Category: Festus Eriye

By Festus Eriye

If you were to ask the average person what should be our priority at this time, they would probably say affordable food, healthcare, education, housing, motorable roads, security and so on.

The government – executive and legislative branches – would insist they are doing everything to deliver on the above fronts.

While we await results, there appears to be some agreement between the arms, that an even more pressing need is new legislation to control unfettered expression and communication.

Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, recently announced with much fanfare government’s intention to regulate social media – ostensibly to stamp out fake news and hate speech.

In fact, so gung-ho was he about the project that he was quoted as saying “no amount of criticism” would stop the administration from pressing ahead with its plans. That suggested that criticism, even if it is reasonable, would be ignored in the drive to deal with the despoilers of social media.

True to his word, a committee of stakeholders has been swiftly cobbled together and is steaming ahead with the assignment.

In the legislature, zeal to rid Nigeria of dangerous thought and harmful expression is equally catching on. The Senate on Tuesday introduced a bill to establish an agency to regulate ‘hate speech.’

The bill titled ‘National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speeches (Estb. etc) Bill 2019’ is sponsored by the Deputy Senate Whip, Sabi Abdullahi.

Abdullahi had first introduced a similar bill that proposed death by hanging and other deterrents for hate speech in May 2018.

The latest incarnation of the proposed legislation prescribes that offences such as harassment on the grounds of ethnicity or racial contempt, would attract a five-year jail term or a fine of not less than N10 million or both.

No one should downplay the gravity of fake news, ethnic slurs and comments that seek to denigrate and humiliate fellow humans on basis of their race, ethnicity or faith.

From the old Nazi Germany, to what used to be Yugoslavia and apartheid South Africa, wars have been fought and nations torn apart because of these same issues. Indeed, the scars left behind by those conflicts are yet to heal in some of these countries.

Again, we have seen how the spectre of fake news played a key role in the rise of President Donald Trump in the US. Today, what was treated as joke a few years ago has become an industry that has produced a gigantic headache for social media giants like Facebook, Twitter and so on, whose platforms are used to spread false information.

The great danger with social media is spontaneity. People can react violently to a false post and lives would have been lost long before proper fact-checking can neutralise the fake news item.

We have also seen that extreme terror groups like ISIS and Boko Haram have become quite adept in using social media and have manipulated it over the years to project messages that seduce the many to their cause.

So whatever the government is planning is not strange. Countries as far afield as the United States, Britain, Germany, Singapore, New Zealand and Russia have introduced some form of legislation that seeks to check hate speech and abuse of social media.

Where specific legislation has been made they have been of two types – those designed to protect public order and those for checking the dehumanisation of people on the basis of race or ethnicity. More severe sanctions are often deployed for those activities or utterances that can lead to a breakdown of order.

What should worry us is the mindset driving the latest actions, the necessity of the new regulations, capacity for enforcement and potential for abusing a bad law.

As if our long list of failed parastatals isn’t enough embarrassment, a senator is proposing a new agency for the near-impossible task of calibrating acceptable public utterance.

We should be disturbed that all the initiatives, whether from the executive or legislature, are tilted towards punishment rather than prevention.

We have a plethora of laws on our statute books for dealing with false information, libel, or instigation of violence or hatred on basis of ethnicity.

Today, people are being tried for ‘cyberstalking’ and ‘terrorism.’ A journalist and activist ‘Agba Jalingo’ is even facing charges of ‘treasonable felony’ in Cross River State for something he published! So there remains considerable elasticity in our laws to deal with these new offences – no matter how dangerous or annoying they may be.

In the hands of a smallminded political leader, some of these proposed measures would be dynamite that blows common freedoms to smithereens.

It is easy to define fake news, but not so hate speech. A thin-skinned egotist would consider trenchant criticism sufficient ground to prosecute somebody.

I see such elasticity in Senator Abdullahi’s bill. In his original legislation he prescribed the death penalty for hate speech. That proceeds from the notion of capital punishment as a cure-all for crimes. But we have seen that it hasn’t deterred people from committing murder or armed robbery.

Such extreme punishments are an overkill for an offence that the world is still struggling to properly define.

The other day the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, in not too subtle manner reminded the media that they may be in violation of the ‘Terrorism Prevention Act 2011’ for referring to some terror groups by their recognised names!

He argued that addressing Boko Haram insurgents with “glorifying” titles like ISWAP or JAS gives them “undue publicity.” How?

“Referring to such gang of criminals, bandits, insurgents such as Boko Haram Terrorists Group, JAS or ISWAP in Nigeria could amount to supporting or encouraging terrorism,” he said.

“Unfortunately, many Nigerians are not aware that giving prominence to the criminal activities of the terrorists group through sensational headlines and fake news in both electronic and print media could also amount to tacit support to terrorism which violates the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011.”

In other words a journalist who does his job by reporting a Boko Haram attack could find himself in hot water for giving terrorists “undue publicity” – even backing their cause!

We are drifting into uncharted territory when soldiers become the ones who determine the news that is fit to be published or what is ‘sensational.’

That is why for all the good that they hope to achieve, our would-be social media regulators and hate speech exterminators, need to make haste slowly so that their zeal doesn’t damage free expression in our society.

Festus Eriye

 

IN the aftermath of the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election results, then President Ibrahim Babangida famously declared that he and his junta were ‘not only in office but in power.’

He was responding to questions about what he intended to do about the large protests in parts of the country against the poll result cancellation.

His arrogant comments which were meant to send a chilling message of caution to the protesters, aptly captures the reality of life for some in the corridors of power. You may occupy a seemingly powerful office, but in reality exercise only limited power.

For Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, his place in the Aso Rock power equation was back as a talking point this week.

Controversy was reignited by President Muhammadu Buhari signing the amended Deep Offshore Act in London whilst still on his two-week private visit.

Pointedly, the bill was ferried him to him in Britain for assent by his Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari – a clear reminder of the direction from which power still flows, notwithstanding the fact that the president is out of the country for all of three weeks.

In his absence Osinbajo has already presided over the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting – a duty Buhari would most probably have handled himself had he been on the ground.

For some, the symbolism in Kyari taking the bill to London for signature is another sign that the Vice President is increasingly marginalised.

Others are interpreting it to mean Buhari ‘taking back control’ of his presidency and clutching jealously to its powers.

Several weeks ago the issue was the transfer of certain social intervention programmes hitherto overseen by the Vice President’s office to the newly-established Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs.

Although Buhari in his Independence Day address explained that his action was informed by the need to institutionalise the programmes, conspiracy theorists were not convinced.

Their suspicions are understandable given that the changes were swiftly followed by an instruction to Osinbajo to always seek presidential approval concerning contracts in the agencies under his supervision. The VP’s office reacted that he had always followed due process.

His actions thereafter helped to quell the rumours of unrest in high places. Instead of sulking he would at every opportunity reaffirm his unflinching loyalty to his boss. If there were problems, he ascribed them to the machinations of ‘fifth columnists.’

The Vice Presidency is number two in the nation’s power hierarchy. It is a strategic office – powerful largely because its occupant becomes president if the incumbent dies or is impeached. The spare tyre metaphor is widely used to describe it.  We saw that play out in the case of Goodluck Jonathan stepping into the shoes of Umaru Yar’Adua.

Aside this advantage of positioning, the Vice Presidency under our constitution can also be very limited in influence as its occupant is only as powerful as the incumbent president wants him to be. Buhari or any other president isn’t obliged to empower his deputy beyond what the constitution allocates to him.

The constitution puts him over certain organs of state like the National Economic Council (NEC), but that doesn’t automatically translate to being head of the economic management team. A president may choose, as Buhari did recently, to seek counsel from elsewhere.

As Vice President, Jonathan wasn’t very powerful or influential. In fact, legend has it that he was largely a passenger – sidelined in the scheme of things whilst in that role. Some governors, even from his South-south zone, related with him from the sense of his limited clout within the Yar’Adua administration. They would later pay a price for not treating him with sufficient respect as VP.

In the Fourth Republic, Olusegun Obasanjo’s deputy, Atiku Abubakar and Osinbajo have been the most powerful Vice Presidents – especially in their initial terms.

In Atiku’s case the humiliation he dished out to Obasanjo’s in his bid to get a second term had a telling effect on their relationship later on. This largely informed the former president’s concerted campaign to neutralize his erstwhile second-in-command.

While there hasn’t been the same sort of falling out between Buhari and Osinbajo, it is hard not to see parallels in reduced clout. Even in the sharing of appointments to his home state of Ogun, former Governor Ibikunle Amosun’s candidates have had a field day to the detriment of the most senior political office holder from the state.

But is history repeating itself? Are the VP’s political fortunes on the wane because some of those who have been hurt by his actions as Acting President are ganging up on him? We need weightier evidence before jumping to conclusions.

If there is no conspiracy as such, then did Buhari do something illegal by not transferring power to the VP whilst away for three weeks? What does the constitution require of him?

In September this year, Buhari in a reply to a suit querying why he didn’t hand over to Osinbajo when he embarked on a 9-day ‘private visit’ to Britain in April, argued that the constitution only required him to do so if his vacation exceeded 21 days.

The Presidency has also sought to defend the signing of the bill in London on grounds that Buhari can exercise his powers as president from any location on earth.

The same argument was made by former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Michael Aondoakaa, when Yar’Adua suddenly disappeared and was rumoured to be in Saudi Arabia. When people asked who would sign the budget if passed, he retorted that it would be taken to him for signature as he could act as president from wherever he chose.

But even if Buhari has followed the constitution scrupulously, the optics don’t look right. The last time he was in the UK on medical leave, he sent back aides who had brought papers for his signature – telling them to go to the man who was in-charge. Perhaps, today Osinbajo isn’t Acting President as he was then.

Or, maybe the amended Deep Offshore Bill was time-bound and needed to be signed in a hurry, and only by the president, to meet some National Assembly requirement.

In the absence of clearer insight there is plenty of room for speculation as the intriguing ahead of 2023 kicks in.

Buhari and his advisers should also understand that legalese is not always adequate to explain away awkward moves in a political environment.

Festus Eriye

 

THE ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has been handed an unnecessary political and moral dilemma due to the unforced error of Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello and the House of Assembly, crudely forcing out erstwhile Deputy Governor, Simon Achuba.

Against the backdrop that in a little under four weeks it goes into a tough gubernatorial contest, it defies logic that they would manufacture a needless controversy over an issue that has been simmering harmlessly forever.

Achuba who had been neutralized politically by Bello, would have disappeared into the sunset as the first term ebbed away. So what was the mad rush to oust him? In what way was his humiliation going to be a plus at the November 16 polls?

Now Bello has handed the opposition a negative talking point that they can bang on about until voting day.

APC’s national leadership must be squirming in embarrassment over the morality and legality of what has been done in Lokoja. This is a party that sold itself as the platform of ‘change.’ It was going to do things differently from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) which it has consistently defined as the authors and finishers of impunity.

But even in the annals of dodgy impeachments, what the Kogi State House of Assembly has pulled off stands out.

We all howled when in October 2006, former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration superintended the impeachment of then Governor Joshua Dariye by just eight members of the 24-man Plateau State House of Assembly.

Earlier in January that same year, the PDP regime executed a similar stunt in Oyo State, when then Governor Rasheed Ladoja found himself out on his ears after a minority of the state’s legislature ‘impeached’ him. The brazen illegality was quickly enforced by the police under orders from Abuja.

Ladoja troubles began after he boldly advised Obasanjo to perish the thought of seeking a third term in office.

The courts would later upturn the so-called impeachments, to the shame of the former president and his PDP government. But the example they set has been copied a couple of times since by politicians who want to achieve a certain end.

In Edo State, APC National Chairman, Adams Oshiomhole, finds himself locked in a political arm-wrestling match with Governor Godwin Obaseki. The most recent expression of the conflict was when nine members of the 24-man state legislature gathered together at night to elect a new Speaker.

The bone of contention remains the legality of the governor’s undated proclamation letter which also didn’t specify a time. The pro-Oshiomhole group argue that it was clearly designed to outsmart them and allow Obaseki’s choice for Speaker to emerge.

The APC chairman has not stopped complaining about the ‘illegality’ of the process – even talking about being ashamed of what was playing out in the party in his home state.

With the party facing a dicey contest in Kogi would Oshiomhole and other APC leaders find the voice to denounce Achuba’s unusual ouster in the same vociferous manner they have condemned events in the Edo legislature?

Even more surprising is the fact the Chief Judge agreed to provide legitimacy to a questionable process by swearing-in erstwhile Chief of Staff, Edward Onoja, as the new Deputy Governor.

He may argue that he hasn’t been asked to adjudicate on the legality of the impeachment, but simply to execute the duty placed on him and other judicial officers to administer the oath of allegiance and the oath of office by Section 185 (2) of the 1999 Constitution.

But surely as a judicial officer he understands that everything proceeding from a non-existent foundation would collapse under legal scrutiny.

Section 188 (8) and (9) of the constitution clearly states that the impeachment process dies in its tracks if the panel raised by the Chief Judge doesn’t find against the accused.

So on what basis did the assembly proceed beyond a desperate need to please the governor who wanted his deputy removed by all means?

I am sure the Kogi legislators understand the import of Section 188 and its likely implication for their action. But they still went ahead and broke the law. In this case the desire to please one man became more compelling than fidelity to the constitution they swore to protect and uphold.

It has often been said that impeachment is largely a political process, although the procedure for bringing it to pass is clearly spelt out and must be followed scrupulously if it is to stand.

The legislators who lent themselves to do the governor’s bidding would have cynically reckoned that even if the courts void their action, Achuba would have been long since gone. At best he would get his outstanding entitlements to salve his wounds.

In the past, nothing ever happened to those whom the courts found have violated the constitution. This is because there is no specific legal provision for punishing this very grave offence.

Obasanjo did it in the case of Dariye and Ladoja and got away with it. He is still walking free, pontificating about democratic best practices!

Bello may be re-elected and he, too, would be parading himself as a “progressive governor.” All the members of the state assembly complicit in this embarrassing episode would also continue making ‘laws’ for others to obey.

The Kogi case is one of the clearest illustrations of how some governors transform into tin pot despots who cobble together state assemblies they can put under their thumb.

If the Achuba impeachment is left to stand, another power-drunk individual would be tempted to try an even greater outrage soon. The initiative, however, lies with the one who has been injured to seek legal remedy. Thereafter, the federal legislative must step in.

If our democracy is to grow, the National Assembly should amend the relevant sections of the constitution with suitable deterrents to check governors and presidents who think they are bigger than the constitution.

As for the APC, it must speak against what has happened if it is retain the moral right to call PDP names. It must also find a meaningful way to censure all who participated in the funny ‘impeachment’ as a signal that it doesn’t approve of this constitutional rape.

 

GIVEN his man of the people image, it is hard to paint President Muhammadu Buhari as disconnected from the masses he governs.

Time and again, he has proven at the polls that he has an unusual connection with common folk – especially in the northern parts of the country.

At political rallies or public functions, the mere mention of his name throws people into delirious fits.

It is certainly not because he doles out money to them. If anything, he never ceases to remind his followers that he has nothing material to give them. Perhaps his strange charisma lies in his reputation for plain-speaking.

A straight-shooter certainly is a breath of fresh air in an environment where politicians are better known for bending the truth and speaking from both sides of the mouth.

But sometimes, the line that separates bluntness from insensitivity is wafer-thin. Some comments of the president make him appear insensitive and uncaring concerning the day-to-day plight of the average Nigerian. They create the impression of distance from his people’s reality.

The presidency is an artificial environment that separates its occupants from truth. Those who are closest to power often find it extremely difficult to speak truth to power, thinking instead that a fawning servility is the best way to affirm loyalty to their principal.

Even the most well-meaning of leaders have been negatively affected by prolonged stay in such an environment. Could the president be coming down with a dose of ‘Aso Rocktivitis?’

One recent comment of Buhari that makes you wonder if he’s drifting out of touch concerns what to do about the thousands of failed federal roads across the country.

They are to be found in major cities and are the arteries that connect the states. While some like the Lagos-Ibadan and Lagos-Abeokuta expressways have started receiving attention, lots more are abandoned in their sorry state with little hope of rehabilitation in the horizon.

Works and Housing Minister, Babatunde Fashola, at a recent interaction with a House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee on Abandoned Federal Government Projects, predictably faced questions about the condition of roads.

He gave an answer that was partly revealing but ultimately depressing. The summary was that weighed down by a mountain of debts and claims by state governors, Buhari had virtually drawn a line in the sand.

“Tell them not to fix my roads again if they’re going to claim compensation. If you want to fix it and not ask for compensation, send me what you want to do. But if you want compensation, go and mind your business while I mind my business. This is because I have inherited enough debts,” he quoted the president as saying.

He reiterated this position at another National Assembly encounter related to defence of the allocation to his ministry in the 2020 budget.

To his credit, Buhari did pay off the claims for refunds that he met when he assumed office. Fashola confirmed that out of a demand for N1 trillion, the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) certified only N454 billion – the bulk of which has been paid to the claimants.

However, the way forward is now more complex with the president insisting he wouldn’t take on additional debt even when the states are doing him a favour.

These last few weeks in Lagos, millions of commuters have had a torrid time trapped for hours in monster traffic jams largely caused by cavernous potholes. The hapless passenger who has to suffer this for days going and coming from work doesn’t know whether the road he’s grounded on is federal or state-owned.

They can’t relate to the game-playing that separates political assets and responsibilities but doesn’t address their pain. Abuja is thousands of kilometers away, but there is a governor in the theatre of their suffering – a handy target for venting their frustrations.

In better times, one or two governors who presided over states with healthy finances, took the position that they would fix the roads – even if the federal government refuses to pay back. Their argument was that they had to act because their people were the ones using the roads.

Unfortunately, the times are hard and many states are in dire straits. Not too many can afford to be that generous anymore – not even the so-called buoyant ones – given the pressure on their finances by competing needs.

It is certainly not fair to ask a governor who used state resources to deal with a federal problem in his territory not to ask for a refund.

The president reportedly said if you are thinking of asking for your money back, just leave ‘my roads’ alone. That position suggests that the federal government has the capacity to carry the burden. We know it doesn’t.

Nigeria doesn’t have enough right now to fund its institutions and fix critical infrastructure. Allocation for the Works and Housing ministry in the 2020 budget is a trifling N262 billion. This, as Fashola has pointed out, cannot even clear the debts on ground, not to talk of initiating new projects.

Lack of funds is partly why federal roads across the country are the way they are. Out of desperation states are forced to step in because people cannot move and businesses are suffering. For as long as this persists, the economy will suffer – and that is elementary.

If states are offering to help, it is wrongheaded to discourage or frustrate them.

If the new policy is truly just about the debt burden then there’s a way around it. It is something that can be addressed gradually as the country’s finances improve. After all, a lot of the refunds made by Buhari were racked up under the Goodluck Jonathan administration.

Like most things Nigerian, there is the fear the some put up bogus claims in a bid to rip off the government. But this can be easily addressed by making the process so rigorous that it deflates any padding.

Even with the creative solutions that this government has come up with like the Sukuk bonds, it still doesn’t have enough to keep the roads in the shape that allows people and goods to move around seamlessly.

The president needs all the help he can get; he needs all the bright ideas people can think up to address the road decay. What he doesn’t need is wrongheaded posturing that only makes life worse for the people whose cause he claims to champion.

 

Festus Eriye

 

There was a time when Nigeria’s booming population could have been referred to as a ticking time bomb. The bomb has since exploded but we didn’t understand what happened because it crept up on us. Now, we must confront the diverse consequences of our carefree procreation.

A huge population can be an asset if a country has sound economic foundations that make for continuing prosperity. In this case the large numbers become a powerhouse market.

But an exploding and impoverished population is a nightmare that would soon lead to an implosion because it cannot sustain its hordes.

On Monday, at the 25th Nigerian Economic Summit (NES) held in Abuja, the Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II, described our population as a liability to the country. He is absolutely correct.

As shameful as it is, we don’t have credible figures because censuses over the years became tools for jockeying for ethnic and political advantage.

So we must rely on projections. UN estimates put our population as of 2019 at 200.96 million – making us the 7th most populous nation on earth.

At independence in 1960 we were a country of just 45.2 million people. The National Bureau of Statistics put our population as high as 166.2 million as of 2012. So in the fifty-two years in between our numbers ballooned by 268%.

The scary part going by these projections is that by 2050, this nation could have 390 million residents! Bear in mind that while we are multiplying, the entire landmass remains static at approximately 923,768 square kilometres. A significant chunk of this space is uninhabitable – given climate change and the relentless encroachment of the Sahara Desert.

We are already noticing the impact as dislocated people seeking succour down south, compete for land and limited resources with the locals.

Sanusi, in his intervention at the NES event, attributed the spate of kidnapping, armed robbery, insurgency, farmer-herder conflict to the rate of population growth.

He said: “Nigeria’s population is currently a liability because the root cause of problems such as kidnapping, armed robbery, Boko Haram, drug addiction are all tied to the population that we have and the question is how do you turn that into a productive one.”

My first suggestion is we need a national consensus that our population growth rate has become an emergency that has to be addressed without delay. You don’t get that sense of urgency listening to our leaders – whether in the National Assembly or Presidency – lay out their policy priorities.

It’s nice to know that one or two grand bridges or kilometres of roads are being built. But it doesn’t matter how many jobs are created or how many hospitals and houses are constructed, they would never be enough if we don’t rein in our present growth rate.

As pressure on available infrastructure and limited opportunities mount, desperation also increases. Those who are left behind sooner or later venture into crime. The more daring are fleeing to the four corners of the globe to build a life for themselves.

Unfortunately, most nations are struggling to sustain their own population and the surging numbers of foreigners heading their way from countries like Nigeria, is putting their systems under considerable strain. The recent anti-immigrant sentiment that we’ve seen in countries like the US, Italy, South Africa and elsewhere is down to this.

We are partly where we are today because in the boom years of the 70s, our leaders were not visionary enough to foresee the problem that lay ahead. They were satisfied with basking in accolades about being the ‘Giant of Africa.’ Roads and other facilities were built without a sense that a decade or two down the line they wouldn’t be enough to cater for a larger population.

It wouldn’t be totally correct to say that the governments of the 80s and 90s didn’t recognise that there was trouble ahead. The question is what did they do about it? Were they sufficiently disturbed to take action?

The military regime of former President Ibrahim Babangida did take a half-hearted stab at the problem with a campaign that sought to limit Nigerians to families of four. Designed to get people to enlist to the idea by persuasion, it came to nothing.

The same challenges that existed back then are alive and well today. Any attempt to seriously control growth would immediately face the formidable obstacles of cultural practices and religious beliefs.

But we are beginning to see families limit the number of children they have in the face of the astronomical cost of raising them. Economics is fast becoming a factor in the matter – but not enough.

We still have too many among our elite who think that because they have the means, they must sire enough children to populate a village. There are also individuals blessed with beautiful girls, but keep procreating in search of a supposedly ‘superior’ male child.

On the flip side is the beggar who has three or four wives, when the only means of sustenance is the goodwill of strangers who may drop a dime in his plate. The upshot is we are daily building a pool of people who ultimately become a menace to society.

That Nigeria has to develop an aggressive new population control policy has become imperative.

The jury is still out as to whether China’s one-child policy was a good idea. Its implementation may have been harsh and extreme, but it prevented 400 million births and threw open employment opportunities for millions across the country.

The policy has since been relaxed and couples may now have up to two children. We don’t have to copy their example wholesale, but we can adopt the good things they did.

We may choose to offer new families the choice of limiting their size to two or three children and incentivise the policy. Families can get scholarships, free healthcare and tax relief for buying into the programme.

It may take a while to seep through to the grassroots, but a committed government that sees the danger that is already upon us, would try anything.

But first we must organise a credible national census that doesn’t make provision for questions about ethnicity and faith, instead it focuses on settling the critical issue of how many we truly are.