The Nation Newspaper

Category: Thursday

  • Reminiscences

    Reminiscences

    IT all seems quiet now.  The last vestiges of the campaigns – posters, banners and billboards – are being removed. Gone are the street parades, the town hall meetings, the throbbing rallies and the hot beer parlour arguments that often ended in broken heads and bloody noses. The prizes have been won and lost.

    But, can we really forget the elections? The lessons are instructive as they are compulsive. In Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman Attahiru Jega we saw the beauty of equanimity amid provocative turbulence and tension. General Muhammadu Buhari’s courage is exemplary – he ran four times before getting the trophy and he never wavered from his goal despite all those irritable comments and intrigues. By the way, has anybody seen Femi “Amebo” Fani-Kayode and his cousin Dr Doyin Okupe? Are they in town?

    President Goodluck Jonathan would not behave like a punch- drunk boxer with a stubborn chin; he threw in the towel even before the bell went off. Wisdom. Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu was, like an experienced marathoner, tenacious in his reformative struggle, despite all the mines on the way. Many Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) front liners could not wait for its demystification. Lacking in principle and character, they jumped ship – in droves. Fair weather friends all.

    There are many other lessons. Elder Godsday “the bully” Orubebe – is it true he is a church leader? – showed us the futility of desperation and irascibility. Now, there is a hilarious video of three kids re-enacting the scene in which the former minister grabbed the microphone and created a huge scene at the collation centre.

    Besides the lessons, there are also those words and phrases which will remain with us for a while. The All Progressives Congress (APC) came with the battle cry “change”. Everywhere its leaders went, they sang “change”. To their opponents, the slogan was derogatory and they used it to deride the APC. First Lady Dame (Dr) Patience Faka Jonathan – I understand she is busy preparing her handover notes as the president of the African First Ladies Peace Mission – taunted APC chiefs about the slogan. She told a crowded rally: “They are crying for change; are they conductors? U enter their bus?”

    Will she still see “change” as an empty Lagos bus conductor’s language? I doubt it. General Martin Luther Agwai will also never joke with the word “change”. He was fired from his SURE-P job for saying at former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s birthday that “the only permanent thing in life is change”. To the President, that was an affront too contemptuous to stomach. Gen. Agwai was fired – just like that. He was confounded by the rapidity of it all and the fact that no explanation was given as to why he got the push. Poor guy.

    Unlike Gen. Agwai who was not told why he had to go, the Ugbo monarch, Oba Obateru Akinrutan, knew why he was being scorned all over town. He was accused of snatching a ballot box during the elections. One had thought this style of rigging elections was obsolete, courtesy of the Permanent Voter Card (PVC). The kabiyesi had to address the media, saying he never did that, adding that his adversaries were carrying the rumour just to malign him. Imagine his majesty in full regalia of his exalted office – beads, crown and all – storming a polling unit and, in the full glare of all his subjects and officials, grabbing the ballot box and fleeing like a common thug, angry youths in hot pursuit. What a way to denigrate the royalty. Thankfully, the press conference put the matter to rest.

    His royal majesty, I am told, was among the monarchs whose help President Jonathan sought to “capture” the Southwest. Did he “deliver”? Many of them did not. To deliver, for the sake of refreshing our memory, is to promise that your candidate will triumph at the polls and actually ensure that he does either through fair or foul means, thereby justifying the “mobilisation” that you must have got.

    Many PDP chiefs, who failed to deliver after collecting hefty “mobilisation”   are now being asked to refund the cash they got. This, I learnt, is partly responsible for the gale of defections that hit the ruling party.

    But then, when is a “defection” no more a mere change of parties by an individual or a group? When does it become an “exodus”? The answer has been found in the terrible fate that suddenly became the lot of the PDP as many of its leading lights jumped ship and the party sank in a sea of electoral misfortune.

    Many were surprised at Lagos Governor Babatunde Fashola’s wit. On the hustings, he proved himself a master of repartee and wisecracks. To Akinwunmi Ambode’s opponent Jimi Agbaje’s camp, his appellation J.K. is enough to rouse the crowds at the campaigns. “J.K. we know, J.K. we trust”, they screamed in  colourful posters. Then, Fashola unravelled it all and J.K. becomes “Just Kidding” – an uncharitable allusion to the PDP candidate’s hazy views of the workings of the government and his ability to do the job. Of course, we all saw how APC chiefs were sweating and swearing and screaming when they realised that the fellow wasn’t kidding. While APC got the prize, we got a new phrase. Now whenever somebody dreams big and we are not convinced he or she is serious, we say he or she is “just kidding”.

    President Jonathan knocked everyone for six when he called Gen. Buhari to congratulate him even before the final results were announced. There was jubilation in the land as the news broke that Dr Jonathan had conceded defeat. Instantly – without any deep reflection, some insist – he was pronounced a statesman.  Not so fast, said the critics. Was it not a Hobson’s choice? Was it not so glaring that even the blind could see that it was all over? Has a mere telephone call become the restitution for all the sins of the administration?

    Even as the arguments on statesmanship raged, Dr Jonathan yesterday roared that he is still in charge and that Buhari should not form a parallel government-all because of a transition committee’s terms of reference. Easy. Dr Jonathan easy. You have been in charge for six years. That a committee is directed to do an overview of some agencies shouldn’t be a big deal; should it?

    There was no agreement on the matter of what makes a statesman, but the President’s action set off a series of such as many others conceded defeat. Kaduna State Governor Ramalan Yero admitted to being beaten by the garrulous former Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister, Nasir El-Rufai.

    Senator Teslim  Folarin conceded defeat in Oyo. Senator Rashidi Ladoja keeps crying that he was robbed. Benue Governor Gabriel Suswam surrendered to Senator Barnabas Gemade. In Niger, Umar Nasko conceded defeat to Abubakar Sani Bello.

    Former Information Minister Labaran Maku refused to toe the line. He described his loss as a coup against the people. Really? Interesting. In Kwara, Labour Party (LP) candidate Mike Omotosho said the result contradicted the people’s wish and many were asking: how?

    Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark, the Ijaw leader and President Jonathan’s sidekick , has said he can’t kill himself  because his man lost the election. That’s the spirit.

    Until last Saturday, the governorship elections in Abia, Imo and Taraba  were said to have been “inconclusive”. In other words, they needed to be rerun. But in Akwa Ibom, a winner has been announced in the governorship election, which was run concurrently as the House of Assembly elections on April 11. Now the question is: where are the results? If the Assembly elections are inconclusive and the results are left hanging somewhere in space, why and how did we get results for the governorship election. Can one be “conclusive” and the other “inconclusive”? Or is the word a mere euphemism for some fraud, which in this case seems to have blown up in the face of its perpetrators? We don’t really know.

  • DASHED HOPE

    WHEN the major news channels flashed the “breaking news” on Tuesday night, the world was gripped by a strange excitement, the type that greets a royal birth. But it was short-lived, like the morning dew.

    The military announced that they had rescued 200 girls and 93 women from the Sambisa Forest. First, they were not sure if the Chibok girls were among them. Later, they said the girls were not among the lot.

    The news came after the military said troops couldn’t advance on the Boko Haram stronghold because the insurgents had laced the place with mines. Were these 293 women freed by their captors or rescued by our gallant troops? Who are they? How were they pulled off the hook? Casualties? When will reporters be given access to them?

    I salute our troops’ gallantry in fighting this war, but the question remains: will the Chibok girls ever return?

  • To make Nigeria succeed or fail: it is our choice

    Since the victory of General Muhhamdu Buhari at the presidential elections, I have taken time now and then to brush up on my readings on development. I have focused, not so much on the development stories of particular countries, but mostly on the broad issues of development – why some countries succeed and others fail.

    I have read, re-read, and looked up the reviews and commentaries on the following books, and I urge leading citizens of my country to find one or two of them and, at least, browse through them: Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond; Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed also by Jared Diamond; Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity & Povertyby Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson; The Elusive Quest for Growth by William Easterly; and The Wealth & Poverty of Nations by David Landes.

    Each of these distinguished authors offers his own profound thoughts on the question that is most important to Nigeria today – the question whether we Nigerians will make our Nigeria a success or a failure. Altogether, the summary of the studies and thoughts of these authors is that we Nigerians are absolutely able to make our country succeed and to make it fail. To put it in another way, we have all we need to make Nigeria succeed brilliantly; and we have all we need to make Nigeria fail disastrously. The choice is entirely in our hands, and we are free to choose either way.

    Needless to say, various factors beyond human power are important  – factors such as geographical advantages or hardships, ethnicity, ethnic culture and history, availability or non-availability of natural resources, a country’s ethnic/cultural homogeneity or diversity, religious homogeneity or diversity, etc. But, in the final analysis, the ultimate determinant of whether a country shall succeed or fail is the choice made by its people, the institutions they set up, and the integrity or non-integrity of their operation of those institutions.

    For instance, being located in a desert makes development difficult for a country – but it does not make development impossible. The small state of Israel is a desert country, but its people have made it one of the most productive small countries in the world, agriculturally and technologically. Having two or more different nationalities (each with its own homeland) in a county makes stability and development difficult, but it does not make them impossible. Switzerland in Europe has no less than four nationalities, but it is one of the most stable, and one of the richest, countries in the world. Being richly endowed with natural resources is good for development, but it does not guarantee development. Nigeria is one of the richest countries in natural resources in the world, but it has been relentlessly declining, with the masses of its people becoming poorer, since independence. The key – the secret – in each case is the choices made by the people and their loyalty to those choices, and the institutions they give their country.

    In short, our Nigeria has been declining since independence and becoming less and less stable, and over 70% of our people live in absolute poverty today, because we have been making the wrong choices, setting up the wrong institutions, and denying integrity to our institutions. Of course, the biggest of the wrong institutions is our federal government. Essentially, because we have hundreds of ethnic nationalities, our best choice was a federal structure. And since some of our nationalities are large and many are small, our best arrangement should have been to make each of our large nationalities a state and, with caution and respect, we should have helped our small contiguous nationalitiesto form reasonably sustainable states. We ought to have borne in mid the danger of having too many states and too many state governments – and thereby putting too heavy a load of administrative costs on our country. (India with a population of about one billion at independence, carefully carved itself into 28 states, and gave most of the burdens of development to the state governments).

    But, unfortunately, it suited the purposes of some our most influential policy makers to carve our country into smaller and smaller states, so as to transfer more powers, resources and assets to the federal center. That paved the way for horrific inefficiency and corruption at the federal centre, turned our states into impotent entities forever at the mercy of the federal center, destroyed most development energy at the state and local government levels, and plunged our country into deeper and deeper poverty. The old regional responsibilities and assets (like universities, export crop management, some crucial highways, control over schools and school curriculum, etc) that were transferred to the federal centre mostly floundered and perished.

    Those who controlled the federal centre arrogated to themselves the prerogative of deciding who would rule the states, and election rigging by federal agencies (INEC, police, secret service, and even the military) became part of our political culture. Similar relationships developed between each state and its local governments. Federal agencies, as well as the departments of the federal government, eminent institutions like the Central Bank, the state and local governments, all lost integrity. Leadership whims, caprices, and impunity, ruled over our country. We ceased having a country worth the name. Most observers began to say that our country was a failed state that somehow kept standing – a failed state that would soon crumble.

    A new day can soon dawn in Nigeria. As the swearing in of Buhari and Osinbajo draws near, optimism and hope rise over our country. Understandably, most of our people are looking forward to see Buhari crush corruption. Buhari’s former stint at ruling our country, and his general reputation and body language, fuel the anti-corruption expectations. But, hopefully, Buhari understands that to crush corruption fully and abidingly in this country, we must reorder and revamp the institutional roots and fabrics of our country. The wrongly chosen, distorted and corrupted institutions are the roots of our country’s problem. Redraw, restructure, and straighten up, our institutions and, not only will corruption perish, our whole country will begin to rise again.

    But, of course, our country can continue to decline – and can decline until it crumbles. Whether our country revives and survives, or whether it continues to decline until it perishes – both depend on the choices we make in the next few years. That means that Buhari can lead us in ways that continue the decline one way or another. For instance, he could choose to revive and reinforce the ambition of Northern domination of Nigeria, reinforce the accumulation of power, assets and  resource control in the hands of his federal government, and even make the states more in number and weaker in stature – for instance, adopt the insane proposal that the number of states be increased to 54! He could, out of loyalty to a section of the country and to a political party, sustain the culture of election manipulations. He could do all or any of these and more – and pave the ultimate path to Nigeria’s disappearance. But he could guide and lead us in totally different ways, and give our country a new lease of life. To build or kill Nigeria – it is our choice.

  • The Sambisa mission

    IT has been one long dark night for our country. The abduction of the Chibok girls from their school in the wee hours of April 15 last year threw us into darkness. Their abduction was a slap on the face of constituted authority because the kidnappers – the Boko Haram insurgents – went too far. Before it struck in Chibok, a sleepy community in Borno State,  Boko Haram had tested our will as a nation severally and got away with it.

    So, the group was ever ready to do the unthinkable since it knew the government will not lift a finger against it. The Jonathan administration never felt that anything was amiss with the girls’ abduction. Its stance informed  its lackadaisical approach to the handling of the girls’ case.

    No government treats matters concerning its nationals with laxity the way the present administration did with its initial handling of the Chibok girls’ case. Where a citizen’s life is involved, the government is expected to be proactive to ensure that such citizen does not come to grief. Here, we are talking about over 200 lives. By their nature, girls are fragile and as such should be treated gingerly. This is why the world is outraged over the Chibok girls abduction. The message it has been sending across to us is that the feminine gender is not supposed to be treated like that. The world expects Nigeria’s leaders to rise promptly and rescue the girls. It is still waiting to see that happen. Little wonder that many were praying on Tuesday night that the Chibok girls would be among the 293 rescued by the military in Sambisa Forest.

    It is understandable why the girls’ case generates excitement all the time. There is this feeling that any of the girls could be our daughter or sister. So imagining our daughter or sister in the position that these girls have found themselves in the past one year is torturous to many families. To those in power, the girls can rot in captivity for all they care.

    Recall that by the time government raised a panel to go to Chibok and ascertain the veracity of the abduction, the girls and their abductors were far, far gone. Because it had all the time in the world to disappear to wherever it wanted with the girls, Boko Haram started boasting about what it would do with them.

    Calling on Allah’s name, its leader, Abubakar Shekau, claimed that the Supreme Being had directed him to marry off the girls. He added that the girls have converted to Islam. To buttress his claim, he released a video footage, showing the girls dressed in hijab and flowing gown.

    The girls’ abduction remains to date, Boko Haram’s biggest catch; so it is ready to do anything to protect its gain. It knows that as long as the girls are in its custody, it can always get the government to do its bidding. The group has used proxies to collect millions of dollars from the government under the guise of a cease fire. It ploughed the money into buying more arms to unleash terror on Nigerians. By the time the government resolved to fight Boko Haram things had gone bad, real bad.

    What is more. It made its move because of the then approaching elections. Although the elections have been won and lost, the government cannot, at this stage, stop its ongoing onslaught against Boko Haram to avoid comments, such as, ‘’we knew all along that it was all because of the elections’’. So, the battle must be fought to the end until the incoming administration takes over on May 29. People held on to the cheery news from Sambisa Forest, with the hope that the Chibok girls will be among the rescued.

    Although the military said it was still profiling those rescued, hope was high that the Chibok girls might be among them. They were not. We beg to ask: when will they be rescued considering that time is no longer on the Jonathan administration’s side to clear this mess before it leaves?

    Kofi Nene

    THE way the Daily Times newsroom was structured, it was easy to spot some people at a glance because of their vantage position in the large hall. The news editor was in charge and his desk showed that. Flanking him were his two deputies. In that set up were others close to the power base that made the newsroom tick. These were the rewrite men, who were always at the beck and call of the news editor, to clean up badly written stories. The rewrite men were panel beaters of sorts. They panel beat stories to make them readable and publishable. Among those on the rewrite desk in the early and mid-90s was Coffie Ammuako-Annan. Kofi, as we called him, was an expert. Patient and unassuming, he went through reporters’ scripts with care. He was painstaking and thorough. Never one to shout at you no matter how bad your script was, Kofi worked as if his life depended on the job. He was so loved by our bosses – Solomon Odemwingie and Tunde Ipinmisho (a master rewrite man) – for his thoroughness. Kofi whose mother hailed from Ogbomoso in Oyo State was everybody’s man because he hardly got angry, no matter what anybody did to him. In the wee hours of April 13, I got a text message from Mr  Ipinmisho that  Kofi, a gentleman to the core, is dead. He died in Ghana; he was 65. I doff my hat to a thoroughbred professional and master of the game. May you find rest in the Lord’s bosom.

    Triple author

    JOURNALISM has a way of killing talents without knowing it. Many good writers are often sent to where we call Siberia (the old timers will know what I mean) where they cannot display their skills. They are either made sub editors or proof readers, where they do the job, while others take the glory. A few  lucky ones break out of the mould to make their mark in the writing world. One of such persons is my friend, Ebere Wabara. Ebere had done virtually everything in Daily Times as a behind-the-scene man on the production sub desk before he got his break, which came when he started writing Wordsworth, a column which spots and corrects newspapers’ grammatical errors.  Since then, there has been no stopping Ebere. It was while handling Wordsworth that former Daily TimesAdministrator Mr Peter Enahoro spotted him and made him front page editor. He left that seat to edit The Post Express and do other great things. Ebere is the author of Wordsworth & Essays (2001) and My Country, The Media (2005). His third book: Media Gaffes & Essays will be presented on Tuesday at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos. May your pen never go dry, my brother.

  • Fayose: Time to end Ekiti nightmare

    Obasanjo and Jonathan, his estranged godson, have nothing but contempt for the Ekitis and their professors. The former first inflicted a dim-witted Fayose, a student of Lamidi Adedibu, the PDP garrison commander of Ibadan politics whose idea of a governor is a public pugilist who can also swear to falsehood with the Holy Quran without qualms. Obasanjo probably did that to compensate the man who doubled as the head of Ibadan thugs for his support for the 2003 ‘do or die’ elections. And for the latter, Ekiti experiment supervised by an ambitious clowning man who knows no fear, can be used as a template for 2015. This probably failed because of a fortuitous rift between godfather and godson, the threat of the international community especially the US and Britain, and the resolve of Jega to be on the right side of history.

    Except the Supreme Court with its bizarre judgment, and perhaps Fayose’s thugs, the Yoruba even without the benefit of ‘Ekiti-gate’ audios, now know Fayose is an impostor. It is all embedded in our rich culture. We know for a fact that when the slave usurps the throne, institutions of state and its people are imperiled.  Between 2003 and until his impeachment in April 16, 2006, Ekiti knew no peace. The period was marked by violence, kidnapping of a traditional ruler and assassination of his close PDP rivals such as Dr. Ayo Daramola, a World Bank consultant and Tosin Omojola. Ekiti sons for fear for their lives deserted home.

    Referring to the sordid past during his inauguration on Thursday October 16, 2014, Fayose had confessed: “All my property were left in the Government House because I had to flee”, adding that during “seven and half years of my political wilderness,” I was “taken to court about 59 times aside the 45 days I spent in detention over EFCC charges”. But because of what President Jonathan has conveniently described as “the the slow pace of justice that grinds slowly in our environment”, in other to shield his thieving PDP members, Fayose like many accused PDP stalwarts ,instead of ending up behind bars  moved on to become governors, senators, minister and party leaders.

    Ayo Fayose shortly after losing a senatorial election was said to have trounced his highly rated sitting rival in all the 16 LGA. Shocked by his victory he could not but describe it as “a rare miracle”, adding “having a second chance is very rare. My return to government is not common in history; I will not allow this position to go into my head or use it to oppress anybody; I don’t have anybody in mind to punish battle with or fight in any way; I won’t allow sycophants to derail me again”.

    But that was short-lived. His desperation at holding on to ill-acquired throne through various acts of impunity and constitutional breaches since his second coming is enough reason to believe Fayose is a usurper. And here once again, the Yoruba culture pointedly tells us that “omo Oba ki jagun bi eru”, literarily translated the heir apparent even in the thick of a battle is conscious of is responsibility to the state and the besieged enemy’s territory in contrast to a slave who has no stake and is prepared to risk all. Fighting like a slave without grace is exactly what Ayo Fayose has been doing since his second inauguration. As governor-elect, he had led a band of thugs to assault a judge presiding over his eligibility case, tearing his robe and shredding his case files.

    His next action was to ferry seven PDP lawmakers in government bus protected by 300 policemen to the state House of Assembly where they whimsically pronounced the speaker backed by 19 lawmakers impeached and hilariously proclaimed one of the seven lawmakers a speaker. Moments later, Fayose dressed like one of his thugs was telling a bemused nation that he has recognized the new speaker. He then proceeded to chase the 19 lawmakers out of town. With the help of the police, he has continued to sustain this illegality. An attempt by the lawmakers to return home was frustrated. Fayose, drunk with power sent thugs to manhandle the lawmakers at a boundary town between Osun and Ekiti.

    Fearing the victory of Buhari will put an end to his acts of impunity, he became paranoid.  First it was Buhari’s certificate. Then it was his age. He even went on to conclude that because his 70-something years old mother was afflicted with a strange disease that makes her resort to the use pampers, Buhari also must be using pampers. He falsely claimed Buhari was in London hospital and in fact trailed him down spending public money. He then changed strategy. He wanted President Jonathan, to relieve Jega of his duty as INEC chairman for insisting on the use of card readers. He did not forget to remind President Jonathan that ‘heaven will not fall’, if Jega was illegally removed, just as beyond opposition noise, heaven did not fall following  Jonathan’s  illegal and immoral removal of  Justice Ayo Salami for ruling against PDP stalwarts that stole other peoples mandates.

    Living in a fools’ paradise and believing there will be no consequences for his actions, Fayose who is too dim-witted to know fear (apology to Ali Mazrui) scared away most serious contestants in the last parliamentary and state assembly elections. PDP that was in opposition in Ekiti six months ago has now become the only party in Ekiti winning all available elective positions.

    Fayose and his PDP supporters and okada riders in Ekiti are behaving like NNDP of the first republic who having rigged an election, dared the people counting on the false sense of security provided by the police.  As a young boy, it is difficult to forget the horror of that era.

    We watched in horror as men and their children were routinely locked up in their cars and set ablaze right in front of police stations. Three months after military take-over and cessation of hostilities in other parts of the West, mud houses and cocoa farms were still being torched in Ekiti. The late Col. Adekunle Fajuyi, leveraging on his being an Ekiti man had to take a tour of Ekiti town and villages appealing to his people to stop the mindless killing.

    Tragically, this is the past the Supreme Court by its last week bizarre verdict tried to encourage. In their wisdom, Fayose was not properly impeached in 2006. But since they didn’t say their verdict was retroactive, it stands to reason that Fayose was not qualified as at the time he contested the election in June 2014. The Supreme Court’s wise men were silent on Fayose’s constitutional banditry. Perhaps as a consequence, Fayose has moved on to mobilize his church congregation, touts, market women, okada riders who have by last Monday taken over the state House of Assembly. It is not clear if the Supreme Court wise men are also asking the besieged people of Ekiti to resort to self-help.

    But Fayose and his thugs currently behaving like lunatics must be reminded Ekiti people hardly forget. They equally don’t forgive traitors. He had the luxury of escaping in the boot of his car last time around. The scene he probably remembered when during his inauguration he gave an undertaking to be of good behavior. But Fayose cannot give what he has not got. He is ill-equipped, ill-mannered and ill-tempered to manage society. With the criminal conspiracy of the out-going government, it is time the new inheritors of power got the police authorities to allow the lawmakers do their job and if necessary to put an end to Fayose’s buffoonery. Ekiti as the butt of expensive joke world over have suffered enough. Waiting until after Jonathan’s exit on May 29 may be too late. By then aggrieved people may forcefully attempt to demolish Fayose’s fraudulent structures.

     

  • Woman song 

    Our virgins no longer quicken. They become women before they learn to be girls; baby hymens ruptured at the cold, hard strokes of men. Now the girl child understands ‘bottom power’ better than our mothers. Sometimes, mothers teach them stuff. They say they teach them to survive.

    Enter Barbie dolls, butt vixens, cold, grotesque army of career freaks. Every girl child wants to be lady, every lady will be independent. BSc, HND, MBA, PhD, a pretty face and pliant job ensures interminable freedom. And those that are without brains look out for the randy boss, then they jiggle their hips. These days, they up the ante, they agree to an inviting bump or two, or simply offer it.

    No more shall womanly wiles be subservient to impenitent machismo. Our daughters have learnt to tame men. Our women have discovered how to be men. A new breed of womanhood has evolved. It foists upon us such quality of womanhood that dulls down to an artificially created set of sexual-political sensibilities in desperation to sate the feminist emotional lust for being perpetually ‘oppressed.’

    Thus like porn addicts, paedophiles, rapists and racists, our daughters have become emotion junkies – infinitely handicapped yet propelled by their lust for unearned benefits. And when she seems truly deserving of sought benefits, gluttony and wile pervert her claims until her agitation attains the tenor of a ruckus, much like the ghastly cries of feral cats jostling for the largest chunk of carrion flesh. Misandry and demonization of men drives her to perpetually devalue men’s worth to the extent that she has become blasé about the disposability of men and the boy-child.

    In the wake of the ensuing abnormality, we treasure the good old days, when daughters agreed to be led like brainless lambs to the slaughter slab. We bemoan the loss of the epoch, when wedlock was arranged even before the girl child was conceived and delivered.

    But then, there was no internet and our mothers pounded yams and provided bath water for our fathers and their mistresses. Tell me, who would wish such on his most precious daughter? It’s been four decades since papa visited mama’s bed. It’s been five years since he untied her wrapper. I wonder how she got along. Now that he is dead, I wonder how she would survive.

    I used to think that she was made of wood. But recently, that changed; awareness drummed by the hard, cold palms of truth. Just the other day, while the sun set, in Morpheus’ warm embrace, I heard her playing with herself. I tried to challenge her, but my guts failed me. I would love to advise her, but I am ashamed to accost her pain lest she recoils in shame.

    But what do I know? I am only a child. My curiosity should be meant for more childlike things. I shouldn’t become the cat that died prying. My hard earned knowledge fits me for such tasks but I lack the nobility to fulfill such. Oftentimes I wonder if it was love that killed Adunni, my grandma’s friend.

    Now a breathing corpse, the poor old woman has sashayed to her watershed, in the dark. Hence for her, there would be no defining moment. These days, she has forgotten how to do the walk.  The sway that endeared her to Ajadi, the gravel merchant, has turned her to a reject in his house. Every time she tries to reenact her magic, he screams ‘ashawo.’ These days her co-wives taunt her to her face. They ask her to relinquish her turn on the bed. She has decided to do so because her in-laws have joined hands in the mockery. They ask what more could she want from her husband’s manhood.

    And she just turned 40. But she cannot leave lest she puts her family to shame and her four daughters go hungry. It has become the way of her husband to deny her daughters, his kids, food and fatherhood every time she incurs his wrath, however petty. He threatens to throw them on the streets.

    The village belle of yesterday has become the laughingstock of today. The maiden who taunted the hood of men have fallen by the honeyed – tongue of Ajadi, the virgin hunter.

    Passion she fanned to lighten her heart died in the full blaze of her first love’s passion for another and others.

    ‘Curse papa and leave!’ her children scream as they attempt to smash the picture of her only love, their father.

    Suitors she left to clutter her father’s door recline in the chilly atmosphere of her spent youth. What are they looking for? Perhaps the cold acknowledgement that at last, she values their love, the shallow pretense of appreciation offered in a dream? A note, a sign, a telltale to console them that their ardor was never misplaced?

    These days, they too, join in the mockery. They jeer at the unreciprocated love whose misery cries out, silently. Shakara don end o, Adunni has reached her twilight, at 40.

    When Ajadi dies, she would be willed to his drunkard brother and driver. Her co-wives would be inherited by two others, but they would be better off.

    Her four daughters would be cut from their father’s bequest, because they would be women.

    That is why they have vowed to never marry. Vile astir, fire at heart, they forswear men. Every day, they vow to become ‘career ladies.’ They say they would see men like the latter sees them, objects to be done with, disposable means to self-indulgent ends.

    Adunni is mortified. Should we too? I admit that I am. I have some issue, she is no longer a child, neither is she an adult yet she seems to understand what it is to be an adult, mostly the sordid details. And she is just 10.

    The present breaks my heart. We treat our women badly, worse than slaves. We shave their heads when their husbands die and put them in a cage. We force them to sit and eat on the bare floor over the most trying days. Some, we force to drink body fluid secreted from the husband’s corpse even as we drive many more to the brink of madness by our sheer inhumanity. How monstrous can we get?

    Would a true man recoil because his wife earns higher? Would a true man pay a child prostitute for sex? Would he liberate her from such villainy? Would a true man flaunt a mistress to his wife’s face? Would a true man deny his wife the right to speak? Would a true man manage the tantrums of the most troublesome of women or flee from it?

    Would a true man marry for money? Would a true man defile his own daughter? Would a true man mourn his wife for 90 days or would he untie the next wrapper at her demise? Would a true man allow the dehumanization of his widow, if he could help it? What do dead husbands think on their way to yonder? What do they do when they look back? Do their glands thicken and moisten with tears? Do they applaud the monstrosity we savagely dole out to their women?

    May our daughters marry the husbands we have become to their mothers; shall we say ‘Amen?’

  • We Nigerians and the war on corruption

    Nigeria has good grounds for optimism about the coming Buhari presidency. So too does a world that has watched Nigeria with mounting anxiety for years. Improbable as it may sound, the Nigeria of the three short weeks since the March 28 presidential election is vastly different from the Nigeria of the preceding six decades. A land of utter hopelessness is beginning to breathe an air of hope.

    The expectations are high. But so are the perceptible promises and prospects. Muhammadu Buhari exudes qualities that seem tailor-made for serious transformational change in our country. In a country in which leadership positions have, for nearly six decades, been defined by all leading Nigerians (high and low) as warehouses for personal wealth-gathering, Buhari is well known as one of the few public leaders capable of rising above the primitive urge to steal, grab and engross. From his record, we know that Buhari sincerely hates the public corruption for which virtually all his peers salivate. And he hates it so much that he would wage war against it – as he did once before – even though he knows for sure that powerful persons close to him will rise up as defenders of corruption and fight against him. There is a fact that most Nigerians do not know – namely, that many of the leaders of Buhari’s own people hate him, and find it difficult to forgive him till today, for hacking down the castle of corruption erected around President Shagari  in 1979-83.

    I belonged to the Nigerian Senate in those Shagari years, and watched at close range the truly intimidating stature of the corruption edifice. We who stood firm in opposition to that edifice often doubted that anybody could ever demolish it. Yet, within only weeks of seizing the government in December 1983, Buhari had demolished corruption – and had started to guide our whole country onto some path of order, discipline, and probity. It was incredible!

    I tell this important story today not merely to remind us Nigerians of a major era in the growth of our country’s shame and decline. I do not tell it to reopen old sores, or to embarrass Nigeria’s former leaders. I do not tell it to adulate Buhari. I tell it because there are critically important lessons that Nigerians should learn from it.

    Altogether, the lessons are as follows: While Buhari was busy demolishing corruption and doing various patriotic things, according to his light, to straighten up Nigeria, some very influential citizens were meeting in dark caucus rooms and plotting to get rid of Buhari and his anti-corruption agenda, and to  re-establish the power of corruption over Nigeria. In about 18 months flat, they sprang their attack. Buhari was thrown off the stage and replaced with another military officer acceptable to the owners and mentors of the corruption edifice. Within months, corruption was not only back, it had become the well-established, and institutionalized, system of Nigeria’s governance.

    Obviously, in the post-Buhari years, the objective was to establish corruption so soundly that it would never again fear the kind of threat that Buhari had posed for nearly two years. And, by and large, that objective was achieved – and corruption has been our avowed system of governance ever since. As things are, corruption has no special kinsmen or friends among Nigerians or Nigerian peoples. All prominent Nigerians, from all corners of Nigeria, can be presumed to be friends of corruption. All presidents in the years since 1985, as well as nearly all persons who have served as governors, senior civil servants at and high officials of parastatals at federal and state levels, as well as chairmen and members of local governments, have taken corruption hideously to heart. A foreigner who visited Nigeria lamented, “In other countries, public corruption means that some public officials steal some of the public money under their care; in Nigeria it often means that all public officials steal virtually all public money under their care. Sometimes, stories about Nigeria sound as if Nigeria is not part of the world”.

    What then should we Nigerians take from this lesson? First, we must recognize that corruption is a very powerful force, and that getting rid of it is not going to be easy. Some who have tasted it are so intoxicated by it that they will do anything to defend or resuscitate it. Our common belief that the era of military coups is gone is sheer folly. All it takes to effect a coup is a handful of highly motivated military officers, pushed forward with irresistible incentives by one or two very rich and influential super-citizens.  The best antidote is that all of us, common citizens of Nigeria, should keep watch and never cease proclaiming that we will never again accept any military ruler – that if any military officer goes on radio and says, “My dear countrymen”, the rest of us, as citizens and as nationalities, will answer absolutely unambiguously that we are not his countrymen. All who love and want Nigeria must henceforth be ready to pay this price of vigilance.

    Secondly, we must give democratic support to President Buhari as he proposes and implements measures to rid our country of public corruption. Unlike in his showing in the 1980s, he is not going to be a military president this time. He must work with, in particular, the federal legislature. All members of the federal legislature are our elected representatives. Under the corruption regime since 1999, the National Assembly has generally acted as if it has some special authority beyond that conferred by the constitution and people of Nigeria. They have presumed, for instance, that they can keep whatever they like out of the knowledge of Nigerians, and that it is their prerogative to secretly threaten officials of the executive arm of government in order to extort bribes and enhanced emoluments and benefits for themselves. That has been part of the corruption governance. We Nigerians must put an end to that now.

    As part of the war on corruption, we must demand that President Buhari should promote a new political culture of “government in the open sunshine”. As part of this, we need to start the political practice, common in the greatest democracies worldwide, whereby citizens create citizen bodies that act as watch-dogs over various aspects of their government – for instance, over the budget, over the management of public contracts, over open governance, over accountability, over civil rights, etc. In the great democracies like America, citizens give such bodies money to keep them alive; and we Nigerians must begin to do so.

    Also, we must demand laws to bring discipline and some decency into our politics. The horse-trading that goes on now in our politics – the disgraceful slinking from party to party – is one of the worst features of our corruption.  And must demand that Buhari should cause to be reviewed the irresponsibly high remunerations of elected public officials.

    In summary then, we Nigerians must make sure that proper political institutions are created to make the death of corruption permanent. In addition to the steps listed above, we must therefore demand a properly structured federation, a change from the presidential to the parliamentary system, and the revival of the procedural rules that, from 1952-66, regulated the access of public servants to public accounts. We must give Buhari the support he would need to lead our country along these lines.

     

  • Igbo leadership and the urban immigrant

    It is on record that many Igbo urban immigrants trying to eke out a living like other urban poor had lived peacefully with their host communities on the streets of Lagos and Kano long before the return of Zik, the most influential Igbo in the 20th century in 1934, Akanu Ibiam, the first Igbo medical doctor in 1935, and Louis Mbanefo, the first Igbo lawyer, 1937 and their involvement in politics. And following the false sense of security the new spokes persons promised, the Igbo urban immigrants  started saying ‘any attack on Zik is an attack on Igbo nation’ and the radicals among them even went further  buying off all the cutlasses in Lagos market in preparation for war against their Lagos hosts. But unfortunately, to the power seeking Igbo elite, the Igbo urban immigrants are only tools for political bargaining in whose name they swear when confronted by their own demons. Whether it was a Fulter Sutton Commission of Inquiry into the activities of ACB then owned by Zik, his children and his friend Sir Odumegwu Ojukwu, or Ozumba Mbadiwe’s Ijora land deal, or in recent times, the evasion of payment for land rent on choice properties in Lagos or involvement in fuel subsidy scam, it has always been because they are Igbo leaders fighting the cause of urban immigrants.

    Attempts at using Igbo urban dwellers for political leverage started back in 1938 during the crisis in Nigerian Youth Movement, a party formed  by Yoruba and Yoruba repatriates  many of whom were alumni of Kings College and  according to Richard Sclar, ‘ men of substance engaged in business, law medicine or journalism’. The crisis started with the resignation of its chairman, Dr  Kofoworola Abayomi from the Legislative Council and in line with the constitution of the party, Ernest Ikoli, supported by Awolowo, the Ibadan branch Secretary General, put himself forward . But Akinsanya, a founding member, supported by Zik also showed interest. This led to an election in which Akinsanya was roundly defeated. In 1939 Zik pulled out of NYM with Akinsanya and the Igbo members accusing Awo who had supported an Ijaw man against his Ijebu kinsman a tribalist. The Lagos Ibo state Union which had taken over NCNC since 1944 believed Zik. Richard Sclar hazarded a guess as to Zik’s motive. He narrowed it down to two self-serving possibilities:  ‘He may have resented the commercial competition of the Daily Service, the official journal of NYM, or that he discovered ‘his impetuously , dramatic, highly personalized type of leadership was not palatable to the Lagos elite group of  professionals and intellectual luminaries of Lagos’ at the period.

    The intra party feuds that engulfed NCNC after the return of its delegation to London was also blamed on Yoruba by Zik and his Igbo colleagues. Prince Adeleke Adedoyin and Dr Olorun –Nimbe, members of the delegation had accused the leadership of NCNC of mismanagement of funds and Zik of being the sole author of the Memorandum and Constitutional Proposal submitted to the colonial secretary. The two were consequently expelled but the expulsion was ineffective because they constituted the soul of NCNC in Lagos. And later when attempt by the party to prevail on Dr Olorun-Nimbe who had won an election to the central legislature to step down to pave way for Zik failed, Zik claimed he was being marginalized  as an Igbo man by Yoruba tribalists .The Lagos Igbo state Union believed him. Ozumba Mbadiwe thereafter embarked on a crusade to separate Lagos from the West.

    Although the pan tribal group by the Ibibio first appeared in Calabar in 1928, followed in 1930, by Igbo Unions in Lagos and Port Harcourt, it wasn’t until 1945 that a parallel movement for the unity of Yoruba  led by  Obafemi  Awolowo, Dr Oni Akerele, and others started in far away  London. And the aim among others was to reform the alien authoritarian system of government imposed on Yoruba by the British following the 1914 amalgamation. Action Group that emerged from the egbe was therefore a party anchored on Yoruba nationalism.

    But Zik dismissed Awo who had by 1945, around the time he was celebrating the virtues of the Igbo as a people ordained by God to lead Africa, written his first critical book on British Administration in Nigeria where he advocated ‘federalism, the right of ethnic nationalities for self rule’ and called for the ‘barriers of tribalism, clannishness to be broken with ethnical units totally destroyed”. Zik devoted his daily column in his West African Pilot to fighting Awo, and the AG. He exploited his popularity in the major towns of the west and Lagos where he could do no wrong because the Lagos white cap chiefs and Imams saw him as the grandson of Herbert Macaulay.

    But this was not enough to stop the victory of Awo and AG In the 1951 regional election, a victory that   sealed Zik’s hope of becoming the premier of the West. Once again Zik ran back to his Lagos Ibo State Union alleging he was robbed by Awo and Yoruba tribal irredentists. Turning logic on its head, Zik and his supporters insisted that AG won the 1951 western regional election by 45 to NCNC’s 35 seats because of tribal politics. But they had  had little to say about eastern region where in the same election, the dominant NCNC won by 65 to the opposition’s (United National Party) 4,   Similarly  in the 1954, federal election in the west, AG won by 23 to NCNC’s 18  while in the same federal election in the east, NCNC won by 32 to AG 3.  But ask Igbo youths who have been fed with falsehood by Igbo political elite as to the origin of tribal politics in Nigeria, they will not hesitate to point at Western House Ibadan where the late Professor Chinua Achebe falsely claimed he witnessed cross carpeting on the floor in  1952, when in truth the list of AG candidates was submitted and published by the colonial government before the election and a list of successful AG candidates  as  released by government was published by the Daily Times about two days before the sitting.

    Igbo political elite will not even accept responsibility for the civil war. Many Igbo youths believe Ojukwu’s declaration of independence of Biafra and the ensuing civil war was the making of Awo who reneged on ‘if East by any act of omission or commission is forced out of the federation, the west will follow”. I am sure Ojukwu who lived among the Yoruba in Lagos and Achebe who schooled in Ibadan ought to have known the Yoruba who by their culture are at liberty to ask their leaders uncomfortable questions would not have hesitated to demand Awo, their powerful and highly respected leader first bring his children from abroad if he had insisted on fighting a war with Hausa Fulani soldiers in firm control of Abeokuta and Ibadan. (There were very few Yoruba foot soldiers in the military).

    But Awo knew he was leading a highly critical followership who read meanings even to ordinary greetings. He ran down to Enugu with Professor Samuel Aluko a few days later to plead with Ojukwu to delay his declaration of independence. In spite of the assurances, Ojukwu declared the independence of the Republic of Biafra, according to him, ‘with only 19 rifles’, a day after Gowon had turned the dream republic into a landlocked enclave having carved out states for the minorities that had always wanted liberation from the Igbo hegemony. And as recently observed by Theophilus Danjuma while praising President Jonathan for conceding defeat, Ojukwu prolonged the nightmare of his people for another one year after the fall of Enugu.

    Igbo political elite hardly get sanctioned for failure of leadership. They falsely proclaim Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba as Igbo haters. With the former, they have according to General Alabi jointly ruled the country since independence while the latter provides a safe haven for Igbo fortune seekers.

    Many of our youths have been fed with too many falsehoods.  Part of the immediate challenges of the incoming administration must include bringing back the study of history in our schools. Our tomorrow is nothing but the sum total of our yesterday and today.

  • David Mark’s fantasy

    IF there is a veteran senator in this dispensation, Senate President David Alechenu Bonaventure Mark is it. Mark has been in the Senate since the return to democracy in 1999 and has been its president in the past eight years. His tenure ends in June when the next Senate will be inaugurated following the proclamation of the incoming President Muhammadu Buhari. From all indications, Mark does not want to leave an office that he has become used to.

    Before the last elections, the plan of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was to retain Mark as Senate President if the party wins. The outcome of the elections, which they thought they had in their pocket, scuttled that plan. With PDP now in the minority in the Senate, Mark’s chances of becoming president are not bright at all; they are nil. But being a soldier and a general to boot, he is not ready to let go.

    He feels he must be Senate president at all costs; so, he has started rallying his troops, as a good soldier, to achieve his aim. The Senate presidency is not the exclusive preserve of any party or individual. According to Section 50 (1) (a)  of the Constitution, there shall be a president and a deputy president of the Senate, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves. With this provision, it is  expected that  the senators will look inwards and pick someone from among them who  is the best for the job whenever the post becomes vacant.

    Rather than do that , the senators since 1999 have allowed politics, ethnicity and religion to creep into their selection of principal officers. For the past 16 years, the best have not always emerged as Senate president. Mark himself cannot, in all honesty, say he was the best candidate when he became Senate president in 2007 and when he  retained the plum job in 2011. In the sharing of offices, the Senate came up with a formula, which the House of Representatives and the Houses of Assembly adopted.

    It is a rule of thumb which gives preference to ‘’ranking’’ members and the majority party. Since PDP has been holding sway in the Senate since 1999, it has monopolised the office of Senate president. So, by convention, the majority party must produce the Senate president and deputy Senate president. This has been the position for 16 years and it suited PDP well because in all these years it towered above other parties in the Senate. To challenge the PDP for the plum job was as the opposition parties knew politically unwise  because of its majority status which it used to oppress them.

    The party used its number to overwhelm the opposition whose candidates usually came a distant  second in the race for Senate presidency.  What is all this fuss about ‘’ranking’’? ‘’Ranking’’ means that first time senators cannot be considered for any principal office; they can only make do with committee chairmanship. Many ‘greenhorn’ senators have challenged this requirement, if it can be called that, in the past without success, arguing that today’s ‘’ranking’’ senators were beginners yesterday. Their submission cut no ice with the ‘senior’ senators, who were more interested in appropriating the plum offices.

    As a “ranking” senator, Mark must be conversant with this unwritten rule. As he returns to the Senate in June for a fifth record time, Mark will be returning as a member of the minority PDP, following his party’s  loss in the last elections. Going by the Senate’s convention, Mark is no longer eligible for Senate presidency because he is not from the party – All Progressives Congress (APC) – that will be in the majority from June even though he will be the most ‘’ranking’’ senator.  He can only get the job if a miracle happens, which in this instance I don’t see happening. Having tasted power as Senate president, it seems Mark is not ready to go without a fight.

    With APC in the majority with 60 senators, Mark knows that in this game of numbers, he will need everything at his disposal to upset the apple cart. I do not see the APC allowing the opposition, which is what the PDP is going to be from May 29, to remain in the saddle as Senate president. On what grounds will APC be yielding the exalted office to Mark’s PDP which has 49 senators? Mark, according to a report in this paper last Sunday is banking on getting the job if APC zones the post to Northcentral where he hails from. That is wishful thinking because APC has a lot of competent senators from that region to man the Senate president’s office.

    Mark is probably praying for a bitter  feud among the APC senators, which he could cash in on to return to office. Others are painting the kind of scenario, which played out in the House of Representatives in 2011 when members rejected the PDP’s choice of Alhaja Mulikat Akande as Speaker and voted for Aminu Tambuwal. The cases are not similar at all. Tambuwal was a popular choice among his colleagues, cutting across party lines. In the House case, PDP shot itself in the foot. For anybody to think that APC will go the same way over this matter of the Senate presidency will amount to living in a fool’s world.

    What is so special about Mark that he should remain Senate president when his party will no longer be in the majority? Is he saying that APC does not have senators good enough to succeed him as Senate president? It is one thing for him to wish to remain in office, it is another to see whether his fellow senators, especially from the APC camp, will oblige him? Most importantly, it will amount to a sale of its birthright if APC concedes the Senate presidency to Mark. As the majority party from June, it is its right, going by convention, to produce the Senate president and deputy Senate president.

    What is the essence of APC being in the majority without producing the Senate president? That will be like just  being in office without holding power. I don’t think the APC fought and won  the elections to be made to hold the short end of the stick at the end of the day.   If Mark does not mind, the Minority Leader’s job is his for the picking. Otherwise, he can make do with the honorific title of Emeritus Senate president for being  primus interpares (first among equals) for eight unbroken years, a record so far, in the annals of the Upper Chamber.

    Mark has had a good run as Senate president. He should just sit back now and see how another person from another party will manage the Senate. Without mincing words, Mark is off the mark, thinking of returning as Senate president after his party’s loss in the last elections.

  • APC’s vision for Nigeria

    APC’s vision for Nigeria

    The Development of a Welfare State

    •The following article by me on the APC manifesto was first published in The Nation in March 2014, over a year ago. The APC, newly formed, was then in opposition at the centre. Now, having won the recent presidential elections, retired General Buhari of the APC will be sworn in next month as president. The article is being repeated, without any amendment or revision, to remind the APC leaders of their promise to the nation.

    Last week, the All Progressives Congress (APC), the main opposition party, unveiled its manifesto in Abuja, highlighting its social welfare vision for Nigeria.  As I have not yet seen or read the full document, my comments on it are based on media reports on the manifesto that highlighted a social welfare vision of the party for our country. This includes the party’s strategies on job creation, the fight against rising public corruption, the poor and deteriorating social and physical infrastructure, the creation of states police, widespread insecurity in the state, and greater transparency in government. It is definitely time for change in Nigeria and the urgent resolution of these long standing challenges is critical to Nigeria’s future progress and stability.  The manifesto is wide ranging and should enjoy mass electoral appeal in the country.

    But there are some inexplicable and puzzling gaps in the manifesto. Omitted from it are such contentious but crucial issues as fiscal federalism, a parliamentary versus a presidential system of government, federal-state relations, and the frightening rot in the energy and oil sectors of the economy.  The manifesto is also silent on the need for the political restructuring of the country and on the need for a review of revenue allocation between the centre and the states. Evidently the party could not reach a consensus on these controversial issues. We eagerly await the manifesto of the PDP, the ruling party, which has been in power since 1999, during which its performance has been less than satisfactory, and well below the expectations of even its own supporters. But the APC manifesto remains only a promise of what the party will do if it wins next year’s general elections. This promise cannot be fulfilled if the APC loses next year’s presidential election.

    In states controlled by the APC in the South-west, most of the strategies outlined by the party in its manifesto are already being implemented with positive results. The physical transformation in those states, particularly in Lagos and Edo, is quite impressive. There can be no doubt that in those states there is a far greater commitment to developing a better infrastructure and laying a solid foundation for the future economic progress and social welfare of the people of the states. Outside the South-west, a few other states have shown a similar commitment to promoting economic growth and the welfare of the people. Northern governors announced recently, but somewhat belatedly, that secondary education in their states would now be free. It should have been made free long before now. A greater spread of this commitment by the states is necessary for the overall development of the nation.

    However, the leaders of the APC still have a lot of work to do on their manifesto to make it more credible. The cost implications of the political agenda have to be carefully worked out to ensure that it is sustainable and that the resources for implementing the social welfare aspects of the programme are available. All the governments of the federation are facing a severe cash crunch caused by declining oil revenues, massive scams in the critical oil sector, and colossal financial mismanagement at the centre. A few weeks ago, Governor Fashola of Lagos State complained publicly that, due to the fall in the revenue of the states, specifically the federally allocated revenue on which virtually all the states depend, he was short of funds to continue with some of the critical social and economic programmes of Lagos State. Virtually all the states governments find themselves in this situation and, regrettably, have had to cut back on their public spending, even for laudable projects. Some states have already cut their wage bills by half.

    There is a high probability that this deplorable financial state of affairs will continue for some time. The nation depends mostly on its revenue from oil exports. But some twenty percent of this possible revenue is currently being lost to oil bunkering and other scams in the oil sector. The NNPC has remained largely unaccountable. So, revenue from oil exports is not meeting the set target, despite the rise in global oil prices. Though commendable, the APC will need to look carefully again at some aspects of its social welfare programme to ensure that the financial resources to implement them are available. Specifically, I refer to the plan of paying the poorest 25 million people in the nation a monthly allowance of N5, 000, and the payment for a whole year of ex-Youth Corp members who are unable to find jobs. Together, this will cost the nation over N2 trillion or nearly half of the total federal budget for 2014. These are quite impressive proposals which have some electoral appeal. But the cost involved will be quite staggering and unsustainable. The APC will need to review this proposal more carefully.

    Of course, it will be argued that the needed financial resources are available, that the economy is growing, and that what is required at all levels of government in Nigeria is less public corruption and a better and more prudent management of our financial resources. But the same objective of reducing the prevailing mass poverty in the country through the proposed financial handouts can be realised by promoting economic policies and strategies that will lead to the creation of more jobs in the private sector, through increased foreign investment in the country. This can be achieved by improving the woeful infrastructure, and by promoting a greater transparency in governance in the country. The same objective of reducing the widespread mass poverty in the country can also be achieved by reducing the widening income gap in the nation between the rich and the poor, particularly in the public sector where income disparities are immense. The ratio of minimum and maximum wage in the public sector is as high as 1: 1,000. And this does not even include the opportunity for graft and unearned income to which highly paid public servants and the rich have easy access. In the rich countries the ratio is 1:5.

    At less than US$3 per day, minimum wage in Nigeria is very low. Fresh university graduates get a little bit more. Unemployment is estimated at over 30 per cent. There is no moral or even economic justification for this huge income gap. Governments in poor countries tend to deliberately keep labour costs low in the expectation that this will lead to increased demand for labour and attract more foreign investment. But experience in poor countries where labour is generally cheap does not support this view. Cheap labour is just one of several factors that attract foreign investment into a country. In fact, such a strategy constrains productivity. It leads to frequent labour strikes and these impede economic growth. The APC should pursue an alternative strategy on public wages. It should increase the minimum wage and reduce the remuneration of highly paid officials in the public sector, particularly the pay of those in the executive and legislative branches of government. Better pay for the workers will increase their spending and stimulate the economy.

    This is not simply a moral issue. Better wages for workers will improve productivity in all sectors of the economy. Economic growth in Nigeria will be even faster. A prosperous, stable and secure state cannot be built on the foundation of such economic injustice. It is this injustice that accounts for the high crime rate in the country, and why our homes and streets are no longer safe. It is the source of murders, kidnappings, and armed robberies in our country. In a way, even Boko Haram is a manifestation of this social injustice. It is no accident that it is in the Northeast of Nigeria, the poorest part of the country, that it has had some appeal and success. Religious extremism feeds on wide spread poverty and income inequalities. These tend to attract the poor. Religious fanatics and extremists use these social and economic inequalities in the state to foster social grievances.

    A national consensus on the need for the creation of state police has emerged. This will improve state security and reduce the coercive powers of the Federal Government. This is an agenda item that the APC should encourage its delegates at the National Conference to pursue vigorously in concert with the delegates of other states in support of the idea of a state police.  As I write this, the APC has not yet nominated its two delegates to the Conference. But it is well represented by APC delegates from the states controlled by the party. They should not compromise on this issue. Whatever it may think about the prospects of the national conference, the APC, as the main opposition party, should seek to be more actively involved in its deliberations. It should be at the table when critical issues on the new Nigerian Constitution are being debated.

    As a blueprint for social and economic development, the APC manifesto is sound. But as the leaders of the APC should know from Nigeria’s recent political history, party manifestoes do not necessarily win elections in Nigeria. If it is any guide, the experience of Chief Awolowo and his UPN is instructive. Given the ethnic character of Nigerian politics, local issues, even at the state level, as well as political alignments, are far more critical in winning elections than a manifesto, no matter how appealing and promising it is. That is where elections are won or lost.