olu Fadahunsi, a lawyer. All of them, though younger, regrettably predeceased him.

    Chief Fadahunsi’s early life in Ora revolved around the local church. As he said, this was to have a profound influence on him throughout his life. The family’s life and activities centred mainly on the church where his father was a prominent leader. He remained a devout Christian and, until age related infirmities took hold of him, he worshipped regularly with his family at the Cathedral Church of Christ, Marina, Lagos. His professional service and contribution to the church are invaluable. At Ilesa which he often visited, he worshipped at St. John’s Cathedral.

    After primary schools in Ilesa, Osogbo, and Ibadan, Chief Fadahunsi’s early promise and brilliance took him to the prestigious Government College, Ibadan, in 1937, where he joined other equally brilliant Ijesa students. Among these were the late Professor Olu Mabayoje, the outstanding physician, the late Dr. Timothy M. Aluko, the well known writer who, like Chief Fadahunsi, later distinguished himself in civil engineering, Obi Obembe and Chief M. Apara, now 94, who read economics at Hull University in England, and later became the Chief Accountant of the old ECN. Mention must be made in this connection of another outstanding Ijesa Engineer, Chief Teju Oyeleye, who also passed on recently at 88. This first generation of Ijesa engineers dominated the engineering profession in Nigeria for a long time. All of them remained close friends for life. The Ijesa excel in engineering, law, medicine and religious evangelism, turning out some of the most distinguished professionals in their various fields.

    Of that brilliant group, only the late Justice Kayode Eso was not at the Government College, Ibadan. He attended Ilesa Grammar School instead. But all of them, including Dr. F.A. Ajayi, who took a first class honour’s degree in law from the London School of Economics remained very close, and inspired a lot of younger Ijesa students, including this writer, to strive for the best always. But what is even more impressive about this distinguished Ijesa professionals was their intense loyalty to one another. Through my late father, I was privileged to have been acquainted with all of them and personally held them in high esteem for their professional integrity, humility and sincere friendship, all virtues that are now in short supply in our country.

    In 1943, during World War 11, Chief Fadahunsi entered the newly established Yaba Higher College to read civil engineering, along with nine other students selected from all over colonial Nigeria. This fortuitous situation was to make him develop a healthy relationship and respect for other Nigerians. Yaba offered only a diploma course in engineering then. In 1946, Chief Fadahunsi graduated from Yaba with a diploma in civil engineering and took up appointment in the colonial Public Works Department (PWD). His first assignment as a trainee assistant engineer was at the Osogbo-Ede water supply, an experience that led him later in his professional career to concentrate on water engineering in which he was to excel. In 1948, two years after he left the Yaba Higher College, he won an open scholarship to study civil engineering at the Battersea Polytechnic in London.

    After graduating in 1952 from Battersea with an honour’s degree in civil engineering, he spent two years working for Cubits, a well known British engineering company. He returned home in 1954 and was appointed a full engineer at the Public Works Department, from where he had won a scholarship to Battersea. He had wanted to serve in either the old Eastern Region or the North. He was instead posted to Ibadan from where he was transferred to Osogbo as the District Engineer. Two years later, he was appointed the Town Engineer at the Ibadan City Council, succeeding an expatriate engineer. It was as the Town Engineer in Ibadan that he began to attract a lot of attention as a competent professional engineer. He returned to England in 1957 for post graduate training as a water engineer in which he began to develop keen professional interest. On returning home in 1958 he served as a Senior Engineer in various towns in the old Western Region, including Ibadan, Abeokuta and Benin, and was soon after appointed the Chief Water Engineer in the old Western Region. His senior colleague and close friend, Dr. T.M. Aluko, was appointed the Controller of Works, and later Permanent Secretary.

     In 1959, he married his beautiful fiancée, Miss Elizabeth Iyabo Jonah, who was a senior staff of Shell and, soon after, left the Western Region public service to join the newly established Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB), first as a deputy, and later as the CEO of the agency. It was in this capacity that his reputation for professional diligence and competence soared beyond the confines of the old Western Region. It was under his watch at the LEDB that the reclamation of Victoria Island, the demolition of slums in central Lagos, and the redevelopment of Iganmu in Lagos was intensified. He was also responsible for the development of FESTAC and Amuwo Odofin later. In 1972, he left the LEDB out of frustration, as he put it, following the series of probes of the agency by the military government of Lagos State. He was never found guilty of any financial or professional misconduct. He was subsequently appointed the Chairman of the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), and later the Chairman of the Osogbo Steel Rolling Mills. On retiring from the public service, he set up his own engineering consultancy, the Comprehensive Engineering Consultants, with his cousin, Engineer Femi Fadahunsi, now deceased, as a partner. The company has been hugely successful. He was a former president of the Nigerian Society of Engineers and a former president of the Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN). For his service to the nation he received the award of the Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON), and several other national and international awards.

      Chief Fadahunsi has been aptly described in the following words by his old friend, the late Justice Kayode Eso, JSC, himself a celebrated jurist: “He is, by every letter of the word, an aristocrat….but of the humblest piece of humanity. His kindness is proverbial….as he seeks to help others, a strange combination in a highly principled, soft spoken man”. His aristocratic bearing and impeccable manners, at home and in public, endeared him to many, including his professional colleagues. He was a man of deep conviction in what he believed in, and this often led him into trouble with the military authorities during the long period of military rule in Nigeria. In 1976, while working for a private engineering company on a water project in Abeokuta, Lt.-Colonel Oladipo Diya, the military governor of Ogun State, had him arrested and detained for a week on trumped up charges. He fought him to a stand still and had to be released as he was innocent of all the charges leveled against him by the military governor. Details of this ugly episode in his life and his frequent confrontation with the military have been given in his autobiography, ‘Reflections on the Events of my life’, published in 2010 when he was 90.

       He had a fulfilling and very happy family life. His wife of over 55 years, Chief (Mrs.) Elizabeth Iyabo Fadahunsi, nee Jonah, a dutiful and devoted wife, was always at his side. They were virtually inseparable socially, even unto the end when Chief Fadahunsi had become quite frail due to old age. She was a gracious hostess who made everyone welcome in their comfortable home off Marine Road, Apapa. They have five children, all of whom are professionally accomplished. Our hearts and prayers go out to his widow, children, and family. A Commendation Service for him will be held at the Cathedral Church of Christ, Marina, Lagos, on September 4 at 10 am, after which his remains will be taken to Ilesa for interment. The funeral service will be at the Cathedral of St. John, Iloro, Ilesa.

  • On the Osun governorship poll

    On the Osun governorship poll

    Despite widespread public concerns of possible rigging and violence, the Osun State governorship election was successfully held last Saturday.

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) incumbent Governor Rauf Aregbesola was overwhelmingly returned to office, recording 394,684 votes as announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) -over 60 per cent of the votes cast. His main opponent, Mr. Iyiola Omisore, of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) obtained 292,750 votes; quite impressive, but still a distant second. He was comprehensively beaten and has conceded defeat.

    As expected and because of the huge stakes involved, the election was closely fought by the main contenders in a long, hard and often bitter campaign. Tension was high in the state and there was a real possibility of violence breaking out during the election. But it turned out to be quite peaceful and, by and large, the results reflected the electoral choice of the electorate. The observers adjudged the actual voting to have been free and fair.

    Governor Aregbesola deserved to win the election. His performance in government has been quite impressive, with an astonishing development of infrastructure. His schools’ reforms have also been widely acclaimed as innovative. Despite reservations in some enlightened quarters, his populist and charismatic style of government earned him a huge electoral victory in the election. But he also campaigned very hard, leaving nothing to chance. He and the APC leaders had learnt some hard and useful lessons from the Ekiti governorship election, which Governor Kayode Fayemi lost to his PDP rival, Mr. Ayo Fayose.

    In contrast to Governor Aregbesola, his opponent, Iyiola Omisore, had little or nothing to offer the electorate. When he was in office as deputy governor in the Bisi Akande administration, his record was really appalling. It included his determined and prolonged effort to organise Akande’s impeachment as governor. The source of the friction which paralysed the government was Akande’s refusal to meet his financial claims for a fraudulent contract Omisore had purportedly concluded with the previous military administration. I tried to resolve his differences with Governor Akande, but failed as Omisore wanted his financial claims met. In addition, there is still a considerable public speculation that he may have been involved, or implicated, in the assassination of the late Alliance for Democracy (AD) leader and Federal Attorney-General, Bola Ige, a case which has remained unresolved since 2002. Soon after, he defected from the AD.

    Because of all these, public perception of him as a politician has been quite negative. His character, or lack of it, has not matched his lofty and remorseless political ambition to be governor of the state at all costs. He tried the Ekiti strategy of ‘stomach infrastructure’ but this did not work. He was rejected. His election as governor would have been a terrible set back for the state.

    Though the election was largely devoid of any serious violence, this was due largely to the remarkable and commendable restraint shown by the electorate in the electoral process, particularly on the voting date. A week before the election, the PDP Federal Government deployed a large number of military forces, including the Police and the State Security Service, evidently to intimidate and harass the APC and its supporters. There were palpable fears that the security forces would be used to rig the election, which the PDP was determined to win, after its victory in the Ekiti State governorship election.

    Scores of APC leaders, including its National Publicity Secretary, Lai Mohammed, were arrested on the eve of the election. What was even worse and totally unacceptable was the deployment by the PDP Federal Government of hooded armed men that were not even part of the regular armed forces of the country, with the clear intention of intimidating the electorate. This is reminiscent of Hitler’s storm troopers, the infamous SS, used by the Nazis to subvert democracy in Germany. Not a few innocent German heads were broken by Hitler’s SS men in his quest for absolute power in Germany. Are these not the men that former President Olusegun Obasanjo warned the nation about in his attack on Jonathan last year? Has he not been proved right in raising the alarm?

    Those so arrested and detained by these armed men included my youngest brother, Folarin Fafowora, a member of the State House of Assembly. It was claimed that ballot papers were being stamped in his house. But the house was not even searched by the DSS in the first place. In fact, as he has since told me, he was riding an Okada in Osogbo when he was picked up by the DSS officials. He was only released on Tuesday after four days in illegal detention. I have asked him to sue the DSS for his illegal detention and denial of his rights. We cannot continue to have the security forces acting illegally so brazenly against innocent citizens. This is provocative and designed to subvert the electoral process in the state. But undaunted by the heavy military presence, the voters refused to be intimidated and cast their votes in a peaceful manner. They displayed admirable and exemplary courage that the voters in other states should show in future elections to restore electoral integrity.

    Next year’s general elections, including the presidential, are crucial for the future of free and fair elections and the survival of democracy in our country. We cannot accept the continued use by the PDP Federal Government of military and illegal para-military forces to intimidate the electorate. That was why a substantial number of voters simply decided to stay away rather than risk intimidation and illegal detention by the security forces, including hooded and unidentified armed men. The role and use of security forces in future elections in our country should be clearly spelt out and defined by the INEC. Armed forces, regular or irregular, should not be deployed unless asked for by the INEC, or by the contending political parties themselves. When deployed, such security forces must be plainly neutral between the contending political parties.

    The Federal Government cannot arrogate to itself the right to deploy its security forces anywhere in the country, except where a situation of emergency has been declared, and duly approved by the National Assembly. What happened during the election in Osun State was farcical, disgraceful and plainly illegal. The APC must ask the courts to pronounce on the legality, or otherwise, of the use of the military by the Federal Government during the elections when a state of emergency has not been declared. The Federal Government must not be allowed to unleash a reign of terror in the country, particularly during elections.

    Even among senior military and security officials, there is a serious and growing concern regarding the deployment of armed soldiers in elections in our country as we saw during both the Ekiti and Osun states elections. These officers are concerned that the Army is being illegally used to determine the outcome of elections in Nigeria. This will inevitably lead to the military becoming more politicised and less professional. It is a road we have often taken in this country in the past with disastrous consequences. It destroys the professionalism and political neutrality of the military. There are enough security challenges for the military in our country without them being further dragged into the vortex of politics.

    Now that he has been deservedly returned to power, Governor Aregbesola will be well advised to review and reflect on some of his controversial policies and strategies which have created divisions in the state. I refer here, specifically, to his education policy to which Christian leaders have raised strong and determined opposition. He may have good intentions on this issue, but there are serious concerns that he may have unwittingly fuelled religious tensions in the state. Osun state is multi-religious with both the Muslims and Christians living together peacefully for over a century. The governor must keep things this way and not create among the electorate the impression that the government is in support of one side or the other of the religious divide. His electoral victory would probably have been more comprehensive had the religious factor not crept into the consideration of Christians in the state, most of whom probably voted for Omisore, despite his several shortcomings and lack of electoral appeal.

    In addition, the quality of governance in the state should be elevated. Governance is a serious business. It should not be handled in a cavalier style as is the case now. The governor must reach out to all sections of the civil society in the state, particularly the workers and teachers. No matter the support and attraction that a populist strategy may generate for the governor, sight should not be lost of the need to ensure that the state is not polarised economically, or religiously.

  • On the proposed National (Emergency) Intervention Fund

    On the proposed National (Emergency) Intervention Fund

    The Committee on Devolution of the National Conference has submitted to the Conference a recommendation that a National Intervention Fund be established for the ‘stabilisation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of areas affected by terrorism and insurgency’, specifically in the North East, North Central and North West in the first instance, and any other part of the country where such intervention might be needed in future.

    The draft of the recommendation was carefully crafted by its sponsors to allay fears that it favours the North. But it does and, understandably, there have been some strong objections from delegates from the South-South to the proposal on the grounds that the Fund, when established, should instead be national in scope and execution, and not confined to some parts of the North, even in the first instance as specified by the sponsors of the proposal.

    This objection is real and should not be dismissed. It is no doubt a reflection of the deep ethnic and regional mistrust that continues to dominate Nigeria’s politics, and which makes it difficult for a consensus to emerge on any critical national issue. In this particular case, opposition to the proposal in the South is based on the fear that the South is again being short-changed by being called upon to pay for the lack of economic development in the North, the result of decades of economic mismanagement by its leaders. This deep and lingering mistrust between the North and South divide in Nigeria needs to be addressed and allayed for a consensus to emerge at the Conference on this critical issue of a National Intervention Fund. A consensus has emerged at the Conference for a five per cent increase in statutory allocation from 13 per cent to 18 per cent to the oil producing states from the federation accounts. Most Southern delegates now feel that the proposed five per cent increase in federal spending in the specified Northern states is intended to recover through the back door the proposed increased allocation to the oil bearing states in the South-South from the federation accounts which, on its own, has considerable merits.

    But the motive of those calling for this Fund should not be questioned even if it is intended for the rehabilitation of vast swathes of Northern Nigeria badly affected by the Boko Haram insurgency in which properties and lives have been destroyed, and thousands of people displaced. Even without the insurgency, Northern Nigeria needs more financial and material resources badly to make any economic progress at all, and to reduce the growing economic inequalities between the two halves of the country. When Lord Lugard ‘amalgamated’ Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914, he admitted that it was largely for economic reasons. It was intended to pay for the administration of the vast Northern colonial territory. But despite the amalgamation, the North has remained economically backward when compared to the South. Yet, in land area, Northern Nigeria constitutes nearly two thirds of Nigeria. Because of its huge size, the North is of overriding political and economic importance to Nigeria. It cannot be ignored and the rest of the country must do all it can to assist the region to develop faster. Economic disparities between the North and South will not promote national unity. It is divisive and cannot be ignored. Nigeria cannot fully achieve its great economic potentials without special attention being paid to the peculiar economic circumstances in Northern Nigeria that have made it less developed than Southern Nigeria. The North has to be dragged along willy- nilly.

    The current Boko Haram insurgency in the North is a direct consequence of this economic divide after decades of economic neglect of the region by its own leaders. The mass poverty in the North was brought about largely by its leaders. This economic neglect is a major source of social and political instability in the region. But something concrete has to be done by way of increased material assistance to the region, even if such assistance represents a financial sacrifice by the other parts of the country. Poverty breeds religious extremism, bigotry, violence and social disorder. The insurgency in the North is more political than religious, as the insurgents attack both Muslims and Christians without any discrimination between the two. It is a rebellion against widespread poverty and social injustice, more prevalent in Northern Nigeria than in other parts of the country. This is why there is some support for the insurgency, particularly among the poor in the region. The primary objective of the insurgency is to discredit and destroy the existing social and political order in Northern Nigeria, which has tended on the whole to increase mass poverty in the region. A poor North will reinforce the regional division in the country and will make national integration more difficult to achieve.

    The insurgency, now spreading beyond the northern fringes of Northern Nigeria, to the heart of the nation in Abuja, will not be deterred by military means alone. This is becoming more and more evident as the military has admitted that it cannot cope with this kind of insurgency for which it is ill-prepared and poorly equipped. The Federal Government is seeking a foreign loan of $1 billion to beef up its security forces. To counter the insurgency, the nation needs a more mobile military that can respond more swiftly to security threats in any part of the country. The Nigerian military is too static to cope with the danger presented by the insurgents. But even a more mobile military will not necessarily solve the problem of insurgency in the North. It will only end when the unemployed youths in Northern Nigeria are given alternative economic opportunities that will make the moral assertions of the insurgents less attractive to them. In fact, the insurgency is now fully embedded in civil societies in the region, drawing its support from unemployed and ignorant youths, including women suicide bombers. In recent weeks, we have had suicide bombings in places such as Kano, Kaduna and Abuja that were previously thought to be safe. This is new and shows that we are now faced with a violent social phenomenon that requires large doses of material resources to resolve. This is why the proposed intervention fund is a step in the right direction.

    However, there are some flaws in the proposal that need to be addressed by its sponsors for it to secure wider support at the Conference. First, it is proposed that the five percent additional federal spending in the designated states, over N200 billion, is to be drawn from the budget of the Federal Government, and not the federation accounts. Funds should not be taken from the federation accounts to address regional problems. This is certainly fair, as the Federal Government has exclusive responsibility for law and order in the country. But the fact of the matter is that the Federal Government lacks the financial resources to meet this additional financial burden. The Federal Government is currently running a large deficit budget dominated by recurrent expenditure rather than capital expenditure. The proposed intervention fund will reduce funds available for capital expenditure which, over the years, has been falling steadily. The Federal Government will be hard put to execute vital capital projects if it is now required to spend five per cent of its budget in the rehabilitation of the designated states.

    Secondly, the proposed intervention Fund will command wider national support if it does not designate any particular states, even if it is only for five years in the first instance. The Fund should be made applicable to all states and parts of Nigeria that require rehabilitation. Such intervention funds already exist in the Delta region to compensate its people for the vast ecological degradation taking place there. It would be far better to leave the proposed Intervention Fund to the discretion of the Federal Government, and not make it mandatory.

    Thirdly, as it stands, the Fund derogates from the powers of the Federal Government as well as the Revenue Allocation Committee to share the national revenue on agreed basis. It will require an amendment of the Constitution for its implementation. It cannot be applied as a mere administrative measure by the Federal Government, even if the funds involved are going to be drawn from the federal budget. It is doubtful that it will secure the necessary support if taken to the National Assembly for passage. The history and record of special intervention funds in Nigeria is a sad one. There are several examples of this, such as the subsidy removal fund (SURE-P) that has simply been diverted to other purposes. These flaws will need to be addressed for the proposed Fund to generate any widespread support, or even enthusiasm.