Category: Gabriel Amalu

There are varied accounts about the cost of the Monday sit-at-home order, originally imposed on the southeast states by the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) movement, led by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, but now allegedly hijacked by a renegade arm of the group, led by Finland-based Simon Ekpa. Surprisingly, while the acclaimed spokesman of IPOB, the fancifully named Emma Powerful has continuously distanced IPOB from the excruciating sit-at-home order, Ekpa still gives the release of Nnamdi Kanu, as the condition precedent to end the crisis.  

According to Governor Peter Mbah of Enugu State, the state loses N10 billion every Monday the state is grounded by the sit-at-home order, while Governor Chukwuma Soludo, said, Anambra State, loses N19.6billion, every Monday of sit-at-home. Cumulatively, according to the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR), the southeast economy lost N5.375 trillion between August 9, 2021, and December 19, 2022, while the annual loss is put at N4.618 trillion. The ICIR report is based on the losses by micro-businesses across the five states of Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo states.

According to a newspaper report, in 2023, the federal government budget estimate was N20.51 trillion, out of which N6.31 trillion or 30.8 per cent would be spent on debt service. The aggregate capital expenditure was put at N5.34 trillion. Interestingly, the entire southeast 2023 budget was put at N1.197 trillion, compared to Lagos State which budgeted N1.768 trillion for the same year, raising the entire southwest states’ budget to N3.074 trillion. While the northwest budgeted N1.637 trillion, the north-central, northeast and south-south budgeted N1.068 trillion, N1.121 trillion and N2.855 trillion respectively.

As if the Monday sit-at-home, which has seen the region bleed profusely, is not enough, Ekpa recently raised the stakes to a week-long sit-at-home, to hell with all the grave consequences. Without regards to the life-threatening challenges faced by people living in the region, Ekpa has again issued a threat to enforce a two week sit-at-home all in the name of pressuring the federal government to release Kanu. The seemingly embarrassed spokesman of IPOB, has disassociated the group from the maddening punishment of the people of the region as a liberation strategy. 

Of course, this column had argued for Kanu’s release from prison after the Appeal Court ordered his release while President Muhammadu Buhari was in power. Some governors, eminent Igbo statesmen, including late Mbazurike Amaechi, also visited Buhari to plead for Kanu’s release, all to no avail. Now, the pressure has shifted to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to release Kanu from prison. Recently, state governors, pre-eminent Igbo sons and daughters met with Ohanaeze, in Abuja, to strategize how to end the southeast debacle with the help of the federal government.

They plan to meet with President Tinubu to plead for the release of Kanu. This columnist humbly joins in the plea. But as I wrote in the past, IPOB and her sympathizers must show willingness to eschew violence as a political strategy. Before Kanu was forcefully and unlawfully returned to Nigeria, after he jumped bail granted by the Federal High Court, IPOB was considered a threat by governors of the southeast states. The members in occasional show of bravado match through major cities in the southeast, threatening the political and security control of the states by the governors.

For a lasting stability of the south-east region, IPOB should be willing to allow those who have been elected, to govern with minimal distraction. Of course, they are entitled to disagree with the leaders, and even to form a political party to challenge those misgoverning. As has been rightly argued by legal and political scholars, a call for self-determination by any group of persons is intrinsically lawful, and IPOB can pursue that cause politically within the ambit of the law.

One may argue that section 2(1) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) provides that Nigeria shall remain “one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state”, but section 38 provides for freedom of thought, and section 39, the freedom to express such thoughts. Moreover, with the appropriate numbers every section of the constitution can be amended. For emphasis, this column believes the southeast can thrive well in Nigeria, and the present struggle for secession is a distraction.  What fundamentally disable Nigerians and make groups like IPOB thrive is bad governance. 

Evidentially, the people of the southeast are the most travelled amongst the ethnic groups in Nigeria. They live literally in every nook and cranny of the country, and even across the world. They own properties, inter-marry, worship and take titles in all parts of the country. While they may be loud and obtrusive sometimes, they substantially adapt to the custom of their hosts, easier than other ethnic groups in Nigeria. So, sociologically and anthropologically speaking, it is therefore strange that Ndigbo are agitating for the dismemberment of the country.

A study of the remote and immediate causes may show reasons for the trenchant agitation, which astound Nigerians of other ethnic groups, and who see the agitators as crying wolf where there is none. Could it be that the agitators are impatient with the slow pace of development in Nigeria, and therefore believe that the only way out of the quagmire is to opt out?

Could it be that the army of agitators are substantially those who have become economically disempowered by the poor governance that has been the lot of Nigerians over the years?

Perhaps, state governors who have shown determination to stem the hard-hitting sit-at-home order ravaging the economy of the region, may also discreetly commission a study, to know the root causes of the crisis, instead of just buying arms and ammunition to win the war. The governors must also know that it is not only members of IPOB that are fed up with the poor governance ravaging the region, as majority of their people like the rest of Nigerians, are disillusioned by the bad governance that plagues every part of the country.

To gain the confidence of Nidgbo, and others living within the region, the governors, local council chairmen and legislators should make a commitment to govern well and in accordance with the provisions of the extant laws of the land. If they gain the confidence of the majority, the few that have sworn to only live with separatist ideology would become isolated, and easier to deal with, should they fail to change their debilitating tactics.

In the meantime, those who are haemorrhaging the economy of the Southeast, in the name of liberation movement must realise that their tactic is backfiring. In a competitive Nigeria, the agitators must rethink their strategy, otherwise the southeast which is already disadvantaged economically, could retard to a state of nature. People cannot be forced to sit-at-home and starve to death. Enough is enough.  

In a piece titled ‘Power and the People’, Richard Bourke argued that the relationship between sovereignty and the law is relatively straightforward, but when it comes to politics, however, things are much more complicated. Some events concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the former President Muhammadu Buhari in the past week generated my interest in the relationship between power and the people, and a scratch threw up the piece titled as such by Richard Bourke.

While the social media was awash with what some people claimed was a mile-long convoy escorting President Tinubu to his Lagos residence as he returned home for the Sallah celebration, the media aide to the former president, Garba Shehu, while denying Buhari was lobbying to save his former aides from imminent probe, claimed the former president went to London to escape the hordes who wouldn’t allow him rest, since he returned to Katsina after his tour of duty in Abuja, as president.

There were also reports that all the hotels around Ikoyi, where President Tinubu lives were fully booked in the past week, even as the prices of quoted stocks of major hotels, appreciated in the same past week also. Again there were reports that lobbyists followed President Tinubu all the way to Paris, for the New Global Financial Pact summit, and all the way to London trailing his private visit, after the summit.

The persons following Tinubu about may be seeking for placements in the federal executive cabinet and the boards of directors soon to be appointed. While the hordes at Buhari’s gate are mainly those seeking a handout from him to survive the excruciating economic hardship resulting from his four years of economic mismanagement. Obviously, the former president chose to escape from the sad reminder of his mismanaged once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, of exercising power at the highest level. Either way power is what a honeycomb is to bees.     

For President Tinubu, the crowd following him, which detractors have counted amongst his official convoy, is a reminder of the enormous power in his hands which he can use to change the lives of the people of our country for the better. Tinubu captured the enormous power in his hand when he explained that he did not retain the multiple exchange rates even though he could have benefited from the duplicitous arbitrage. Rather, he abolished it for the economic benefit of Nigerians who elected him, saying he knows they trust him to effect the necessary changes.

Choosing the right persons to make the ministers’ list and members of the boards from the amorphous crowd following him all over the place would be the most significant test for the Tinubu presidency, in its first 60 days, as provided by the 5th amendment to the 1999 constitution. The quality of persons the president nominates would determine how far his economic reforms would impact. Would he fulfil the cliché of putting round pegs in round holes?

If he chooses persons like the former Minister for Education, Mallam Adamu Adamu, who confessed that he knew nothing about education when he was appointed the minster, then like Buhari he would end up with hordes of the disposed and the poor at his gate when his tenure comes to an end. If on the other hand, he chooses men and women of knowledge and integrity, he could fulfil the huge expectation placed on his shoulders by the throng of suffering Nigerians.

Such men and women would not repeat the rottenness Tinubu identified in the monetary sector by the former governor of Central Bank, Godwin Emefiele. Such men and women would not be like two-faced Janus, which the Buhari minsters and heads of extra ministerial organs were, as they made polices like the multiple exchange rates, which benefited them, while they gave the impression that they were honest men working for the benefit of the country.

He would not nominate men like Hadi Sirika, the former minister of aviation, who ended his duty in disgrace. While the people had invested hope in his promise to gift Nigeria a national carrier, stories have since emerged on how he engineered a phantom air carrier, after spending billions of scarce national resources. Whether N3 billion which the minister claims he spent, or N85 billion claimed by other sources, the bottom line is that the Nigeria Air carrier which President Buhari and his minister made a lot of noise about is nothing but a fluke.

Another former minister who may not be sleeping well is the former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN. There are tales of unlawfully sold crude oil, which was one of the issues in contention between him and the former chairman of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu. There are also allegations of diverting recovered assets, and petition pending against him before the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee. He may also answer charges of interfering with investigations of corrupt practices while in office.

There are other ministers who are alleged to have mismanaged the enormous resources placed at their disposal, especially those considered to be very close to the former president. They include the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development, Sadiya Umar Farouq, who took over some of the responsibilities of the former vice president, Professor Yemi Osinbajo. Many considered her one of the untouchable ministers, whose portfolio is so elastic that even probing her tenure would be difficult. How do you probe expenditure as tenuous as sharing money in the market or to the hordes of poor people?

President Tinubu is at the threshold of history and many, like this writer, believes he has the capacity to start Nigeria on the path of national development. The national canvas is expansive, and President Tinubu has the skill. From his work in Lagos State, the president understands the need to do a comprehensive review of the national minimum wage, whether in the judiciary or the civil service; he has the capacity to stop the haemorrhaging of the national resources, whether in the oil industry, or tax revenue, among other issues.

As the appointment of the service chiefs and the election of the leadership of the national assembly have shown, President Tinubu has the capacity to fix the national fissures which his predecessor appeared to have enjoyed its expansion. No doubt, Nigeria has not been more divided since after the civil war as they were under former President Buhari. Nigeria can be a great nation if the fundamental steps of nation building are put in place by her leaders.

This column urges President Tinubu and the state governors to use the enormous powers at their disposal for the benefit of the people.

The crisis rocking the Benue State local governments following the suspension of the chairmen and councilors elected during the tenure of former governor, Samuel Ortom, brings to the fore the tenuous constitutional protection of local council administration in Nigeria. While the new governor, Rev Fr. Hyacinth Alia, is the latest culprit or victim depending on which divide a commentator is, his predecessors across the country have experienced similar quandary.

The crisis is usually more pronounced when a state administration transits from one political party to another. And the script is usually the same. A poor performing state governor would continue to wobble and fumble until the twilight of the administration, when it conducts a sham local government election, which gleefully returns 100% percent of his party members as winners. Of course, with the sole purpose of putting party henchmen in power at the local councils to help the party win the next election. 

It happened in Ekiti, Oyo, Ondo, Osun and several other states, and the outcomes have been the same. The next governor sometimes with the state legislature as a camouflage, will issue “a decree” nullifying the election of the chairmen and councilors. On their part, the unlawfully removed chairmen and councilors approach the court which inevitably declare their removal as such, and order payment of all financial entitlements by the state. While the culprit/victim governor demurs to pay during his tenure, inevitably the sacked chairmen and councilors are paid for work not done.

The above scenario has happened again and again in many states, and will continue unless Nigerians decide whether they want the local government administration as a third-tier of government or a sub-state government. If Nigerians want the local council as a third-tier of government, as awkward as it may seem to ultra-federalists, then there is need for a constitutional amendment. On the other hand, if the majority prefers it a sub-state administration platform, the councils should be made so, by the constitution.

The current hybrid arrangement is seriously affecting development at the grass root, and engendering waste of public resources. Interestingly, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu while inaugurating the Council of State, implored the state governors to work with the local councils to bring rapid development to Nigerians. Perhaps, President Tinubu was using Lagos State, where stability in transitions have made local councils model development partners to the state government, as yardstick. Whether what worked for Lagos will work where there are cantankerous transitions is something of worry about.

Unfortunately, the makers of the 1999 constitution failed to provide adequate constitutional protection for the democratic tenure of local government chairmen and councillors. Perhaps, if the Tinubu administration can build the necessary consensus, the first thing to do is to amend the 1999 Constitution, and provide in details, the security of tenure and electoral cycles, as well as legislative spheres for local council administration. The current provision is inchoate and inadequate and leaves room for the temptation and manoeuvres by state governors.

Section 7(1) of the constitution merely provides: “The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the government of every state shall, subject to section 8 of this constitution ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.” Of note, section 8 merely entrenched the lopsided creation of local councils, by making it difficult for states to create more local government as they wish.

With section 7(6)(a) providing: “the National Assembly shall make provisions for statutory allocation of public revenue to local government councils in the federation” and (b) the state House of Assembly of a state shall make provisions for statutory allocation of public revenue to local government councils within the state” the local administration is a hybrid dependent of both federal and state governments.          

Section 7(5) of the constitution provides: “The functions to be conferred by Law upon local government council shall include those set out in the Fourth Schedule to this constitution.” The Fourth Schedule goes ahead to provide spheres of economic activities which ordinarily should economically sustain the local government councils, if the states allow them to be fully in charge. Among the economic activities include collection of rates for radio and television licenses; establishment, maintenance and regulation of slaughter houses, … markets, motor parks and public conveniences.

The schedule further provides for provision and maintenance of … sewage and refuse disposal; registration of all births, deaths and marriages; assessment of privately owned houses or tenements for the purpose of levying such rates as may be prescribed by the Houses of Assembly of a state; and control and regulation of out-door advertising and hoarding, shops and kiosks, restaurants, bakeries and other places for sale of food to the public, laundries and licensing, regulation and control of the sale of liquor.

From the above provisions, there is enough economic activities for the local government councils, but the state governments don’t allow them to be in charge. Unfortunately, the draftsmen of the 1999 constitution did a poor job drafting Section 7 and the Fourth Schedule, such that there is perpetual confusion as to the legislative authority of the local government councils to make necessary regulations to give effect to those areas of economic activity listed in the schedule to the constitution.

To further compound the challenges facing the local government councils, Section 4 of the constitution which provides for the legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, failed to recognize the local government council as having legislative oversight, in the manner the National Assembly and state House of Assembly have their areas of legislative authority substantially delineated. To make matters worse for the local government councils, most state governments organize sham elections which throw up incompetent persons as chairmen and councilors, who remain tied to the apron string of their benefactors.

State governors who are grossly incompetent turn local government to revenue sharing centres instead of an economic and political tier of governance. Governors who are innately corrupt, turn the chairmen and councillors to mere Bureau de Change. Such that once the allocation from the federation account is received, the governors take a large chunk of the fund, and compel the council chairman to sign relevant documents retiring the money received. The chairman and his councillors in turn merely pay salaries and share whatever is left.

The above tragic scenario has been severally cited by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), in the several trials of state governors and local council officials for corrupt practices. Going forward, can the government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu make a difference in the debilitating underdevelopment of local government councils, despite the huge resources and potentials available at that level of governance?  

Managing government transition in some states, from one political party to another has become a smouldering crisis, and this column calls for caution. Kano State appears to be the worst hit, with Zamfara State coming a close second. While some state governors and their predecessors are trading tackles verbally over the alleged mismanagement of state resources by the previous administration, some others are engaged in open combat.

The Kano crisis is turning to a huge economic waste, and unless the new governor, Kabir Yusuf, of the New Nigerian Peoples Party (NNPP) applies break, by the time he vents his anger, his roaring bulldozers would have dug a huge hole in the pocket of the state government; as the affected private developers have threatened to approach the courts for redress. By Governor Yusuf’s account, he is demolishing illegal structures authorized by former governor, Abdullahi Ganduje, of the All Progressive Congress (APC).

The demolition exercise stated on June 3, and as I write, hotels, shopping malls, private houses, name it, allegedly built on illegally transferred public lands have been demolished. The new government claims that it is restoring the development plan of the old mega city, and recovering public land maliciously given out by the former government to his cronies. On his part, the former governor accused the new governor and his godfather, Rabiu Kwankwaso of malice and avarice, and of destroying job creating businesses he initiated as governor.

While petty quarrels amongst political opponents are standard in politics, acquisition of public lands are determined by statutes. Again, where there is any dispute as to whether legal process was duly followed in the acquisition of a land by government, the courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the disputes. As a governor, Ganduje or Yusuf, is imbued with enormous statutory powers over state lands, to be exercised according to extant laws. Any exercise of the powers outside the provisions of the laws is usually declared ultra-vires, null, void and of no effect.

Governor Yusuf claimed that former governor, Ganduje did not follow due process in granting statutory rights over state lands and properties, and that the transfers to his cronies were tainted with corruption. In fairness to Governor Yusuf, those are fundamental questions in public administration, and if he could prove them, the purported grants would be struck down by the courts. But the governor has to follow due process to lawfully determine the issues he has raised.

He could approach the courts duly established and authorized under the constitution in section 6(2) and 6(6)(b) of the 1999 constitution to declare the alienation null and void, illegal and of no effect. Section 6(6)(b) provides eloquently: “The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section – shall extend to all matter between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to civil rights and obligations of that persons.”

This column hopes that the new governor considered whether the former governor duly exercised his powers under section 5 of the Land Use Act (LUA), which empowers the governor to “grant statutory rights of occupancy to any person for all purposes.” Before demolishing the buildings on the land, did the new governor advert his mind to the determinations of the court with respect to the powers of the state governor in section 28(1) of the LUA, which provides: “It shall be lawful for the governor to revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interest.”

Read Also: Commission congratulates Tinubu, governors on peaceful transition

The Supreme Court in a plethora of cases have held that section 28(1) of LUA is subject to the provisions of section 44(1) of the 1999 constitution, which provides: “No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that, among other things – requires the prompt payment of compensation thereof; and gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.”

Section 28(2)(b) defines overriding public interest in the case of a statutory right of occupancy to include: “the requirement of the land by the Government of the State or by a Local Government in the State, in either case for public purposes within the State, or the requirement of the land by the Government of the Federation for public purposes of the Federation.” The above is the commonest ground which governors rely upon for public acquisition of private land or property.

But that provision does not defeat the legal requirement to follow the due process of giving notice before acquisition and the constitutional requirement to pay due compensation. If the haste employed by Governor Yusuf is a pointer, the chances are that he did not as much as give any notice to the property owners, talk less of paying them any compensation. The details of what is happening in Kano would eventually become a public, as those affected by the demolition exercises have vowed to approach the courts for redress.

In Zamfara State, the new state helmsman, Dauda Lawal of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is also up in arms against the immediate past governor, Bello Matawalle of the All Progressive Congress (APC). Governor Lawal has accused the former governor of corrupt enrichment, and has sworn to recover all the assets allegedly acquired by the former governor corruptly. He alleged that Governor Matawalle spent over N2 billion to buy cars during his administration, but on taking over, there are no such cars in the government pool.

The new governor with the aid of the Police unilaterally seized all the cars in the compound of the former governor. Appearing to have set a trap, the former governor approached a Federal High Court in Gusau, which made an order that the cars taken by the police be returned back to Matawalle. The Federal High Court presided over by Justice A. B. Aliyu directed the respondents “to return all the vehicles and other items as well as a written inventory of the items removed.” The judge further ordered that they be brought “under the custody of the court pending the determination of the applicant’s substantive Originating Motion in the matter which comes up on the 28th of this month.”

This column urges the new state helmsmen to painstakingly apply the rule of law, in dealing with their predecessors, as any self-help may expose their state to legal liability, with all the possible consequences.

In the past week, the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly Hon. Mudashiru Obasa and the former governor of Kaduna State Maallam Nasir El-Rufai have been under intense public umbrage in the social media for their alleged public communication infractions. While speaking after his inauguration as the re-elected speaker of the state assembly, Hon. Obasa said: “There would be laws…in the areas of economy and commerce, property and titles, and we will reverse all that is reversible to protect the interest of the indigenes.”

The inauguration statement coming shortly after the Oba of Ogombo made a public announcement that owners of land in the community should come forward for ratification, the social media have been abuzz about a plan to dispossess non-indigenes of their lands in Lagos State. With all manner of conspiracy theories flying around, there are claims and counter-claims about the intention of the Speaker and the Oba. The social media pundits are even imbuing the Speaker with legal impossibilities, saying that he would make laws to convert 99 year leases to lesser years.

On his part, the social media has been roasting El-Rufai for his statement that there is an alleged Islamic agenda in Kaduna State and the entire country. Having won Kaduna State election in 2019 with a Muslim as deputy, and also enthroned Governor Sani Uba with a Muslim as deputy, he was quoted to have boasted: “If we continue like this for 20 years, everybody will understand that we (Muslims) are in charge. If Uba finishes, we will bring another person. After 24 years, everybody will know where he belongs. They will know Muslims will not cheat them and we will live in peace. I swear, this is our agenda since we came out to look for leadership and by the grace of God and your support and prayers, we are on track.”

Read Also: Covenant University urges public to disregard admission list on social media

El Rufai was speaking to Muslim clerics and he told them that they are the ones that made it possible for him and his party to win the election in the state, and to further sweeten the talk, he claimed that similar game plan was afoot in the country with the president and his vice practicing the same religion. While President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima who are wearing the shoes are working assiduously to reassure the entire citizens that there is no Islamic agenda, El-Rufai’s garrulousness provides more armour for social media feud.

The presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi (Okwute) whom El-Rufai referenced in his speech, suffered the social media backlash during the elections. He was accused of pushing a Christian agenda when a tape emerged in the social media where he allegedly said the election was a religious war. The backlash was heavy and the social media feasted with “Yes Daddy” compliments for Bishop David Oyedepo of Living Faith Church Worldwide aka Winners Chapel. Obi’s claim that the tape was doctored never stopped the social media diatribe between the contending denizens.  

So, the social media has become a form of regulator for public office holders and aspirants. Apart from giving a voice to the voiceless, it manages to keep issues the public consider of interest in the front burner. It also does not forget easily. Without the social media, politicians believe that their worst controversial statements would die as soon as another controversy erupts. They know the mainstream media would not waste time regurgitating old news when developing stories are contending for media space. Such luxuries are gone with the advent of the social media, as intermittently old news are rebroadcast and the original purveyors made to pay for their old indiscretion in the court of public opinion.

Many who believe that El-Rufai may be strategizing for the 2031 presidential elections are up in arms castigating him and daring him to show his hand. They will keep reminding the general public of El-Rufai’s religious bigotry and present him as unfit for such high office. On his part, the crafty politician may actually be using the social media to spread his fidelity to Islam, and may be hoping to ride on that fervour to win the presidential election.

Overseas, the social media has been a pain in the ass for politicians. In Senegal where there are deadly clashes between the police and demonstrators over the detention of opposition leader Ousmane Sonko, social media is perceived as the fuel. Claiming to act in public interest, the Senegal’s Interior Minister Antonie Felix Abdoulaye Diome banned social media in the country for complicity in the crisis. He said the government took the step: “to guarantee the safety of people and property. We are going to reinforce security everywhere in the country.”

Some repressive countries like China, North Korea, Iran and a few others, banned social media usage in their countries. In June 2021, Nigeria banned the use of twitter, when the social platform yanked off the twit of President Muhammadu Buhari which was considered a hate speech, against people from the eastern part of the country. While the ban lasted, denizens of social media used other platforms to fire umbrage against the former president and his government.

Lauretta Onochie, the former social media aide to President Buhari and currently the chairman of Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) is still carrying the baggage of her social media activities in her new assignment. Buhari’s earlier attempt to nominate her as a commissioner in the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in October 2020, was stiffly resisted by the public, and even members of the National Assembly. After two attempts failed on the floor of the Senate, the nomination was withdrawn, until the NDDC opportunity came up.

So the social media has a strong check on political practice. Those who understand the ubiquity of the platforms and its reach are always careful about what they do and what they say, especially when they are in public spaces. With technology at the behest of friends and foes alike, everyone is a potential paparazzi. The invasion of privacy has become a common phenomenon and what was done to amuse or scurry a favour can turn to a nightmare. Dark secrets could also become weapons in the hands of enemies by the power of social media.    

But the social media has also been a medium for spreading dangerous and divisive news, and if politicians have their way, they would regulate the use of the various platforms. The National Assembly dreamed of regulating it, but the idea died at incubation. How to go about it without incurring the wrought of denizens of the social media is a major challenge. Going forward, with President Tinubu in the saddle, this column doubts if anti-democratic laws would pass muster under his watch.

The Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) has issued a notice to proceed on a nation-wide strike by tomorrow, following the removal of subsidy on petrol by the federal government, which resulted in hike in the petrol price by over 200 percent. Regardless of the procedural legitimacy, over the years the labour unions have used strike as the most potent weapon to pressure government to accede to their demands, especially at the federal levels. But unfortunately for the NLC, presently they stand accused of partisan interest in the 2023 general elections, being promoters of the Labour Party, and so that tactics may backfire in the present circumstance.

Expectedly, they have been accused of playing the script of the Labour Party which lost the presidential election. Tinubu’s campaign media director, Bayo Onanuga, has accused the Congress of working to destabilize the Tinubu presidency, and he reminded them that their presidential candidate Peter Obi, called the petrol subsidy, ‘an organized crime’, which he promised to end on his first day in office, if elected. The leadership of NLC would therefore face the dilemma of sifting their labour related interests from the political interests of their preferred party.

They should also know that the Tinubu presidency may soon ask the courts to determine, whether a governance policy decision, such as regulating the price of petrol comes within the definition of trade dispute over which a Trade Union can go on strike? Section 47(1) of the Trade Disputes Act, defines trade dispute: “as any dispute between employer and workers or between workers and workers which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the form of employment and physical condition of work of any person.”

Again section 54(1) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, defines trade dispute as: “any dispute between employers and employees, including dispute between their respective organisations and federations which is connected with – (a) the employment or non-employment of any person, (b) terms of employment and physical conditions of work of any person, (c) the conclusion or variation of a collective agreement, and an alleged dispute.” Even where there is a trade dispute, the legal right to strike is tenuous, because of the legal rigmarole provided by law.

In Tram Shipping Corporation V.  Greenwich Marine Incorporated (1975) ICR 261, at 276, Lord Denning stated that a strike is “a concerted stoppage of work by men, done with a view to improving their wages or conditions of employment, or giving vent to a grievance or making a protest about something or sympathizing with other workmen in such endeavour. It is distinct from stoppage brought by an external event such as a bomb scare or by apprehension of danger.”  I think Lord Denning will define strike over price of fuel as also distinct.

In Oshiomole vs F.G.N (2005) 1 NWLR (pt.907) 414 AT 436, the Court of Appeal, gave an injunctive relief against the Labour Union, in similar circumstance. Indeed, on a plain reading of the Trade Dispute Act, striking against increase in price of petrol is not within the contemplation of the Act.  The Federal High Court had held a similar reason for the threatened strike by the NLC not to fall within the contemplation of a Trade Dispute, and of note, the National Industrial Court recently upheld the common law principle of “no work, no pay”.

Read Also: NLC should rethink proposed strike

So, if the NLC carriers out the treat to proceed on a nation-wide strike tomorrow, it may prove a turning point for labour unions in Nigeria, considering the change in dynamics, with the ascent of President Bola Tinubu as president; and the dire national challenges which made the removal of fuel subsidy the only reasonable way out of the financial mess that stares Nigeria in the face. Most likely, Tinubu’s presidency, levitating between the devil and the deep blue sea, with respect to the fuel subsidy palaver, may choose the lesser evil of confronting NLC, considering the financial mess left behind by the Buhari regime, which makes retention of fuel subsidy an impossible option.

Read Also: NLC to FG: restore old fuel price or face industrial action

In the circumstance, this column calls on the NLC and TUC to engage in collective bargaining with the federal government. No doubt politicians have handed workers the short end of the stick while they live in affluence; as the present N30,000 minimum wage is unjustifiable in the face self-aggrandizement that holding political office entails. To make matters worse, poor governance presages the continuous devaluation of the nation’s currency, which in turn renders the marginal increase in minimum wage insignificant. Consequently, over the years, workers and ordinary Nigerians continues to suffer double whammy in the hands of incompetent public administrators.

So, what is the way out of the present quagmire for both the government and the Labour Unions? Dialogue. Prior to the notice of strike last Friday, the NLC and the federal government met to hammer out a compromise in the face of the economic challenges that the doubling of petrol price would have on welfare of workers. The government representative also met with the TUC leadership, and the congress has given government their demands to avert strike. Earlier, after the National Executive Council meeting of the NLC, the congress gave the federal government a five-day ultimatum to reverse the petrol price hike or face strike that could paralyze the entire country.

Of course, the NLC knows that the threatened strike action will be declared illegal by the court, if the provisions of the Trade Dispute Act is applied. But interestingly, veteran labour leader and senator-elect Adams Oshiomole who is in the federal government negotiating team, was in the shoes of NLC president Joe Ajaero many years back, and knows where the shoe pinches. Also President Bola Tinubu as governor of Lagos State, had a running battle with the state labour unions, in his early days as governor, before the state civil service was reorganized. 

But ever since the Lagos State public service sector was reorganized, the state workers have arguably remained the best paid in the country, stretching back to the Tinubu era as governor. So, the federal government and labour must sit down and negotiate a living wage for workers and the ways and means government needs to make the resources available to pay. By means of collective bargaining, the government and labour can hammer out a collective agreement on all the thorny issues that TUC have been raised, which undoubtedly also agitates the NLC, and the time-lines for enforcement.

This column urges the Tinubu regime to continue the dialogue with the NLC, and the congress to give the new government a chance to prove itself. An economically recalibrated Nigeria is the only way to save the nation from imminent doom. Neither water canons and tanks and intrigues to break strikes, nor the unleashing of public rage on the new government is the sensible way out.

President Muhammadu Buhari, vilified as a hater of the Southeast, may yet be the stone which the builders rejected, but which has become the cornerstone of enduring developmental projects in the region. At the twilight of his regime, he has through the vice president, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, flagged-off the hydrographic survey and dredging of Oguta Lake and Orashi River to Degema in Rivers State up to the Atlantic Ocean. The project described as a game changer by Osinbajo, is an addition to the other game changer, the Second Niger Bridge.

Clearly, President Buhari’s reputation among the majority of Ndigbo is un-flattering. Historically, despite his best efforts, he was unable to penetrate the region politically. In two attempts at winning the presidency, he ran with vice presidential candidates from the Southeast, but couldn’t make a dent. He ran with Dr Chuba Okadigbo (2003) and Chief Godwin Ume-Ezeoke (2007). For reasons which political scientists and sociologists may explain, Buhari never got the kind of support that could propel him to the presidency with the two vice presidential candidates from the Southeast.

The table however turned for Buhari when he aligned with the dominant political party in the Southwest led by the president-elect, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and chose Professor Yemi Osinbajo as his running mate in the 2015 and 2019 presidential elections. President Buhari won on the two occasions, and is about to run out the final term in less than two weeks. What intrigues are how Buhari’s reputation in south-east, swung from lukewarm to detestation. 

Could it be his political statements at the beginning of his presidency, when he described the people of the region in unpalatable words? When asked about the distribution of political patronage after winning the election, President Buhari stated that there would be a huge difference between those who gave 97 percent and those who gave mere five percent. Again, in the diatribe that ensured over his ethnocentric programmes, he dismissed the people of the region as a dot, and inconsequential.

To add salt to the injury of the region, Buhari engaged in debilitating economic programmes, which the businessmen in the region vociferously claimed were targeted at their line of business. The hated economic programmes included the closure and prohibition of importation through the borders, the drastic anti-importation monetary and fiscal policies, and banning of importation of several items, amongst others. While the national economy haemorrhaged under his ill-conceived programmes, just as it happened during his first coming as military president, many Ndigbo appropriated the public angst over the programmes.

To turn the salted injury into a gangrene, Buhari engaged in one of the worst practice of nepotism and tribalism that Nigeria may have witnessed since independence. From the armed forces to the other security agencies, Ndigbo were blatantly excluded in a most brazen exhibition. The exclusion spread across other sectors of the nation’s appointive positions, in total disregard of section 14(3) of the 1999 constitution, which provides: “The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty …” 

The gangrene relationship was due for amputation when armed herders spread their lethal wares across the Benue river into the southeast, decapitating lives and properties, with President Buhari accused of tacit support. Those who gave Buhari the benefit of doubt over his economic and employment policies, joined the wailing wailers (apologies to Buhari’s media men), as mourners were scythed by armed herders while they were burying those killed by the same terrorist group. Even a governor wept. And never was the marauders ever caught and brought to justice.

But in the midst of these atrocious developments, Buhari and his men appear to have patched the pains with some far reaching legacy projects. One of the most enduring of the projects is the Second Niger Bridge. This column over the years has written on the exploitation of the emotional well-being of the people of southeast region by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)-led governments of presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, and later Goodluck Jonathan. The scandal was such that while campaigning for a second term, Jonathan confessed he has forgotten his promise to deliver the Bridge before 2015.

Between him and Obasanjo, building the Niger Bridge was a bridge too far. So, it is worth celebrating that Buhari, with his mixed bag of reputation delivered the bridge. All the cock and bull story of how the previous regimes paid in advance for the bridge, as far as this column is concerned amounts to tales by moonlight.

Another enduring intervention of the Buhari regime is the extension and rebuilding of the runway of the Akanu Ibiam Airport, Enugu, after the failed promises of the PDP government.

Again, there is the claim that between the governments of Obasanjo and Jonathan, the necessary approvals were secured for the internationalization of the airport, but it was Buhari government that extended and rebuilt the runway, to admit long range airlines. The same can be said of the Enugu-Onitsha, the Onitsha-Owerri and Port Harcourt-Enugu expressways, which though not moving at great speed have been receiving quality attention for the portions rebuilt. How soothing those projects are to the pains of the region remains to seen.

But approving the dredging of the Oguta/Orashi rivers is an interesting parting gift to Ndigbo. One of the contentious issues that agitate political analysts in the region is the claim that the southeast region is landlocked. The claim of being landlocked infuriates the people of the region, and they hold the Nigerian government over the years responsible for the economic strangulation of the region, through the denial of international airport and seaport. Arguably, the Buhari government has delivered an international airport and has given approval for a seaport.

The economic import of the Oguta/Orashi dredging if taken to a logical conclusion would be far-reaching. Governor Hope Uzodimma who deserves praise for the project, at the flag-off said: “The dredging and opening of the two rivers to the Atlantic will remove Imo State from being landlocked.” He further said: “The success of the project will bring unquantifiable employment for Imo State, the southeast and Nigeria at large.”

The project will be more than an economic behemoth for the region. It will bring pride and fulfilment to the people of the region, most of whom feel unwanted as partners in the Nigerian project. It will release a burst of economic energy which will benefit the entire country. As this column has argued over the years, the match to national economic well-being can only be realized with deliberate empowerment policies across all the geo-political regions.