Category: Lawal Ogienagbon

Lawal Ogienagbon

IN 1960, just like their country, Nigeria, they were twinkle, twinkle little stars. They adorned the sky and shone brightly from above. These bundles of joy brought happiness to their parents and in the homes they were born, there was jubilation. Those babies of yesterday have since come of age.

How time flies. If they look back today and count their blessings, they will have a lot to thank God for. In this year of our Lord 2020, a year that took the world by storm and shook it to its foundations, the living know that they did not survive by their power.

In this year of COVID-19, those twinkling little stars of 1960 have turned 60. My friend, brother and fellow court reporter Ricky Akhaze hit the milestone on September 1. Adetokunbo Ojeikere, my brother, friend and Sporting Life editor, marked his on September 9. Another friend, brother and fellow Timesman Muyiwa Akintunde took his turn on September 20. My sister-in-law and immediate past principal of Oduduwa Junior Secondary School, Lagos, Mrs Olasumbo Afonja aka Sister Agba celebrated hers on September 22. Today, former Chair of Lagos State Council of Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) Mrs Funke Fadugba joins the elite Diamond Club. Fadugba’s legacy as chair is the Journalists’ Estate in Arepo, Ogun State, which is today home to many journalists and other professionals. You have all come a long way. Hearty congratulations, diamonds in the sky.

Lawal Ogienagbon

Can two walk together, except they be agreed?  – Amos 3:3

AS it is in the spiritual realm, so it is in politics. Spiritually, those who share the same faith and belief band together. They hold fellowship and meetings where they seek God’s face, with the belief that the fervent prayer of the righteous will be answered speedily. In the outside world, two can also only walk together if they have a common interest.  This is moreso in politics where the interest must be the same for two or more to walk together.

The truism in this biblical declaration was brought home in last Saturday’s governorship contest in Edo State, where the internal crisis in the All Progressives Congress (APC) cost the party the election. APC went into the polls divided, and the rift was obvious despite all efforts to paper the crack. The party had everything to win the election, but it did not put its house in order. Its leaders were more interested in muscle flexing than to forget their differences and work for the common good of the party.

Despite the crisis, APC was still sure of winning the election. Its confidence was buoyed by its belief that the people were for APC and would forever be. This could be true to a certain extent. Former Governor Adams Oshiomhole who made Governor Godwin Obaseki his successor in 2016 is a veteran of many battles. He fought in the court to become governor in 2008 and after assuming office, he deposed the political godfathers in the state who held sway in the Peoples Democratic Party  (PDP). It is an irony that Obaseki, who was reelected governor on Saturday on PDP platform,  claimed that he fell out with Oshiomhole because the former governor had turned to a godfather overnight.

Whether true or not, the appellation stuck and with that, Obaseki got many sympathisers. His fellow APC governors, many of who never wanted Oshiomhole as their national chairman ab initio, sided with Obaseki and thus the bitter battle which cost APC the Edo governorship seat was born. The reason for the crisis cannot be divorced from the 2023 presidential ambition of some of the governors who are serving a second term. These governors cannot stand Oshiomhole who they see as constituting a stumbling block to their ambition.

They and some former governors who failed in their bid to install their successors in their states  know Oshiomhole to be strong willed. Since Oshiomhole cannot be dictated to, they believe that he must go for them to have their way in the party.  So when the Oshiomhole and Obaseki feud started in Benin, the Edo State capital,  they cashed in on it to carry out their well hatched plan. With the late Mallam Abba Kyari working for them at the Villa,  they used President Muhammadu Buhari’s name at will to get their way within the party.

Governors Kayode Fayemi (Ekiti), Nasir El-Rufai (Kaduna), Atiku Bagudu (Kebbi), Simon Lalong (Plateau) as well as Senators Ibikunle Amosun and Rochas Okorocha and Transport Minister Rotimi Amaechi, who are former governors of Ogun, Imo and Rivers states see nothing good in Oshiomhole because they perceive him as former Lagos State Governor Bola Tinubu’s man. These governors and former governors believe that they should be in control of APC and where that is not possible,  they want to dictate what happens. It was to avoid being accused of being overbearing that Oshiomhole kept his distance from the Government House in  Benin as soon as Obaseki assumed office.

As a former labour leader and governor, he knew that two captains cannot be in a ship. Yet, his relocation to Abuja as APC national chairman did not help matters. He kept on getting reports of how Obaseki was treating party members who worked for the governor’s election four years ago. The governor shunned all entreaties to court the party members. When these people could became frustrated,  many of them moved to join Oshiomhole in Abuja. The anti-Oshiomhole camp was happy. With an ally like Obaseki, members of the group had Oshiomhole where they wanted him. The last straw that broke the camel’s back was when Obaseki caused the House of Assembly to be inaugurated at night with only five of the 24 members-elect on June 18, last year. Four others later joined the five,  bringing their number to nine.

Even with that figure, they are still in the minority. Obaseki’s cup was full and he was denied a second term ticket by APC. He and his group blamed Oshiomhole for the action, which was taken by organs set up by the party. Though, it can be said that as chairman, Oshiomhole could have influenced that action. The question is did Obaseki did leave him with any other choice? In his desperation then, Obaseki ran to the President at the Villa and Tinubu in Lagos for help to get the party’s ticket. He eventually defected to PDP on which platform he won on Saturday. The election was APC’s to lose as pundits never gave Obaseki and PDP a chance. But it turned out that the bookmakers were wrong.

Fate smiled on Obaseki. It was not only fate that was at work. APC too helped him to win against its candidate, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, who did better in the 2016 election against the same Obaseki. There is no gainsaying the fact that APC’s topnotch did not support Ize-Iyamu wholeheartedly. The anti-Oshiomhole camp never accepted him as the party’s candidate despite being directed by the President to support him after his candidacy was affirmed at the extraordinary meeting of the party’s  national executive committee at the Villa in June. It was at the meeting that Oshiomhole was removed as the party’s chairman and the Mai Mala Buni-led caretaker committee constituted. Oshiomhole took his removal in his strides and returned home to drum up support for Ize-Iyamu.

He was in the thick of the campaign, moving from one village to the other with the candidate. Unfortunately, the support of the party’s governors which matters most in such an election was not there. Perhaps, if the governors had stood by Ize-Iyamu as their PDP counterparts did for Obaseki, the outcome of the election would have been different. There is nothing new in internal party disagreement, but such differences take the backseat during election in members’ collective interest. But the anti-Oshiomhole camp jettisoned party interest for their own selfish interest in order to get back at Oshiomhole. Who are the losers in all this?

Certainly, the losers are not Oshiomhole and Ize-Iyamu or even Tinubu, who seeing how things were going, weighed in at a critical moment to salvage the situation. The losers are APC, its governors and former governors, who flouted the President’s directive to support the party and its candidate in last Saturday’s election. I pray that the President does not make the mistake of watching APC, the vehicle he rode to power, die before he leaves office in 2023.

By Lawal Ogienagbon

In 48 hours, the people of Edo State will go to the polls to elect a new governor or retain the outgoing one. Outgoing Governor Godwin Obaseki is contesting on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). In 2016, he flew the flag of the All Progressives Congress (APC). His arch opponent Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu of the APC was the standard-bearer of PDP then. Though, there are other candidates contesting under the banner of other parties in Saturday’s election, the duo of Obaseki and Ize-Iyamu stand out in the pack.

One does not need to be a seer to say either Obaseki or Ize-Iyamu will win. Their parties are the main political associations known to many across the country. Though there are scores of other parties, many of them are only so in name. They participate in one election only to go into oblivion before the next one. In the country today, the parties are APC, PDP and others. In the past, many who won election under the other platforms defected to either APC or PDP depending on which is in power in order to remain politically relevant.

PDP was in power in Edo State from 1999 up till 2008 when Adams Oshiomhole became governor after the Court of Appeal voided the election of Governor Osarhiemen Osunbor. Oshiomhole came to office in a hostile environment. APC was unknown in the state. PDP was the party to associate with as that was where the movers and shakers were. These powerful men determined who became what and who got what. They put puppets in power and pulled the strings from behind the curtain.

Even though, he did not come to power on their platform, Oshiomhole did the bidding of these influencers in order to get things done. Moreover, a governor can only be governor as long as he enjoys the confidence of the House of Assembly. With the ‘enemy’ party in control of the assembly, Oshiomhole learnt to walk the tightrope to survive. His labour union background came in handy in negotiating his way out of a tight corner.  He dislodged PDP and the godfathers that ruled the state from the seat of power and set APC on the throne. His job done after his two terms of eight years, Oshiomhole made Obaseki, his economic czar in whom he was well pleased, his successor.

By that action, he sacrificed Ize-Iyamu for Obaseki. In politics, there are no permanent friends, but permanent interests. But today, he is regretting his action. The horse that he put money on is today his biggest political foe. Though, Obaseki is facing Ize-Iyamu in this election, the face he is seeing is that of Oshiomhole. He is enamoured of his predecessor who he has sworn to “bury politically”. According to him, he retired Oshiomhole from politics when the former governor was removed as APC national chairman. The final act, he said, was to bury Oshiomhole politically by defeating him and APC in Saturday’s election.

There is tension in Edo ahead of the election in which a lot is at stake. Pride,  honour, ability, capability and relevance are at play. Obaseki believes he has come of age politically and can square up to Oshiomhole whose legacy he pledged to build on at his inauguration in 2016. As governor,  he has enormous resources at his disposal. He can make and unmake people. This is where his fight with Oshiomhole is believed to have started from. Nobody gets to power solely by his strength. He is helped by stalwarts who are more experienced in the game than him. These people are the ones who make things happen through their foot soldiers. These henchmen do the running around for the anointed candidate with the understanding that they will be settled if he wins.

The Oshiomhole political machinery went into full throtle after Obaseki became the candidate. Nothing was spared to sell him, while everything was done to demarket Ize-Iyamu. Now the candidates have swapped positions.  Ize-Iyamu is back in APC and Obaseki, who came from the business world is out of the party. The countdown to the election began long ago. Two years before the exercise, things started heating up in Edo APC. The crisis spilled to the party headquarters in Abuja. All efforts to resolve the rift even by the Presidency and the revered Oba Ewuare 11 of Benin Kingdom failed.

Obaseki insisted that only Oshiomhole’s exit from the party    would appease him. It was another way of saying he wanted to be the undisputed APC leader in the state. That the electoral process is riven by violence today can be traced to this fight of estranged political bedfellows. What the people of Edo want is a peaceful and credible election in this return match of these two political gladiators. If the election is free and fair, it would have been a well fought contest. But if it is not, it will leave a long lasting bitter feud.  The people do not want such a feud. They have suffered for too long to be saddled with a political problem which is not of their own making. The security agencies have a key role to play to ensure that the will of the people prevails on Saturday.

The public expects them to be neutral and to avoid lending support to any of the contestants so that nobody gets a upper hand in the election. The transparency of the exercise lies with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Eveything that INEC does will be scrutinised to ascertain if it meets global best practice. The conduct of an election is no child’s play. It is serious business.  No matter what it does, the parties and their candidates will always suspect INEC. Some will accuse it of favouring a party or a candidate to others. When they lose, they will blame it on INEC, but when they win, they will praise the agency to high heaven.

INEC should not listen to any complaints as long as it does the right thing. Its only worry should be how to conduct a free, fair and credible election. The candidates have been campaigning all over the state and as expected Obaseki and Ize-Iyamu are the most visible on the campaign trail. On Sunday, they engaged on a television debate where they spoke of their vision for the Heartbeat of the Nation. Yesterday, they featured on another television debate. Edo, as the Heartbeat of the Nation, deserves the best. Did Obaseki give his best in the past four years? Will Ize-Iyamu do better if he is elected? The pastor, many believe, is the best man for the job.

The way he tackled Obaseki during the first television debate shows that Ize-Iyamu is well prepared for the job. He reeled out facts and figures to support his submissions. He bested Obaseki in that debate as the governor looked ordinary and drab in his presentation. The governor Edo deserves is the man that can take it to where it rightly belongs. The man that will deliver on his promises and not the one that will hound and hunt his backers when he gets into office. That man, the people believe, is Ize-Iyamu. The people have seen the four years of Obaseki and they are not impressed with what they saw. To them, he came, he saw, and he did not deliver. Another four years of him will be a disaster.

Lawal Ogienagbon

Priesthood is a job with its own peculiarities. It requires the one going into it to be Christlike. He must be seen to carry himself with grace and to keep his head always no matter the situation. Priesthood is no tea party. Is it the denial of the things of the world or the expectations of others that you want to talk about? A priest is like a goldfish that has no hiding place. Whatever he does or does not do attracts attention. Where he is famous, it is double trouble.

Many priests covet this double trouble because it comes with influence and affluence. Unfortunately, the craze for wealth has become the attraction for going into priesthood these days. Yet, the Bible says in the Book of Timothy that a priest must be vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach…not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous.

These seem to be tall attributes, but some priests, who fall into the category of the chosen few, have them. They are meek, godly and compassionate. They tend their flock with love and empathy. They mind their business and do not pick quarrels with people. These are priests with the heart of gold and they are few and far between. The Scripture says it all: Many are called, few are chosen.

Even the unchosen ones will argue until thy kingdom come that they are among the chosen even when they behave contrary to their calling. To accept the Order of Priesthood comes with challenges. It is not a bed of roses. As the man of God that your sheep look up to, you must be above board. You cannot misbehave in public. You must lead by example and practice what you preach. You cannot tell your sheep to keep their heads while you lose yours. You cannot tell them to love their neighbours as themselves while you do otherwise. All eyes are on you as a priest because your followers are learning from you.

Once in a while, though, the flesh has its way in the affairs of ministers and they go gaga before their followers. Rather than rebuke the devil for their fathers in the Lord, they hail them, indirectly endorsing their misdemeanour. Yes, a priest is first and foremost a man with all the foibles and frailties, but having been ordained a minister, he is a step or two above other men. He looks unto God for direction and is in the Spirit always to avoid falling into temptation. He should more than his spiritual children, who follow him blindly, imbibe the biblical injunction: we walk by faith not by sight. When a minister allows the flesh to take control of him, that is walking by sight, he departs from the spiritual realm and becomes of the world.

Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. Since that is the case, why then will a priest, not just any priest, but a celebrity minister at that, take to the pulpit and exact revenge from a ‘mere broadcaster’, to borrow the pastor’s word? Pastor David Ibiyeomie of the Salvation Ministries flew off the cuff in his church on Sunday as he descended on Ifedayo Olarinde aka Daddy Freeze, calling the on air personality (OAP) names for taking on Bishop David Oyedepo. What did Daddy Freeze do to incur Ibiyeomie’s wrath? He claimed that the OAP attacked “my father Bishop Oyedepo”, asking:  ”who is Daddy Freeze to attack Oyedepo? Oyedepo may not talk, but I will talk. I will skin him alive”.

He said he cursed the day Daddy Freeze was born, claiming that the OAP was born on the wayside by a Somali. He goofed. Daddy Freeze is said to have a Nigerian father and a Romanian mother. Ibiyeomie went on: “if he tries it again, I will sue him and use every other means to cut him to size”. Daddy Freeze seems to have taken Ibiyeomie’s curses in his strides. Rather than pay Ibiyeomie back in kind, the OAP just clarified that he never insulted Oyedepo. “I did not insult Oyedepo. I only corrected him. He quoted from Ephesians 5:22, and I drew his attention to Ephesians 5:21. To correct a person scripturally is not an insult”.

What then is eating Ibiyeomie up that he spoke like a worldly man? The Oyedepo that Nigerians know will not have waited for his son to fight for him if Daddy Freeze had actually attacked him. Oyedepo, just like his son, does not have such patience. He believes in an eye for an eye  and a tooth for a tooth, just like Ibiyeomie. The very things that the Lord they claim they serve warned against are the things they cherish. What is bad is bad. And as an adage goes, it does not have any other name, but bad. When men of God throw caution to the wind and descend so low to curse rather than bless critics, no matter their perceived offence, then there is no hope for the lost, who Christ said He was sent to.

These pastors have turned themselves to God of men with the way their flock follow them sheepishly. I shook my head in disbelief as I watched the video clip where Ibiyeomie’s followers were clapping and shouting amen as their pastor cursed Daddy Freeze. A pastor cursing inside church. It beggars belief, but it happened. Ironically, Daddy Freeze, who many expected to go the Ibiyeomie way in his reponse, has shown that the cassock does not make the priest. Nor do a big church or a large congregation show how holy a pastor is. What confers this grace, for grace it is, is to live according to the will of God:  be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

By Lawal Ogienagbon

Since President Muhammadu Buhari signed the amended Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), there has been disquiet across the country. The problem with the law of over 800 sections, according to those kicking against it, is its provision on not-for-profit organisations. This provision recognises charity groups and covers them adequately. The point of departure for the law and religious leaders is the aspect on the taking over of a charity, such as a church or a mosque, where there is financial malfeasance.

The clerics do not like that at all. The modern day Islamic or Christian leader is one who prides himself in having the capacity for many endeavours. He is not only a priest, he is also a businessman controlling a chain of businesses under the guise of running a church or a mosque. Until now, CAMA never focused on religious organisations. The law let them be because of the belief that the things of God should be left for God.

The Scripture said this much in the Book of Matthew during Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees who wanted to know his stand on what should be the relationship between the church and the state. Let’s read from the 17th to the 21st verses: Tell us  therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness,  and said, why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he said unto them, whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Clerics are quick to remind their flock to pay tithe and give Zakat, which they describe as the will of God for them. Their sheep believe them and do as their shepherd say. Unfortunately,  these same men of God do not practice what they preach. CAMA has exposed many of them for who they are and it may yet be their Law of Karma, the way they are going about the law. What is in CAMA that has made these men lose their heads? What CAMA is demanding of them is accountability and transparency. Is that too much to ask of a man of God who sits in judgment over members of his charity (read as mosque or church) who look up to him for direction?

A cleric should be a guide, a man (used in generic term) of temperate words who does not operate on short fuse. A minister who blows his cool over a law is not worth his office because he is setting a bad example for his followers.  Who is that priest that will stomach it if any member were to talk back to them the way they are doing to government over this CAMA matter. The only conclusion to draw from their action is that they have something to hide. The CAMA provision they have risen against has always been part of that law in respect of corporate bodies. Companies know that if they engage in unwholesome deals, they will be caught by the law which has been in existence for over 30 years. Many firms have been liquidated under the law and a receiver/manager appointed for them.

The appointment of the receiver/manager never encumbered the operation of those companies. The duty of a receiver is to breathe life back into an organisation and hand it over to its new owners as a going concern,  or in the alternative see to the winding up of the company,  as directed by the court. The Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) did not enact CAMA; it is only expected to do its work in line with the law. As the operator of the law, it is empowered to take certain actions against a not-for-profit which is run for profit deceitfully. Religious organisations were not set up to make profit, but they have been doing so over the years, with the government looking the other way.

Since anything goes here, some Nigerian pentecostal churches ran back home from foreign nations when the heat was turned on them for operating outside the law. What they could not do in the United Kingdom (UK), United States (US), Germany and Canada, among others,  they are doing here because they see themselves to be above the law. Little wonder,  they talk not like men moved by the spirit, but like worldly beings that they really are.  Only a man of God with ulterior motive will frown at CAMA. The law is not meant to witchhunt religious bodies. It is to protect the property and interest of those churches and mosques from ministers who are not different from satan that can sell their members for filthy lucre. After that, they will look you in the eye and ask what have we done wrong?  Didn’t Judas sell Jesus for 30 pieces of silver?. At the bottom of their opposition to CAMA, is the fear of being exposed for the fraud many of them are.

I am sorry to say that not many of our religious leaders can pass the integrity test. This is why they are not happy with the CAMA provision that an interim manager be appointed for a charity where there is fraud. As men of God, this is the kind of law  they should support, but they will not because they have skeleton in their cupboard. Today, in many mosques and churches,  people are recognised by their spending power. The more you spend, the closer you are to your father in the Lord. The minister of God is not interested in his spiritual son’s source of wealth. As long as the money keeps flowing that spender will remain the cleric’s beloved. Is money-making the mission of religious organisations? Or put in another way,  is wealth acquisition the sole purpose of starting a mission?

This question has become pertinent in the wake of the CAMA controversy which is being stoked by some prominent church ministers,  who believe that everything about them and their organisations must begin and end with money. Christianity and Islam did not start with money. The chief architects of both faith were not men of means. But they won people over with their faith and moral uprightness.  This cannot be said of today’s ministers. Money, as the Bible says, is good as it is a defence. The same Bible points out that the love of money is the root of all evil. Therein lies the trouble facing the country today. Rather than help, men of God are compounding things with their love of money.

To the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), which is in the vanguard of the opposition against CAMA, the law is “satanic”. What a strong word. If men of God talk like this, how different are they from lost souls? Rather than bring the roof down over this matter, they can go to court or seek another amendment of the law. But they should remember these immortal words of the Lord: Freely you have received, freely give. Serving in God’s vineyard should not all be about self, family and money.

By Lawal Ogienagbon

Left to the United States (US), Akinwumi Adesina would not be returning in a few days as president of the Africa Development Bank (AfDB) which he has piloted in the past five years. As AfDB chief since 2015, Adesina,  who was Minister of Agriculture under President Goodluck Jonathan,  has run the multilateral agency in a classical manner. Some world leaders, seasoned industrialists and bankers have all attested to this fact and hailed his country of origin for nominating him to head the bank.

His brilliance stands him out anywhere, but what he has going for him is his humaneness and soft spot for the underprivileged. In his days as minister, farmers in the rural areas benefited from what was tagged the wallet revolution under which their accounts were credited in a fertiliser scheme. The scheme was devised to ensure that fertiliser got to the farmers. Under it, middlemen, who abound in the fraud which fertiliser distribution has come to be known for in the country, were cut off the chain.

Till today,  the peasant farmers remember him with nostalgia. So, when he was going to AfDB, their prayers were with him. Adesina was not going into an unfamiliar terrain since he has always been in one multilateral agency or the other all his life. But he never bargained for what came his way early in the year as his first five-year tenure was about to end. Some anonymous petitioners, who styled themselves as whistle-blowers, submitted a complaint against him. But, when they were put to the strictest test of proving their allegations against him, they failed.

In law, he who alleges must prove. It is not the duty of the respondent to prove his own guilt as he is deemed innocent until otherwise shown. Even at that, Adesina did something uncommon. He submitted a 200-page document detailing his innocence. In his defence, he responded to each and every allegation of the shadowy group. If a man could come out so boldly to meet his challengers, then such a person must be full of courage. Adesina displayed rare courage in the face of threat to his job. He showed that he was more interested in clearing his name than his job.

Remember the saying, a good name is better than gold? Adesina fought his accusers with his all because he did not want the good name bequeathed to him by his father to be soiled by  people who lacked the courage of their conviction. If his accusers were sure of themselves,  they would have come out in the open to meet him face to face and prove their allegations. They chickened out when it mattered most to appear before the AfDB Ethics Committee to sort things out. Without hesitation,  the committee threw out the allegations and acquitted Adesina. It was then the almighty US, the self styled global cop, waded into the fray. Why will the US poke its nose into a matter that has been settled,  according to the bank’s rules? many wondered.

Only the US can answer that poser. It demanded the reopening of the case and it was obliged because after all, it is the US and only a big person, according to a local proverb, does something big. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchi demanded an independent probe after rejecting the ethics panel’s report which cleared Adesina. The independent  panel comprised people of integrity. Led by former Ireland president Mary Robinson, the panel acquitted Adesina, holding that it “concurs with the ethics committee in its findings in respect of all the allegations against the president and finds that they were properly considered and dismissed by the committee”.

“We have considered the president’s submissions on their face and find them consistent with his innocence and to be persuasive. At the same time, it appears to us to be an undue burden to expect a holder of high office in an international organisation,  to prove a negative, in the absence of sufficient grounds. An attorney writing on behalf of the president also argues quite correctly…that a distinction should be drawn between alleged institutional failure at the bank and the conduct of the president”, declared the panel, which had Chief Justice Hassan Jallow of The Gambia and Leonard McCarthy, former head of special operations of South Africa,  as members.

The US wanted what the panel ruled against – that Adesina should indict himself when there is no evidence to that effect. Having been cleared now,  even by the panel in which it has so much faith, will the US allow Adesina to return to office and continue his good job at AfDB? The US may be the second highest shareholder in the bank after Nigeria,  which holds the highest shares, that does not give it the power to unduly interfere in the running of the organisation. The problems in AfDB predate the coming of Adesina as its president.  Therefore, as the Robinson panel said,   people and countries like the US should learn to draw a line between what are institutional issues and the style of the person that heads the organisation.

The panel made itself clear: Adesina has no case to answer, laying the matter to rest forever and ever.  The report has cleared the way for Adesina to return  to office three weeks from today,  some three months after he should have done so. What will be will be. Nobody,  no matter how powerful,  can stop what is ordained. Adesina’s return as AfDB president was only delayed,  it was not denied. This is his finest hour and by his conduct,  he has burnished Nigeria’s image. To the cynical world, looking for something to tar Nigeria and its foremost ambassador at AfDB, you have a long wait ahead of you.

EFT to the United States (US), Akinwumi Adesina would not be returning in a few days as president of the Africa Development Bank (AfDB) which he has piloted in the past five years. As AfDB chief since 2015, Adesina,  who was Minister of Agriculture under President Goodluck Jonathan,  has run the multilateral agency in a classical manner. Some world leaders, seasoned industrialists and bankers have all attested to this fact and hailed his country of origin for nominating him to head the bank.

His brilliance stands him out anywhere, but what he has going for him is his humaneness and soft spot for the underprivileged. In his days as minister, farmers in the rural areas benefited from what was tagged the wallet revolution under which their accounts were credited in a fertiliser scheme. The scheme was devised to ensure that fertiliser got to the farmers. Under it, middlemen, who abound in the fraud which fertiliser distribution has come to be known for in the country, were cut off the chain.

Till today,  the peasant farmers remember him with nostalgia. So, when he was going to AfDB, their prayers were with him. Adesina was not going into an unfamiliar terrain since he has always been in one multilateral agency or the other all his life. But he never bargained for what came his way early in the year as his first five-year tenure was about to end. Some anonymous petitioners, who styled themselves as whistle-blowers, submitted a complaint against him. But, when they were put to the strictest test of proving their allegations against him, they failed.

In law, he who alleges must prove. It is not the duty of the respondent to prove his own guilt as he is deemed innocent until otherwise shown. Even at that, Adesina did something uncommon. He submitted a 200-page document detailing his innocence. In his defence, he responded to each and every allegation of the shadowy group. If a man could come out so boldly to meet his challengers, then such a person must be full of courage. Adesina displayed rare courage in the face of threat to his job. He showed that he was more interested in clearing his name than his job.

Remember the saying, a good name is better than gold? Adesina fought his accusers with his all because he did not want the good name bequeathed to him by his father to be soiled by  people who lacked the courage of their conviction. If his accusers were sure of themselves,  they would have come out in the open to meet him face to face and prove their allegations. They chickened out when it mattered most to appear before the AfDB Ethics Committee to sort things out. Without hesitation,  the committee threw out the allegations and acquitted Adesina. It was then the almighty US, the self styled global cop, waded into the fray. Why will the US poke its nose into a matter that has been settled,  according to the bank’s rules? many wondered.

Only the US can answer that poser. It demanded the reopening of the case and it was obliged because after all, it is the US and only a big person, according to a local proverb, does something big. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchi demanded an independent probe after rejecting the ethics panel’s report which cleared Adesina. The independent  panel comprised people of integrity. Led by former Ireland president Mary Robinson, the panel acquitted Adesina, holding that it “concurs with the ethics committee in its findings in respect of all the allegations against the president and finds that they were properly considered and dismissed by the committee”.

“We have considered the president’s submissions on their face and find them consistent with his innocence and to be persuasive. At the same time, it appears to us to be an undue burden to expect a holder of high office in an international organisation,  to prove a negative, in the absence of sufficient grounds. An attorney writing on behalf of the president also argues quite correctly…that a distinction should be drawn between alleged institutional failure at the bank and the conduct of the president”, declared the panel, which had Chief Justice Hassan Jallow of The Gambia and Leonard McCarthy, former head of special operations of South Africa,  as members.

The US wanted what the panel ruled against – that Adesina should indict himself when there is no evidence to that effect. Having been cleared now,  even by the panel in which it has so much faith, will the US allow Adesina to return to office and continue his good job at AfDB? The US may be the second highest shareholder in the bank after Nigeria,  which holds the highest shares, that does not give it the power to unduly interfere in the running of the organisation. The problems in AfDB predate the coming of Adesina as its president.  Therefore, as the Robinson panel said,   people and countries like the US should learn to draw a line between what are institutional issues and the style of the person that heads the organisation.

The panel made itself clear: Adesina has no case to answer, laying the matter to rest forever and ever.  The report has cleared the way for Adesina to return  to office three weeks from today,  some three months after he should have done so. What will be will be. Nobody,  no matter how powerful,  can stop what is ordained. Adesina’s return as AfDB president was only delayed,  it was not denied. This is his finest hour and by his conduct,  he has burnished Nigeria’s image. To the cynical world, looking for something to tar Nigeria and its foremost ambassador at AfDB, you have a long wait ahead of you.

By Lawal Ogienagbon

It takes a daredevil to attack a governor’s convoy. Or put in another way: it takes a mad man or a suicide case to launch such an attack. Anybody contemplating to attack a governor must be fed up with life. Governors move with an army, so to say. Their entourage comprises all manner of security aides, who are the best in their trade. It came as a surprise when the news broke on July 29 of the attack on Borno State Governor Babagana Zulum on the Baga-Maiduguri Road. Maiduguri is the epicentre of Boko Haram insurgency and the governor has never hidden his desire  to end their evil reign.

With the military claiming to have flushed the insurgents out of Baga, Zulum felt confident to embark on his trip. But along the way, he was attacked. He felt bad and rightly so too, since he had been assured that the coast was clear before he moved out. He has since accused the military of masterminding the attack. On its part, the military is pointing fingers at Boko Haram. Where was  the military  when the insurgents struck?

If you saw the video of how Zulum’s security aides shepherded him into a police armoured tank, you will know what he went through that fateful day. But whodunnit? as the Americans will say.

By Lawal Ogienagbon

Since the nation’s return to democracy in 1999,  the relationship between the executive and the legislature has been uneasy. Right from that day on May 29, 1999, that the military handed over to civilians till today, it has been a love-hate relationship. They are friends today and foes the next day. Most often, money is at the root of their altercation. It is either the executive is accusing the legislature of demanding bribe or using its oversight powers to plunder the resources of parastatals.

The Constitution grants the legislature immense powers to enable it act as check on the executive. It is the powerhouse of constitutional democracy; the cornerstone of the house which a nation represents. Without the legislature, democracy is at peril because the nation will be without laws. A society without laws is toying with anarchy and waiting to explode. For a society to progress,  there must be synergy between the executive and legislature. They must work in sync for the common good. This Ninth National Assembly headed by Senate President Ahmad Lawan has a lot to do in this regard.

Unfortunately, we have not witnessed such relationship between these two arms of government in the past 21 years. On the rare occasions that they see eye to eye, the people wonder. It should not be so. Being a minister in the Federal  Executive Council (FEC) or a legislator in the National Assembly is a privilege which should not be abused under any guise as some of these people are doing. They are custodians of a public trust, so their conduct must be civil and decorous.

In the past few days, we have been treated to another drama between these institutions, as the Niger Delta Affairs Minister Godswill Akpabio and the National Assembly are at each other’s throat.  The lawmakers’ probe of  the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) which Akpabio supervises is at the centre of their rift. The public is faced with a twist in the probe,  so to say, as focus has shifted to Akpabio’s allegations against some lawmakers. The leadership of the National Assembly is riled by the allegations that Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila on July 21 rose up in arms against the minister. He gave Akpabio 48 hours to substantiate his allegations that 60 percent of NDDC contracts were awarded to members of the National Assembly.

While appearing before the House of Representatives Committee on Niger Delta on July 20, Akpabio said: “Who are even the greatest beneficiaries of NDDC contracts? It is you people. If you look at your chairman, your chairman…! Are you asking me the beneficiaries in the National Assembly? I just told you that we have records to show that most of the contracts in NDDC are given to members of the National Assembly but you don’t know about it. The two chairmen (of Senate and House committees on Niger Delta) can explain to you. I was a member of NDDC committee. I know what was going on”.

Of course,  as a senator in the immediate past National Assembly,  he was an insider who saw everything. But he kept quite then because it paid him to do so. Akpabio is opening a can of worms because his position as a minister is being threatened. This is how our leaders, be they in the executive or legislature,  have been shortchanging us. NDDC was established to address the backwardness of the region, which is the goose that lays the nation’s golden eggs.  We derive our wealth from the region, but the area knows no development. Its people and environment are in a pitiable state, while their so-called representatives in the National Assembly are living big.

They are cocooned in posh mansions in Abuja while their people live in squalor back home. Rather than vent their spleen on these lawmakers when they come home, their poor constituents flock around them for crumbs from the masters’ tables. They are more at home with pittance from their representatives than with enduring assets befitting of the Niger Delta as the sustainer of the common weal. Why will Niger Delta lawmakers be more interested in their pockets than in the development of their region? Are they not ashamed that their region remains poor and deprived despite its status as the nation’s major revenue earner?

The people too! Why do they allow their leaders to steal their common wealth and blame others for what they brought upon themselves? Since they seem satisfied with what their leaders are doing, they should just remain silent forever and stop whining over the underdevelopment of their region. If they cannot take up their lawmakers for not showing interest in the region,  will it be proper for them to challenge leaders from other areas over the matter?

Akpabio has, following Gbajabiamila’s challenge, released the names of lawmakers who got NDDC’s contracts. They are mainly from the Niger Delta. These lawmakers have been fighting tooth and nail to exonerate themselves. Akpabio appears to be a reluctant squealer though. He spilled the beans because he was seemingly forced to. It is hard to discountenance what he said no matter how strong those he accused deny the allegation. Akpabio and these people know themselves and he won’t have accused them for the fun of it, knowing the consequences of such action. Things would not have come to a head, if the lawmakers had not attempted to remove the speck in Akpabio’s eyes without first attending to the beam in theirs.

Now, the lawmakers mentioned in the bulky document he sent to Gbajabiamila to buttress his claim are fighting to clear themselves. But, the House, rather than face reality and do a soul search is bleating for nothing. It said it did not ask Akpabio to write to it, but to release the names of the legislator-contractors. Are some of those names not in the Akpabio papers? The public awaits the next round of the battle.

As mentioned in this space last week, there is no difference between our ministers and lawmakers. What is happening in NDDC is what obtains in other ministries,  departments and agencies (MDAs). The lawmakers will look the  other way as long as they are carried along. But where they are not, all hell will be let loose. For the National Assembly to maintain its integrity, it should not turn the power of oversight which it wields over the executive to one for coralling contracts and public funds.

If it continues to abuse or misuse this power,  it will continue to run into this kind of Akpabio storm. The outcome is obvious: it will distance itself  from the people whose support matters most in such times of trouble.