The Nation Newspaper

Category: Gabriel Amalu

  • National insecurity

    A letter trending in the social media allegedly written by a consultant medical physician of Fulani descent expresses discontentment that a certain cattle breeders association known as Miyetti Allah has become the face and spokesperson of all Fulanis in Nigeria. That over-generalization is instructive of the danger ahead of Nigeria, as substantially captured by former President Olusegun Obasanjo in his latest letter to President Muhammadu Buhari.

    The danger lies in categorizing all Fulanis as enemies of other cultural groups in Nigeria. Perhaps for political expediency this recalcitrant group has been allowed to become a mirror of the reaction of the Fulanis to the danger, a rogue group of Fulanis now pose to the rest of Nigerians.

    Each time the Miyetti Allah makes a statement, one is left wondering whether the group is unaware of the grave danger their irresponsible behavior pose to the wellbeing of those they claim to represent who are scattered across the country. Unfortunately because of them, many Nigerians believe there is an ominous agenda, fuelled by the slow-pace reaction of the federal government to the state of insecurity across the country.

    While the tragedy that befell the family of Pa Reuben Fasoranti over the dastardly killing of Mrs. Funke Olakunri deserves all the out pouring of grief Nigeria has witnessed the past few days, it is instructive to note that similar criminal conducts have been happening on that axis for a while without much reaction by government. Agreed that criminality is not the exclusive preserve of any ethnic group, the challenge posed by the recent development in Nigeria is that many believe there is an agenda to foist a certain religion, culture and life style on the rest of Nigerians.

    Unfortunately because the president is a Fulani man and the commander-in-chief at this inauspicious time, it has become trendy to claim that the president has acquiesced to such an agenda. While this writer do not buy that reasoning, it is difficult to convince many that there are other Fulanis who do not own cows and who do not subscribe to the insensitive actions and inactions of the Miyetti Allah group on this issue.

    Rising up to the status of statesmanship, the Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi has been shuttling Abuja to rouse the federal government to action. He has said clearly that the Yorubas do not wish to press their youths to war, even as he warned that many people are beating the drums of war. Instead of berating the Ooni as alleged, the civil authorities should commend the Ooni of Ife for his preemptive step to rouse the federal government to fulfill their constitutional obligation.

    While sending a delegation led by the Vice President Professor Yemi Osinbajo to visit traditional rulers in the Southwest to reassure the region is good, the federal authority should take steps to find and disarm the marauders who are giving the entire Fulanis in Nigeria a bad name.

    In other to avoid exposing the federal government to accusation of banding to sectional interest by sending the vice president to his kith and kin, the president should summon a meeting of leaders across the country, to explain the steps the government is taking to stem a descent into anarchy across the country.

    One of such steps should be to use the advantage of a friendly National Assembly to further amend the 1999 constitution, to accommodate state police.  It is bad enough that the federal government has proved incapable of policing our expansive country, but it should be unacceptable to deny states the opportunity to provide security for their indigenes.

    So instead of waiting for the anger aroused by the murder of Mrs. Olakunri to abate, so that we can continue our wobbling and fumbling as a nation, the federal government can use that tragic incident to start the renewal of our nation. Without equivocation our country needs new security architecture, if we want to survive as a nation-state. With the security challenge of a modern state mutating, it is foolish to continue to rely on the outmoded structure of a centralized policing for a country as large as Nigeria.

    On the eastern flank of the country, the Southeast Governors Forum has advised herders in the region to stop moving their cattle on foot; rather the cattle should be transported to the cattle markets. If they can jointly enforce that, the clashes between farmers and herders in the region would substantially abate, and women can return to their farms, abandoned because of cases of rape and killing by the recalcitrant marauders masquerading as cattle herders.

    In southeast states, there are big cattle markets and northerners transacting in those markets for decades have become enmeshed with the natives. Rarely is there any conflict between this grade of Fulanis and their hosts. Those markets are also well organized with the provision of water, food for cattle, and access roads.

    Those who live near these markets have access to other social infrastructure like other members of the community. They access hospitals, schools, markets and other basic needs of metropolitan life. While persons from the northern part of the country are predominantly the traders in such cattle markets, they have no exclusivity.

    But of course since they have access to the sources of cattle, they dominate the market, without any person feeling excluded. It is such ethnic mix that we need to sustain Nigeria, not the proposed exclusive preserve of an ethnic group as many contemplate the RUGA proposal to be. What causes crisis is the movement of cattle across farmlands and homesteads, with the destruction that follows in its wake.

    Also, the initiative by Igbo leaders in Kano to condemn the call by Miyetti Allah group that northerners in southern part of Nigeria should relocate to the North is commendable. The killings, kidnappings and insensitive herding practice that have raised the stakes in inter-tribal relationship in Nigeria is not caused by all northerners. Most likely it is championed by a few rogue elements that do not care what happens to their malleable kith and kin.

    So the northerners who speak Igbo, who were born in Igbo land (and they are several of them) would feel very offended if forced to relocate to the northern part of Nigeria, just like the Igbos who were born in Kano and other states in the north, who speak Hausa Language like the indigenes. Both groups would be hamstrung if forced by hateful sabre-rattling to relocate to ancestral homesteads they have no communal connection to.

    It is for these peace loving people whether of the Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba, Itsekiri, Urhobo, Igbo, Kalabari, Bini, or other several stocks that make up Nigeria that President Muhammadu Buhari must rouse himself and his government to action to save Nigeria. The war mongers in government and outside are few, and they should not be allowed to goad the country into an avoidable tragedy.

  • Chairman Chukwu’s hard times

    It was the famous radio broadcaster Earnest Okonkwo, that named Christian Chukwu, the chairman, during his playing days for Rangers International Football Club and the national team, known back them as the Green Eagles. He named him so, because of his commanding organisational ability as captain of the teams, especially in the midfield. While playing his role effectively, he also keeps an eye on what his compatriots were doing, and gets them to play their roles. In short, he was a master synchronizer and led the national team to win her first Nation’s Cup in 1980.

    Chukwu later became the national coach of the Green Eagles who have become Super Eagles, after assisting Clemens Westerhof to win the Nations Cup in 1994. With Westerhof, they produced a dream team which arguably was an equal if not better than the head-swelling time of Chukwu as a member of the original Green Eagles. Chukwu had also variously been the chief coach or technical adviser of Enugu Rangers, where his career had blossomed in the 1970s and 80s, as a player.

    Recently, the chairman whose names when translated to English means ‘Christian God’ fell on hard on times. In his words: “I had many complications and I couldn’t walk.” He went on: “When I heard Otedola brought out money for my treatment, I marvelled because in my circle, we didn’t know him before then. We have people with us but maybe they forgot or it is not in their character to help.” So it was billionaire business mogul Femi Otedola who came to the rescue of the chairman, when he fell on hard times.

    Last weekend, the Super Eagles almost flew into the 2019 Nation’s Cup in Egypt, if not for the ambush by desert warriors of Algeria. The young lads who represented our nation were not given much chance at the beginning, but they have made it to the loser’s final, otherwise known as third place match. Since they lost the semi-final match against Algeria, I have listened to some commentators, who complained they were not super enough. Quite a number had harsh words for the coach.

    One complaint from some of the commentators that ties back to Chairman Chukwu’s recent hard times, is what some have said about Mikel Obi’s inclusion in the current national team. Some commentators on the radio were so mean in their commentaries and condemnation of the inclusion of Mikel that you will think that Mikel was just a meddlesome interloper in the national team, instead of the captain of the team.

    Assuming without conceding that Mikel played badly in the two matches he played, the reaction from the commentaries did not betray any emotional attachment to the ‘good old days’ when he played the pivotal role as the engine room of the team. Since playing against the little god, Lionel Messi of Argentina in the under aged tournament, Mikel has been a constant star for Nigerian national teams. So, assuming Mikel has fallen on bad times, those commentators prefer he should be ignored in his travails like Chairman Chukwu.

    While the national team is a swivelling chair, as such players should come and go, there should be orderliness in getting key players out of the team. Mikel has been a key national player and has won laurels for the country, and so should be accorded some respects. Even the younger players in the national team recognise his stabilising and mentor role in this tournament. The coach would know when Mikel’s time is up, and a befitting farewell testimonial match should be played to bid him farewell.

    Also worrisome is the faith of most national icons who have brought joy to the country, either in football or in theatre. A number of them have had to rely on philanthropy like Chairman Chukwu to survive debilitating health challenge. At such times, it is either state governors use public funds to come to the rescue of these national icons, or a public spirited individual like Femi Otedola use private resources to save the day.

    While philanthropy is something this writer appreciates and praises, it is scary that but for such interventions, these unfortunate national icons would be left to die miserably. Indeed, a few have died because of the absence of resources to access medical care. But while sparing a thought for those whose past deeds draw public attention to their plight, what about those who despite their labour of love for country, did not have the limelight of media and as such would not draw any sympathy if they fall on hard times?

    There are many in this category, who have paid their dues, and if they have overbearing health challenge, would not draw any public sympathy talk less of gaining such huge intervention from any source. Lucky Chairman Chukwu, was in such a bad situation before Otedola’s intervention. According to Chukwu: “If you saw me before I left for London, you won’t believe I’ll be here talking to you. I think I won’t be making a mistake if I say after God, it’s Otedola in my life.”

    So a man whose surname shows he appreciates God immensely, is saying without equivocation, that next after God is his benefactor, Femi Otedola. While every person of goodwill should appreciate the kind gesture of Femi Otedola, every Nigerian of age should worry that but for such a gesture, the great Christian Chukwu may not be around us anymore. Those who have occupied positions of authority in our country, especially executive authority at the state and national levels should be concerned at the nation they have bequeathed the rest of Nigerians.

    Of course, the answer to such an embarrassing helplessness is a national health insurance scheme. Without a health insurance scheme, there are very few persons who can shell out N36,635,000.00, which is what Oedola spent on Chairman Chukwu, or even a fraction of it, to treat themselves. This writer definitely cannot afford such a humongous resources, even though a few people who read this column, once in a while call to ask for financial assistance, believing that to have a media space is to have money.

    Tragically the National Health Insurance Scheme, which the federal government instituted as a solution to this kind of challenge, turned into a cesspool of corruption, with those who have been in charge in the recent past, helping themselves as much their evil heart desire. As the national team was a rainbow colour of Nigerians without any quota system, it is also instructive that Otedola, a Yoruba man did not worry about where Chukwu comes from before helping him. Otedola’s kind gesture confirms that our country of many nationalities can do great exploits, if we all work together.

  • Abbo as metaphor

    Senator Elisha Cliff Abbo, representing Adamawa North, should hide his head in shame. But more importantly, the senator should be charged to court for assault; and the victims he assaulted should also bring an action against him in torts of assault and battery, claiming exemplary damages against him in both cases. Of note, while in criminal law (I will use criminal code act to illustrate here) assault also connotes battery; in the law of tort, assault and battery give rise to two different actions.

    Section 252 of the Criminal Code Act defines assault thus: “A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without his consent, or with his consent, if the consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without his consent, in such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to affect his purpose, is said to assault that person, and the act is called assault.”

    Senator Abbo, realising that he was caught red-handed in the video evidence now a universal property, has owned up to committing assault and battery against the ladies. In section 253 of the code: “an assault is unlawful, and constitutes an offence unless it is authorised or justified by law.” On his part, learned author, Gilbert Kodilinye defined assault as: “any act which puts the plaintiff in fear that battery is about to be committed against him.”

    With respect to battery, Kodilinye defined it as: “the intentional application of force to another person.” Without doubt, the undistinguished senator committed assault on the two ladies in the video, and also battery on the one he pummelled with his miserable hands. Considering the weighty evidence available in public domain, the senator may prefer to settle out of court. Such a move should be allowed on the principle of restorative justice.  To strike such a face saving deal, the ladies should ask for at least a hundred million naira in damages, considering the gravity of the unprovoked assault and battery visited on them.

    In Read vs Coker (1853) 138 ER 1437, also reported in Law of Tort by Ese Malami, the defendant had a business disagreement with his partner, who then ordered his workmen to throw out the plaintiff. They surrounded him, rolled up their sleeves and threatened to break his neck, if he doesn’t leave the premises. Considering that there was threat of violence, with intent to commit battery, the court held there was an assault.

    On battery, in the case of Ballard vs MPC (1983) 113 NLJ LR 1133, reported also by learned author Ese Malami, the court held there was battery. There the plaintiffs who were feminists were attacked by police during a demonstration. One of them was felled down and carried away, another was felled down and poked with a baton in the stomach and over his eye, while the third was hit on the head with a baton. From the video evidence, Senator Abbo, evidentially assaulted the ladies and battered one of them.

    Since the senator has accepted his misdemeanour, what should be negotiated is the quantum of damages payable, whether the matter goes to court or not. In Ya’u vs Dikwa (2001) F.W.L.R. 1833-2039, (Part 62) the Court of Appeal held that: “(general damages) are implied by law in every breach of legal rights, its quantification however being a matter for the court.”

    The court in Dikwa’s case further held: “Due to the indeterminate nature of the quantum in general damages, what will be awarded in one case by the trial court may vary from that awarded in another. The award would differ from individual to individual, being dependent on the trial court’s discretion.” It is my considered advice that in negotiating the quantum of damages Senator Abbo should pay to the victims, the report by Senator Shehu Sani in March 2018, about the humongous earnings of senators should have a weighty influence on what should be paid.

    According to the distinguished senator, “I think what we can say is that the running cost of a senator is N13.5 million every month.” He went on: “Though no specific instruction on what the fund should be used for, lawmakers must provide receipts to back up their expenses from the running costs.” He also informed the general public that “The running cost is in addition to funds earmarked for each senator for constituency projects.” So there will be more than enough for Senator Abbo to pay his victims handsomely.

    Only after such an assault on the senator’s pocket will common sense return to him. If he prefers to have his day in court, I believe the courts would be minded to grant humongous damages, as there is no sign yet that the 9th senate will not collectively assault our common treasury like their predecessors. If the court slams Abbo with a nine figure in damages, there is no doubt he can afford to pay. After all, by the report of Senator Shehu Sani on the 8th senate, a 100 million naira paid out in damages would be recouped in a matter of months.

    Of note, Senator Abbo’s sins are no more grievous than those committed against our public treasury by members of the senate and House of Representatives. What the senator did to the ladies is no different from what his colleagues in the national assembly are doing to our public treasury. For no just cause, without any form of provocation, public officials in our country take pleasure assaulting Nigerians by plundering their common treasury.

    For me, such assault is as serious as that done on the poor lady in the video. At the root of the reprehensible behaviour of senator Abbo is the culture of impunity. It is impunity that had hindered our country from making progress on all fronts. When public officials turn public treasury to private vaults, it is impunity. For them, like Abbo, the Nigerian laws are ineffective, and so they ride roughshod over it without consequences.

    The truth is Abbo almost got away, if not for technology. Even his police orderly condoned the impunity, because his superiors also engage in impunity. The orderly enjoined by law to prevent the commission of crime, choose to engage in criminal act at the behest of the senator, because he sees other persons engage in acts of impunity without consequences. Not long ago, President Buhari ordered a serving Inspector General of Police to proceed to Benue state to perform a public responsibility. In an act of impunity, the then IGP ignored the president, without consequences.

  • The good herdsmen

    As the battle rage over the proposed RUGA settlements, it is interesting to note that the father of faith, Abraham owned herds, and back then there were clashes over grazing rights. According to the book of Genesis 13:7, “there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock.” Why? Verse six says: “Now the land was not able to support them, that they might dwell together, for their possession was so great that they could not dwell together.”

    At the bottom of the herdsmen-farmers’ clashes that have led to inter-ethnic crisis in the country is access to land. To solve the problem between him and Lot, Abram proposed in verse eight: “Please let there be no strife between you and me, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brethren.” He went on: “Please separate from me. If you take the left, then I will go to the right; or if you go to the right, then I will go to the left.”

    While our farmers and herdsmen may not have the luxury of going their separate ways as Abram and Lot did, there is no doubt that unless there is a change of tact, history may record the Buhari presidency as a tenure of crisis. That would be very unfortunate, and a huge set-back for the country, considering the hope that Buhari can reclaim the country from the buccaneers masquerading as political leaders. Of note, a country severely blighted by overwhelming corrupt practices and humiliating poverty, cannot survive a severe inter-ethnic crisis.

    So, the proposed RUGA settlement should  be explained to the nation, and as one of the opponents of the programme demanded on Channels Television broadcast, the scheme should be open to all and sundry, and also incorporate other animals, apart from cattle. Those who really love President Buhari and who wish history to be kind to him, must tell him that his opponents have cast an ethnic slur on his integrity, and the RUGA settlement has been painted as an ethnic agenda, which must be resisted.

    The effort to keep the participating states under rap is an effort in futility, as you cannot hide a pregnancy. What is required is transparency, openness and information. There is need to explain what the federal government intends to achieve, apart from just saying it is a way to stop farmers-herdsmen clashes. Also, who can participate and how can any Nigerian willing to meet the set standard, sign up to the programme?

    If it is made an exclusive programme for the Fulani-herdsmen as is speculated, then the proponents must perish the thought, unless they don’t care what happens to our dear country. Clearly, the opponents of the programme believe it is an agenda to establish Fulani settlements across the states, and eventually extend the Fulani Empire. While this column considers such accusation an outlandish possibility in the 21st century, there is no need for the Buhari presidency to keep feeding the fire that could burn down the country.

    Indeed, many consider this writer naïve, when discussing the so-called Fulani agenda. Each time one tries to push the argument that the Buhari presidency should be encouraged to fight corruption, which in my humble view is the greatest scourge of our time, the counter argument is that it is an ethnic agenda that is masquerading as a fight against corruption. To stem all the noise about an ethnic agenda, the Buhari presidency could rejig the headship of the security agencies, one of the offered examples of the ethnic agenda.

    There is no doubt that Buhari’s presidency inherited a messed-up country, from those who could not differentiate private properties from public properties. But while stealing public property was the scourge of the past regime, I enjoin the Buhari presidency not to give armour to those who argue that he wants to replace that with a more potent scourge of inter-ethnic crisis, which can bring the country to its knees in a matter of days.

    So, the challenge before the Buhari’s presidency is, how can the herdsmen be separated from the farmers in such a fair-way that peace will return to our country? The president should act like Abram, who offered a fair deal to Lot. Abram proposed a fair, transparent and equal opportunity to his brethren. He gave him a choice, between going left or right. He didn’t go to survey the place, choose the better side and give the second option to Lot, whom the Bible recorded was following him.

    Apparently, Abram didn’t abuse or take advantage of his leadership position, rather he surrendered the first choice to his follower, who the Bible recorded made an informed choice of what he considered the better part. But after Lot left him, the Bible recorded that God blessed Abram and granted him more success than when he was with Lot. So, President Buhari being a Fulani should tread with caution, so as not to give the impression that he is giving preferential treatment to his brethren.

    One of the audacious legacies I thought President Buhari would have pursued vigorously is how to reclaim the desert areas of the north. Indeed, he should use his moral authority to galvanise international capital to restore the Lake Chad and greenery across the Sahel region of our country. That would be a more peaceful way to provide pasture for the herdsmen, and stem their southward movement in search of pasture for their cattle. Of course, another is the cattle ranching programme, so as to stem the nomadic life-style of the Bororo Fulani herdsmen.

    The other legacy our dear president should pursue is to disarm those who possess arms unlawfully across the country, whether Fulani or Kalabari or Ijaw or Igbo or Yoruba or Hausa or Edo or Itsekiri or Nupe or whoever. The potent of herdsmen hankering around with AK47 rifles, represent an omen of herdsmen as evil. It is a weapon in the hands of those who see the potential of an ethnic game plan to overwhelm the rest of the country, with ‘a command from the proposed dedicated radio that will broadcast only in Fulani’.

    Those who are close to the president should urge him to stop giving weapons to his opponents to convince Nigerians that there is an agenda to hoist evil-herdsmen on the rest of Nigeria. This RUGA programme may just be one such weapon. Any of his lieutenants who say to him that he can use our national resources to set up a successful programme across the country that would benefit only one ethnic group is lying to him. The chances are that they will just misappropriate the money for the RUGA settlement, and create one baleful legacy for the Buhari presidency.

  • Powers of CCB

    The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) is created under the Third Schedule, Part 1A of the 1999 constitution (as amended), and is principally empowered to enforce the responsibility placed on it, by the Fifth Schedule, Part 1, paragraph 11 and 12 of the constitution.

    The responsibility include: to receive and keep custody of the declaration of assets form of public officers, investigate the declaration, enforce compliance, investigate non-compliance and on terms make such asset declaration forms available for inspection by Nigerians upon terms as the National Assembly may prescribe.

    The CCB is empowered to refer any breach, where appropriate to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), which itself is a quasi-judicial body also created by the constitution, under the Fifth Schedule, Part 1, Paragraph 15. In furtherance of its powers, the CCB had dragged such eminent persons as the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, former Senate President, Bukola Saraki, former governor of Lagos State, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and many others before the CCT.

    Between the CCB and CCT, are enormous constitutional powers to rein in corrupt practices amongst public officials. Perhaps the quasi-judicial powers invested in the two special administrative bodies are to circumvent the herculean challenges posed by the criminal procedure laws in criminal trials. Granting it limited powers on the punishment it can mete out, the constitution created the specialized bodies to tame the desire to see public service as avenue for personal aggrandizement, and to prevent its convicts from using unlawfully acquired wealth to perpetuate themselves in power.

    The sanctions or punishments clearly target the unlawfully acquired assets and further opportunity to hold public office. The sanctions as provided in paragraph 18(2) of the Fifth Schedule to the constitution, include ‘vacation of office or seat in any legislative house, disqualification from membership of a legislative house and from holding any public office for a period not exceeding 10 years, and seizure and forfeiture to the state of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.’

    To show clearly the limitedness of the sanctions prescribed by the constitution, paragraph 18(3) provides that “the sanctions mentioned in paragraph (2) hereof shall be without prejudice to the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also criminal.” From the above provision, the CCB and CCT is to aid public accountability, without lowering the higher evidential burden required to convict in a criminal charge. Recognising the general responsibility of all in the fight against corrupt practices in public life, the responsibility of ensuring compliance is vested in the Bureau as well as the general public.

    So, any request for information on the declaration of assets by public officials is constitutionally guaranteed. The responsibility vested in the general public can be inferred from the provision of paragraph 3(c) of the Third Schedule, Part 1A of the 1999 constitution (as amended). It is therefore unconstitutional for the CCB to rebuff the demand by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) for the details of the asset declarations of the former presidents and governors from 1999 to the present submitted to it, on the laughable excuse that the declaration is private information.

    Far from that. The asset declaration forms are public documents which any Nigerian is constitutionally entitled to access on fulfilment of “such terms as the National Assembly may prescribe.” According to media report, the CCB has refused the request from SERAP on the ground that “asset declaration form is a private information,” and “would offend the right to privacy of presidents and state governors.” If the report is true, then the CCB may have read the constitutional provision upside down.

    To determine what constitutes a public document, we only have to look at the S. 102 of the Evidence Act 2011. It provides: “The following documents are public documents: (a) documents forming the acts or records of the acts of – (i) the sovereign authority; (ii) official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or elsewhere; and (b) public records kept in Nigeria of private documents.” Like a multiple trap, the document in question is caught by both paragraphs ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the above section.

    So, to contend that the document requested by SERAP is a private document is to offend the provisions of the constitution and the Evidence Act. Ordinarily without much ado, the assets declaration form filed with the CCB should be available on fulfilment of basic administrative condition, to enable the public to enjoy a constitutional right, as aforementioned. However, to forestall unnecessary inhibition to public access of public documents or private documents in public custody, the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 was enacted by the National Assembly.

    Section 1 of the Act provides: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, law or regulation, the right of any person to access or request information, whether or not contained in any written form, which is in custody or possession of any public official, agency or institution howsoever described, is established.” Clearly the purport of the act is to ensure the free flow of any information that will regulate public conduct. According to media report, the CCB refused to accede to the request, claiming prohibition under section 14 of the FOI Act.

    A perusal of section 14 of the Act shows that it is not an omnibus provision seeking to take away what the Act gave by its S.1. Moreover the act not being a repeal of the Evidence Act, cannot by the provisions of S.14 redefine what a public document is. Indeed, by no estimation can the act have the power to restrain a right granted by the constitution, which is the grundnum on which our constitutional democracy rests. Interestingly, S.14(3) provides a further exemption on the restrictions listed in paragraphs a-e of the section.

    The said sub-section 3 provides: “Where disclosure of any information referred to in this section would be in the public interest, and if the public interest in the disclosure of such information clearly outweighs the protection of the privacy of the individual to whom such information relates, the public institution to whom a request for the disclosure is made shall disclose such information ….”

    It is therefore difficult to appreciate why the CCB did not accede to the request from SERAP when clearly the disclosure of that information would be in public interest, considering the debilitating effect of corruption on the nation.

    Moreover, in Marbury vs Madison 5 US 154 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshal of the United States held: “Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate… that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” Everything considered, the CCB must under no guise deny a constitutional right, hiding behind an ordinary statute.

  • No Excuses APC

    The All Progressive Congress (APC) chairman Adams Oshiomhole surely has his faults, but he also has the courage to dare. Some say he is abrasive and rash when pushing his view. But regardless of what one says about the petit former labour leader, it is dangerous to take him for granted in any contest, where being loquacious is an added advantage.

    Politics is one such contest, where being bombast could be a bomb against your opponents. In the run up to the 2019 general elections, the APC chairman was up and about shredding the reputation of the opposition PDP and asking Nigerians to move unto the NEXT level. Again, as the National Assembly prepared to elect their leaders last week, the APC chairman was so upbeat about the chances of his party, that he declared all the leadership positions a no go area for the opposition.

    He warned that any legislator who sells any piece of the family silver would be severely punished. His warning came when there was palpable fear that the PDP could take advantage of the potential division within the APC camp, to gain one of the four coveted seats. Luckily, with President Muhammadu Buhari and the APC national leader Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu flexing their muscles, the party cleared the senate president and the deputy, as well as the speaker and deputy speaker of the House of Representatives.

    In his usual loquacious manner, the APC chairman has warned the ruling party that having gotten the legislative and executive arms in their firm control, there would be no excuses not to deliver the dividends of democracy to Nigerians. This column identifies with that warning and urge the Buhari presidency to save Nigeria before it is too late. Let the truth be told, Nigeria may not survive its present trajectory of the onslaught of globalised terrorism combined with self-induced poverty that has become a potent cataclysm for our dear country.

    The war in the north arising from enormous security and socio-economic challenges facing the region cannot be won with bullets alone. It requires the creation of viable alternative socio-economic programmes to absorb the teeming youths attracted to the rogue opportunities created by the insurgency and Muslim extremism in the region. If the Buhari presidency does not wish to offer excuses why it failed at the end of its tenure, then it must recalibrate its modus operandi, since time is not on its side. For instance, the list of its proposed ministers ought to be ready by now.

    And in choosing the ministers, competence must be the watch word, and not where you come from or the religion you practice. Part of the legacy President Buhari must work to leave behind is that he doesn’t pander to tribe and religion, as opposed to competence in making choices. He must know that because of the lop-sidedness in his appointments in the last four years, the general believe especially among his political opponents is that he is ethno-centric.

    While his admirers will deny that he is partial in his appointments, unfortunately the performance of his team has been less than stellar, despite their best efforts. So, he has to look beyond the confines of his narrow political environment to pick his next ministers and assistants. He should seek assistance from within and outside his party to get quality candidates to work with him to save Nigeria from going under.

    Like Oshiomhole said, there will be no excuses to fail this time, as the legislators are on standby to approve the list of ministers and special assistants. The only thing required of the president is to be broadminded to cast his net wide enough to catch quality persons, regardless of tribe and religion to face the onerous task of repositioning Nigeria for better. President Buhari should note that the poverty indices under his watch have been scary, perhaps because of the freeloading of the past era.

    But his government has had four years to lay the foundation for a Nigeria of his dream, and as some have said, since his 2015-2019 regime is now the immediate past regime of his new 2019-2023 regime, he can only blame himself and his team for any shortcomings. While that may not be entirely correct, President Buhari must realise that time is seriously running out on him, if he wants history to attribute any serious achievement to him.

    If Buhari’s government should end today, there will be few achievements to ascribe to his government. While no doubt he has fought off Boko Haram attacks, his achievement can be obliterated within few weeks of attacks, as the bandits can burn in a jiffy all that his government helped the region to rebuild. Moreover, without an alternative viable economy or even alternate re-evangelisation, the susceptible youths of the area would easily join a Boko Haram movement in the absence of sustainable alternative.

    Perhaps Buhari’s best effort is the war against corruption. In fairness to him, he has tamed the excitement about engaging in corrupt practices by public officials. Apart from the initial slur on some of his privileged kitchen cabinet members, there has not been subsequent allegation around him or his inner circle. The EFCC under his watch has also made huge recoveries and substantial convictions in the past four years. Unlike under his immediate predecessor, there are also no stories of free loading.

    But the problem with war on corruption in Nigeria is that no regime effectively wages it against itself. So, it is only if the successor regime doesn’t find skeletons in the cupboard after Buhari’s government, that he can beat his chest that he succeeded in that area. While taking plaudits for his efforts in that direction so far, the president must raise the transparency level of his government. For example, it should be public knowledge what every minister earns, whether as salaries, emolument or other allowances. The same should apply to all appointees in the executive arm.

    If President Buhari is able to rein in those directly answerable to him from corrupt practices, it will become easier to deal with the legislators who have brazenly been stealing from the public treasury. As argued on this page last week, any income by whatever name or alias that the legislators earn without the approval of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) is unlawful earning. But the presidency would have to first remove the log in its executive eye before he can ask the legislators to clear the specks in their own eyes.

    Since Oshiomhole has been thumping his chest about party supremacy following APC’s victory in the contest for the leadership of National Assembly, Nigerians are waiting to see how that supremacy will influence Buhari in his next political appointments.

  • Unlawful Earnings (9th National Assembly)

    As the 9th National Assembly is inaugurated, is there a chance the members will return to a constitutionally approved income bracket, or are they going to remain recalcitrant like their predecessors? The previous assemblies, particularly the 8th assembly, led by Senator Bukola Saraki treated the national treasury like a bazaar sales, open for raid by the fittest. From their vantage position as federal lawmakers, they maximally looted our common patrimony, through budget padding, unconscionable allowances and sundry extortion of the exchequer.

    All warnings by well-meaning Nigerians, that a legislative assembly operating as an outlaw is an anathema and because of its vantage position casts aspersion on the very foundation of constitutional democracy, fell on deaf ears. They treated with disdain section 70 of the 1999 constitution (as amended), which provides without equivocation that: “A member of the Senate or of the House of Representative shall receive such salary and other allowances as the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission may determine.”

    That mandatory provision has been treated with ignominy by majority of past National Assemblies, yet section 153 of the constitution created the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) as a federal executive body to determine the remuneration of certain public officers. Under its Third Schedule Part 1N (paragraphs31 and 32), itprovides the composition and powers of the RMAFC. By paragraph 32 (d): “The commission shall have power to: determine the remuneration appropriate for political office holders, including the president, vice president, governors, deputy governors, ministers, commissioners, special advisers, legislators and the holders of the offices mentioned in section 84 and 124 of this constitution”.

    Why our federal lawmakers choose to ignore a clear provision of the constitution is strange. But even stranger is the condoning of this illegality all these years. Between the executive and the legislature there appears aconsensusad idem to allow the breach in the spirit of brinkmanship. Even such a concordat will be unconstitutional, for the Supreme Court in A. G.Bendel State vs A. G. Federation (2001) F.W.L.R. Pt. 65 page 504 unequivocally held: “Neither a state nor an individual can contract out of the provisions of the constitution. The reason for this is that contract to do a thing which cannot be done without a violation of the law is void.”

    Any agreement between the executive and the legislature to allow the payment of any form of remuneration beyond the contemplation of the constitution is therefore void. Even when the previous legislators have unconstitutionally engaged in what amounts to self-help, ‘such arrangement’ can not estop a return to constitutionality. In the A.G. Bendel’s case (supra), the court held: “There can be no estoppel against the assertion of the supremacy of the constitution.”

    No doubt, the constitution has imbued the national assembly with enormous powers over the consolidated revenue of the federation. These powers are contained in the provisions of sections 80-84 of the 1999 constitution. But as humongous as the powers are, there is no provision for self-help with respect to the remuneration of members of the federal legislature by whatever name called. So the clear remonstration of the Supreme Court in Military Governor of Lagos State vsOjukwu 1 ACLC pg. 392 is apt, if the incoming federal legislature gives a damn about the rule of law.

    In that case, the learned Justices held: “The Nigerian constitution is founded on the rule of law, the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law. It means also that government should be conducted within the framework of recognised rules and principles which restrict discretionary powers….” The 9th national assembly must resist the temptation to sustain the aberration of self-help, as practised by their predecessors in a constitutional democracy. Such strange behaviour was unequivocally deprecated by the Supreme Court in theOjukwu’s case aforesaid.

    In the words of the Supreme Court Justices: “In the area where ruleof law operates, the rule of self-help by force is abandoned. Nigeria, being one of the countries in the world, even in the third world which profess loudly to follow the rule of law, gives no room for the rule of self-help by force to operate.”

    There is no gain saying that the 1999 constitution operates on tripod, made up of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The fine essence of such distribution of powers is to ensure checks and balances, without which democracy will slip into autocracy. The makers of the constitution knows that if the executive is left to raise the money and singularly determine how to share same, such enormous powers will be abused.

    In the same manner, since the legislature has the powers to legislate who gets what, their income cannot be left for them to also determine. The same principle is applicable to the judiciary and executive whose remuneration is not left by the constitution in their own hands. In the case of A. G. Federation vs Guardian Newspaper Ltd (2001) F.W.L.R. Pt. 32at pg. 87, the Supreme Court, despite the aberration of a military dictatorship held: “Under 1979 constitution (which is inparimateria with the 1999 constitution), the principle of separation of powers operated with the division of functions of government between the executive, legislature and the judiciary under Decree 107 of 1993.”

    Despite public opinion, formernational legislatorsunconstitutionally appropriated humongous allowances and other remunerations to pooh pooh the 1999 constitution, since the advent of the current republic. Going forward, the nation will see whether members of the 9th national assembly are possessed with the same genes as their predecessors, or whether they are children of constitutional order. If they persist in the error, the federal government under President Muhammadu Buhari owe a duty to test the constitutionality of the legislature interpreting the law as it suits its whims and caprices.

    After all, by the provisions of section 6(6)(b) of the constitution, it is the prerogative of the courts, to determine any dispute as to the interpretation of the laws of the country. That section provides: “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 person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of nay question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.”

    Since the courts have been circumspect about who has the locus standi to institute an action to deal with this perennial challenge, despite public outcry, the next Attorney General must accept the gauntlet in public interest, should the 9th national assembly persist in the unconstitutional conduct of determining what its members earn.

  • Plea of alibi

    In legal parlance, ‘alibi’ means ‘elsewhere’, but in ordinary terms it is understood as a reason offered to exculpate one from culpability. I suspect that some of the Governors who just finished their tenure will offer various alibi for untoward actions taken while in office, especially when confronted with the mismanagement of state resources. Many of them will seek alibi to explain the monumental disaster their tenure was.

    In Njovens vs State (1973)5 SC 17 at 68, the Supreme Court stated the position of law on alibi, thus: “There is nothing extra-ordinary or esoteric in a plea of alibi. Such a plea postulates that the accused person could not have been at the scene of the crime and only inferentially that he was not there.” Public officials who abuse their power while in office look back and seek for ways to escape culpability, but the law must rigorously examine their excuses and hold them to account.

    In Wisdom vs State ((2019) All FWLR Pt. 973 at page 393-394, Ariwoola JSC stated: “Ordinarily, even though the law does not saddle the accused with burden to prove alibi, but he is not expected to merely state that he was not at the scene of the crime without more. The law requires him, and it is a duty on him to give the lead and particulars of his where about as he claimed which will lead the prosecution in its investigation of the alibi.”

    In Chukwunyere vs State (2019) All FWLR Pt. 974, the deceased, one Beatrice Kwemma, was murdered in her farm. While she was getting set to go to the farm, her grandson Chijioke Kwemma noticed the appellant who was wearing dark glasses, and another person gazing at their house as they passed. At that time, the deceased was instructing her grandson to come to the farm later, to carry the harvest. While approaching the farm, the boy saw the appellant hacking down the deceased with an axe, while another person held her legs.

    Terrified, he ran and raised alarm that brought the villagers to the scene. Another witness testified the dark glasses were picked at the scene of the murder. While the appellant admitted owning the glasses, he lied that it was seized by the villagers a different day – a cock and bull story, the court rejected. The appellant gave an alibi that on that day he travelled out of town, but never gave verifiable details of where he travelled to or exactly when.

    Dismissing the alibi, the court while discharging the 1st accused person, believed the prosecution and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death by hanging. Even though the appellant raised the alibi at the earliest possible opportunity, as required by law, the court did not believe him. In his lead judgment, Okoro JSC, opined: “It must be emphasized that the plea of alibi, whenever it is raised, the prosecution is under a bounden duty to investigate the alibi. This is so because the plea presupposes that the accused not only claim he never committed the offence but that he was not all at the locus delictis.”

    The learned jurist further held: “However, the alibi must be definite as to time, place and the persons who know about accused’s whereabouts. It should not be just to set the police on a wild goose chase.” Going forward, those who have mismanaged state resources in their care will attempt to lie about that, when confronted by their misdeeds. Post power, when they wake up without the retinue of officials waiting to receive commands, or to offer advices that are mostly ignored, even when such advice was in the best interest of the state, they will seek alibi.

    When the missed opportunities to do the right things while in power, return to hunt, they will plead alibi. Many of them who thought that eight years was so long it will never end, and were acting very recklessly, will seek alibi to cover their failings. For example, former Governor Rochas Okorocha was severally advised by this column to tread with caution, knowing that today will come. He was encouraged to lead his people diligently with humility and candour, but he ignored such advice, believing that he would install a stooge to cover his tracks.

    While he ruled like an emperor, instead of allowing elections at the local council level, Okorocha deceived the aspirants for eight years, conning them to pander to his hirelings, who misrepresented the true intentions of the emperor. What will he tell those he encouraged to sell their houses and businesses to raise money to participate in the local elections that never materialized? What alibi will he plead when those he encouraged to build roads without a formal contract meet him now he has no state bodyguards to shield him at marriages and naming ceremonies?

    There are other former public officials that mismanaged the rare opportunity God gave them to preside over states. Interestingly, to convict for murder or any crime, there must be intent on the part of the accused. On the proof of intent, learned Justice Okoro stated: “I accept the views expressed by the House of Lords in the English case of Hyam vs D.P.P (1974) 2 All ER 43 that an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm is established, if is proved that the accused deliberately and intentionally did an act knowing that it was probable that it will result in the death of or grievous bodily harm to the victim.”

    Those who diverted to their personal use, the state resources put in their care, cannot be allowed to say they had no intent to steal, more so when they are definitely in charge at the material time. One serving governor that behaves as if there will be no tomorrow is el-Rufai of Kaduna state. He prattles and acts as if he owns everywhere. He treats part of his state with disdain, and yet he swore an oath to abide by the provisions of the 1999 which forbade discrimination based on tribe or religion. He treats his opponent like enemies of the state, and yet it is just his personal ego that is at stake.

    When the time to account comes, those who have abused their powers must not be left off on flimsy excuses. Like the appellant in Chukwunyere vs State (supra), they must be made to answer for their actions, and even inactions. As was held by the Supreme Court in Njovens vs State (supra), “If the prosecution adduced sufficient and accepted evidence to fix the person at the scene of crime at the material time, surely this alibi is thereby logically and physically demolished.”

    Those exercising authority granted by law must be ready to answer according to law.

     

  • Unlawful arms

    The recent presidential order revoking duly issued licenses to bear arms has sparked controversy. Many Nigerians are sceptical about the honest intentions of Mr President in making the order. They accuse President Muhammadu Buhari of double standard, in dealing with the security challenges constituted by the unlawfully armed herdsmen who have become a national menace. Majority of the commentators believe that such a measure will expose the law abiding citizens to danger, while giving advantage to the brigands who have made life nasty, short and brutish in Nigeria.

    Just before the presidential order, former President Olusegun Obasanjo raised the security stakes, by alleging plans by some extremists to Islamize and Fulanize the West African sub-region, using the Boko Haram and sundry criminal elements. While the charge to fulanize the sub-region is debatable, the Boko Haram had themselves owned up to the Islamization agenda, at least with respect to Nigeria. So while Obasanjo may be accused of bad belle against President Buhari’s re-election, the issues he raised are obvious security challenges facing our country and the sub-region.

    More so, the decision to cancel duly issued licenses, as an answer to the security challenges is largely a reactionary measure. After all, those who are terrorising the citizens, whether as kidnappers, highway robbers, cattle rustlers, armed herdsmen, and sundry bandits do not require licence to bear arms. So, those who will be affected are law abiding citizens who have taken administrative measure to stay within the law by applying for licence to own guns. They are the ones who use their guns to reasonably defend themselves from banditry, hunt for games and to socialize.

    Those opposed to the directive even argue that the presidential order is to give advantage to the armed herdsmen whom they believe the president has sympathy for. While that may be an extreme position against the president’s intention, the directive is clearly not the answer to the menace posed by armed banditry that is turning our country to a failed state. With more than half of the country under siege by various armed militia, it is strange that instead of confronting the bad eggs, the government is seeking the low hanging fruits as the answer.

    To exercise executive powers to render law abiding citizens powerless in the face of the inability of the state to protect them, is to submit the troubled citizens to general homicide. Of course, it is very easy to enforce the regulation against the law abiding citizens, but as has been shown, the state lacks the capacity to enforce it, ab initio, against the unlawfully armed persons who are the real dangers to our common well-being. Feeling disenchanted, a concerned citizen approached me for legal advice on the presidential directive.

    While this intervention is not a legal advice strictu senso, it is intended to enliven the debate about the state of insecurity and failing incapacity of the state to protect the citizens. The most famous legal provision about the right of citizens to bear arms is the second amendment to the American constitution. The amendment provides for: “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This provision has been interpreted either as a collective or individual right to bear arms.

    Of course, Nigeria has no similar provision, and the law directly regulating possession of firearms, is the Firearms Act, Cap 146, Laws of the Federation 1990. The law generally provides that to bear arms, one must obtain a licence. Sections 3 provides that “no person shall have in his possession or under his control any firearm of one of the categories specified in Part 1 of the schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as a prohibited firearm) except in accordance with a licence granted by the President acting in his discretion.”

    Section 4 further provides: “no person shall have in his possession or under his control any firearm of one of the categories specified in Part II of the schedule to this act (hereinafter referred to as a personal firearm) except in accordance with a licence granted in respect thereof by the Inspector-General of Police, which licences shall be granted or refused in accordance with principles decided upon by the National Council of Ministers.” By these provisions the Nigeria law intends to regulate the bearing of any form of firearms.

    However, the Act predisposes the use of licences to regulate, and the regulation is to be exercised as an administrative power. So, in the exercise of the administrative power, dose the Nigerian constitution or the extant law envisage that such power must be exercised judicially and judiciously? As a constitutional democracy, can an administrative authority exercise its powers, even when a discretionary power, arbitrarily? Can a citizen, whose rights have been infringed upon, or is likely to be infringed upon by the exercise of discretionary power arbitrarily, seek the protection of the constitution against such exercise of power?

    The courts may be called upon to answer these and more questions to determine whether the President acted within his powers as provided by section 36 of the Firearms Act. The section provides: “the president if he thinks fit may at any time by proclamation prohibit the possession of or dealing in any firearms or ammunition, either throughout the federation or in any part thereof, and either absolutely or except subject to such restrictions or conditions as may be specified.”

    Could it be that the firearm within the contemplation of S.36 are only those the president is authorised to licence as provided by S.3? Even in the exercise of the discretionary powers in S.3, can the president act arbitrarily?   The 1999 constitution in S.33(1) provides: “every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life.…” Can it be successfully argued that the right to bear arms to defend oneself in the face of the state failure to protect the citizens, is in tandem with section 33(1) aforesaid?

    In the exercise of discretionary powers, according to Ombudsman Western Australia guidelines, reviewed in April 2019, “the exercise of discretion requires good judgment.” Has the president exercised good judgment in making the proclamation of last week? Where a discretionary power is badly exercised, section 6(6)(b) of our constitution provides for judicial review. It is within such contemplation that it provides: “the judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section – shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all action and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that persons.”

    Is the proclamation of the president such a matter for review?

  • Save Enugu Airport

    The threat by the Minister of State for Aviation, Hadi Sirika, to downgrade the Akanu Ibiam International Airport, has led to a frenzied demolition of structures around the runway to the airport. Sirika warned that the cluster of houses at a market and an abattoir close to the runway posed danger to aircraft which need the expanded runway to land. He also noted that the activities in the two places attract birds, and that could lead to a bird strike, which is detrimental to aircraft engines.

    After a state executive council meeting, Enugu State government swiftly directed the local council authority to immediately close the market and the abattoir even as efforts will be made to relocate them. While I sympathize with those who will be dislocated from the area, it is important that necessary measures be taken to ensure that instead of downgrading the status of the airport, the remaining facilities needed to ensure full operation of international flights from the airport be put in place.

    Sirika’s concerns for safety are genuine, as aircraft safety is of utmost importance in aviation industry. The immediate response of the state government is also commendable considering the significance of the Akanu Ibiam International Airport to the southeast zone. As the only international gateway to the southeast and parts of north-central, its continuous operation must be guarded jealously. If not for the duplicitous politics of our beleaguered federation, the Akanu Ibiam International Airport would be one of the busiest in the country and a top earner for the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria.

    Thankfully, instead of playing politics with the threat of closure by blaming the APC-led federal government, the Enugu State PDP-led government took immediate steps to address the complaints. Going forward, more collaboration is needed to finish the international wing of the airport, and rehabilitate the runway. Considering the crisis experienced in inter-state road travel, worsened by roaming armed bandits and kidnappers on the highways, every reasonable effort should be made to save international travellers the agony of going to Lagos or Abuja or Port Harcourt to catch their flights.

    The security challenges faced by our country gets graver by the day, and the aviation sector should not add further stress to the national security apparatchik, by adding international travellers going or returning to Enugu from Lagos or Abuja or Port Harcourt to their worries. If the Enugu airport is downgraded, the pressure on the facilities in Abuja, Lagos and Port Harcourt will further heighten, and those cities are having more than their fair share of over crowdedness. The Port Harcourt International Airport in the south-south zone is no less stressful to access, with the Enugu-Port Harcourt road in very deplorable condition.

    Travelling out of the zone to catch an international flight in other zones, is also a disincentive to economic activities, as hotels, local transporters and other service providers will be affected. For those travelling or coming into the zone, landing elsewhere and taking a connecting flight or entering the fearful road is an extra expense that can be avoided. Also the hotel bills and delayed arrivals and departures are all avoidable stress for citizens and visitors. The airport authority knows there are already more than enough stress inducers to go round.

    Indeed, this column has always advocated for sustainable regional economic activities as the lack of it heightens the very deplorable security challenges facing our dear country. Many of the idle youths in the state and even across the zone would be gainfully employed with an increase in economic activities at the Enugu airport. Honourable Minister Sirika must bear this in mind and should therefore take necessary measures to ensure the airport remains open and even enhanced for the use of more international flights.

    If he wants to be fair to all parts of the country, he must advise the federal government on measures needed to bring the airport at par with other regional hubs. The upgrade of Akanu Ibiam International Airport to international status was late in coming, and it will be a monumental disaster to contemplate a downgrade, when Nigerians are expecting a further upgrade to open the airport to more international flights. Currently only Ethiopian Airlines is approved to operate international flight from the airport, and that is not a fair deal.

    The south-east is a traders’ den, and to deny the region international gateways is unfair. The PDP government at the centre gave the Akanu Ibiam International Airport half-heartedly, so, I strongly urge the APC-led federal government to give it with their whole-heart, by finishing the international wing and opening it to more flights. With flights into the airport far-between, substantial upgrade of the runway can be achieved with minimal disruption of flight schedules, both local and international.

    Also important, is that mutually agreed measures to keep the airport running will starve the cries of marginalisation, which separatist groups feed on. The government of Enugu State which is averse to such distractions has that as one more reason to collaborate with the federal government to keep the airport optimally functional. Indeed, if it can muster the resources, it should support the airports authority to turn the bend to make the airport a truly regional hub. After all, states build federal infrastructure and seek refunds later.

    On a mutually agreed procedure, the state government can join resources with the federal authority to fund some of the immediate needs of the international airport. Of course, this is not a call for the federal government to abandon their responsibility to the people of the region, but rather a call for collaboration to sustain a much needed infrastructure in the region. After all, it is the people of the region and particularly of Enugu State who re-elected Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi that will benefit more than other Nigerians.

    As I was putting this piece to bed, the newswire reported that the incoming Governor of Lagos State, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, has promised to end the intractable Apapa-Oshodi expressway gridlock, within 60 days of assuming the reins of power. To do that, he will assume the responsibility of the federal authorities to solve a nightmare for the people that elected him into power. If he succeeds, his government would instantly become a toast of the people of the state.

    While Enugu State is not as rich as Lagos State, and may not have the financial muscle to do much, it must do what it can to save the Enugu Airport from the threatened downgrade. Of note, it has taken the first step, by demolishing the houses complained of by the federal minister. Governor Ugwuanyi should follow up by sending his officials to the airports authority to agree on further steps to avoid a downgrade. The watchword should be inter-agency collaboration.