Category: Niyi Akinnaso

AMERICAN President, Donald Trump, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, are political buddies in more ways than one. They are both heads of government in their respective countries and are friends of some sort. But, far more than that, they are both conservatives, who pander to the extreme or ultra right wing of their political parties. It may not be wrong to also label them as autocrats.

They both share a characteristic that is disruptive to democracy: Each is determined to govern as an unchallenged ruler, pushing the guardrails of democratic norms beyond their limits. No wonder they are pitted against the courts and against public opinion at home and abroad. There are lessons to learn from their political ordeals.

Today, they are both allies in crime, being embroiled in one type of criminal misconduct or the other, each serious in its own way. Trump is facing impeachment and other problems, while Netanyahu is facing possible jail time over corruption charges.

Donald Trump, variously described in the press as a bully, racist, misogynist, and liar, is facing multiple battles, including efforts to keep Americans in the dark over his financial records; lingering questions over obstruction of justice during special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of his campaign’s collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election from which he profited; and the impeachment battle over Ukraine.

With regard to Ukraine, Trump is accused of using a back channel, led by his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to persuade the Ukrainian government to announce investigation into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Neither men is known to have committed any offense nor is Trump interested in the investigation per se.

Rather, his interest is in the public announcement of the investigation in exchange for American aid of nearly $400 million already appropriated and approved by Congress. Although Trump prevented government witnesses from testifying before Congress, many of those who defied his order confirmed that Trump withheld the aid until the announcement of the investigation was made. Trump hurried released the money only after it became public that a whistleblower had notified Congress of the clandestine arrangement in a phone call by Trump to the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Put quite simply, Trump wanted to use the announcement of the investigation in his campaign against Joe Biden, who is running for President on the Democrat’s side. In addition to seeking dirt on his political opponent, Trump’s action is viewed as bribery, that is, an exchange of A for B.

The House of Representatives responded with the impeachment hearings, which were concluded last week. The articles of impeachment are being drafted, and will be submitted to the Judiciary Committee of the House. If Trumped is impeached, the case then moves to the Senate for trial. If found guilty, he will be removed from office.

In a case brought by Congress before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over Trump’s order preventing former White House counsel Don McGahn from testifying during the impeachment hearings, the Judge issued a stunning rebuke of Trump. In ordering McGahn to testify, the Judge said: “Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings”. It surely was a stern warning to a President that has hardly played by the rules.

The above notwithstanding, Trump’s removal from office is viewed as a long short, because the Senate, which is vested with the power of removal, is controlled by his political party, the Republican Party. So far, the party has stood by him, not because they don’t frown (at least privately) at his misconduct, but because they don’t want to lose power at the centre.

Netanyahu’s case is probably more serious because he could be sent to jail, if found guilty. He was indicted last week on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. In a statement reminiscent of the American judge’s rebuke of Trump, the Israeli Attorney General, Avichai Mandelblit said: “The public interest requires that we live in a country where no one is above the law”.

In some respects there are striking similarities in the charges against Trump and Netanyahu. They are both accused of bribery. Trump is accused of using his official position to seek from a foreign government personal favours that would benefit him politically, while Netanyahu is alleged of giving or offering lucrative official favours to several media tycoons in exchange for favourable news coverage or gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Both leaders have reacted similarly to their predicament with defiance and denial. They both dismissed the allegations against them, arguing that they were built on lies and political animosity. Even more strikingly, they both called for the investigation of the investigators!

It is, therefore, not surprising that Trump was the only major world leader, who supported Netanyahu’s move of the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to the occupied territory in Jerusalem. Both men acted in concert to defy a standing UN resolution 151-6: “Any actions by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem were illegal null and void”.

There are many lessons to learn from the behaviours of Trump and Netanyahu and their political troubles. First, it is quite clear from the foregoing that democracy dies in the hands of leaders, who fail to govern by the rules but to rule as autocrats. Both of these leaders are not only killing democracy at home by acting above the rule of law but also by defying the international community. It is a lesson for political parties to choose their candidates carefully to avoid putting autocrats in office.

Second, in the case of Trump, the House of Representatives is doing its oversight duty of keeping the executive accountable. Their effort may be regarded as partisan, partly because the House is controlled by Democrats and partly because Trump’s primary offense is the attempt to dig up dirt against one of their own. Nevertheless, it would be a travesty of democracy and of justice were Trump allowed to continue to set his own rules.

Third, the indictment of a sitting Prime Minister makes Netanyahu’s case very interesting, the more so that he is the first Israeli Prime Minister to be so indicted while in office. It says a lot about the justice system in Israel and the courage of the Attorney General, whatever his political leaning.

 

WE are about the enter the annual harmattan season with its dry, dusty, and disruptive wind. As indicated in this column last week, people, crops, and even trees will be stressed during the harmattan. Some people may die as a result, while crops will wither. Even erstwhile strong tree trunks may break.

On several occasions this year, Nigerians experienced varying degrees of stress from another kind of harmattan, that is, election harmattan. Just as the harmattan proper is a blight on the weather, so is election harmattan a blight on Nigerian democracy.

Last Saturday, November 16, 2019, election harmattan gripped Kogi and Bayelsa states during the governorship election in both states. It was characterized by thuggery, gun touting, gun shootings, vote-buying, vote rigging, ballot box snatching, intimidation, and other electoral malpractices.

At the end of the day, several fatalities and many injuries were recorded. And nobody was spared, from INEC officials and politicians to observers and innocent voters. It was yet another blight on democracy.

The conduct of both elections and the conditions under which they were held left far too many questions unanswered. For example, the Inspector General of Police boasted of deploying over 60,000 police officers to both states to provide security during the elections. What did they do?

Well, according to various civil society groups, which monitored the election, including the Centre for Democracy and Development and the Centre for Citizens with Disabilities, security agencies, including the police, were complicit in the malpractices that enveloped the elections in Kogi and Bayelsa. True, this has been the pattern since the 1999 elections but special concerns were raised this time around because the malpractices were excessive and involved fatalities.

These observations were corroborated by Diplomatic Watch, comprising the European Union Delegation, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In one voice, this consortium of international observers, which has monitored Nigeria’s elections since 1999, condemned the atrocities they witnessed during the Kogi and Bayelsa.

It is most unfortunate that the combined efforts of the presidency and the legislature since 1999 have not translated to desirable policies and laws guiding electoral processes in the country. True, in acknowledgement of the flawed election that brought him to power, late President Umaru Yar’Adua did set up a panel on electoral reform, led by Justice Mohammed Uwais. The panel’s recommendations were warmly received by most observers, including civil societies and even many politicians. Nevertheless, Yar’Adua only sent to the legislature the recommendations he cherry-picked.

His successor, former President Goodluck Jonathan forwarded the full report to the legislature. However, the legislature chose to subsume what was sent to them to their or agenda. Instead of following through on the full report as demanded by the public, Jonathan’s successor, President Muhammadu Buhari, shifted his focus to the Independent National Electoral Commission, because he was saddled with an uncooperative and self-serving legislature.

It is, therefore, doubly unfortunate that INEC has not been able to implement existing laws to desirable levels, despite billions and billions of Naira allocated to the Commission over the last 20 years! The huge expenditure on elections notwithstanding, electoral materials continue to be delivered late to polling stations or not at all. Card readers continue to fail. And the voting process, voting conditions, and the laborious process of manual collation of election results continues to be open to all kinds of abuse.

It is important, however, to also emphasize that politicians have a huge share of the blame game in Kogi and Bayelsa as in previous elections. They recruited the thugs and armed them; doled out the money for vote-buying; and greased the palms of security agents, willing INEC officials, and temporary staff, including members of the Youth Corps.

The politicians’ assault on elections is made all the more possible because of the abject poverty in the land and extensive rural illiteracy. The urban poor and rural voters are willing to sell their votes for a loaf of bread. The same factors underly the recruitment into thuggery and partisan wars, even when the fighters may not be members of the party they are fighting for and even though they may not even survive the war.

Theirs is not a fight for ideology or the people’s welfare. It is a fight for bread and their own welfare. There are thugs today, who live large and ride flashy cars, because they live on their sponsoring party’s largesse. They, too, often switch parties, along with their political sponsors. And they move on to another politician when their sponsor loses an election.

The same material motive underlies the politicians’ do-or-die approach to elections. After 20 years of democracy, a group of politicians has been bred, which now takes politics as a profession. These are politicians, who have developed the Nigerian kind of political culture in which the politician lives big-SUVs, police orderlies, siren-blowing pilot vehicles, and, in no time, big houses.

Once this lifestyle is tasted, it becomes difficult to “live below standard”. As a result of this mindset, the politicians do everything they can to retain their seat. Those who view this lifestyle from outside also look to politics as passport to wealth. They, too, do everything they can to win an election. That’s why no seat is more keenly contested than that of the executive, which controls resources, that is, the presidency or the governorship.

The atrocities associated with the Kogi and Bayelsa elections should not be viewed in isolation. They are part of a pattern established since 1999. The cumulative effect of this pattern on Nigeria’s image cannot be over-estimated. It could be deduced from the report of Diplomatic Watch on the Kogi and Bayelsa reports.

That image cannot be changed overnight. It should begin with changes to our electoral process, to the role and functions of politicians in our democracy, and to their access to the treasury.

True, the United States, whose constitution we copied, has been at it for over 200 years. Nevertheless, at no time was their process of democratic renewal this messy. Right from the beginning, they had their priorities right. Just one example: The President of the United States earns $400,000 annually, whereas the President of the University of Pennsylvania earns $3.9 million annually.

By Niyi Akinnaso

The harmattan proper is a dry, dusty wind, which blows from the Sahara over the West African coast into the Gulf of Guinea from late November to mid-March.

It is a dry wind that can increase the risk of fire, cause severe damage to crops, and even break the trunks of trees. The heavy amount of dust in the wind can limit visibility, leading to cancelled or diverted flights. The drastic drop in humidity also comes with various health risks, including nosebleeds, dryness of the skin and eyes, and respiratory problems.

Here in Nigeria, the dryness of the wind is foregrounded in the name given to the harmattan period. It is known as the dry or harmattan season, as opposed to the wet or rainy season, which typically lasts from March till October.

As indicated above, the harmattan season can be quite disruptive, despite its relatively shorter duration. Its disruptiveness is captured in the “Nigerian Harmattan” as a metaphor for the citizens’ discontent with the situation of the country. As pointed out last week, the protests now spreading across the globe are manifestations of discontent (see the global spread of protests, The Nation, November 5, 2019).

There are two take-aways from the global protests. One, in country after country, every protest is rooted in some domestic condition. In other words, every protest is local, to parody Tip O’Neal, the famous Speaker of the US House of Representatives, who popularized the cliché, all politics is local.

Two, political or economic considerations underlie most protests. While the early protests in modern times were in response to political considerations, most protests these days tend to be in response to economic conditions as we saw recently in the Middle East, in South America, and even in Europe.

Of course, political and economic considerations tend to be entangled, because economic conditions often result from government policy.

Protests in Nigeria have followed this trend. Discontent has been expressed in various ways since Nigeria attained independence in 1960. For example, violent post-election protests with disastrous consequences occurred in 1962-65; 1983; and 2011. Thousands were killed and property worth billions of Naira destroyed in these protests.

In general, election periods in Nigeria constitute the harmattan of the country’s democracy. In addition to physical violence, electoral litigation is a further indication of discontent with the political process. The 2019 general elections alone attracted nearly 800 court cases!

The political protests of the 1960s culminated in a military coup in January 1966, which in turn led to a series of counter-coups, resulting in prolonged military rule.

The first counter-coup of July 1966 precipitated a separatist movement, which culminated in secession about a year later. It took nearly three years of intense civil war to suppress it. A vestige of the secession is the separatist movement, the Indigenous People of Biafra.

Discontent is also at the heart of the lingering calls for restructuring the country in order to reorganize its governance architecture, by devolving more powers to the federating units. It is argued that the federating units should have more control of their resources, police force, and financial management in order to accelerate development and self-actualization, while also promoting peaceful co-existence.

Besides, protests have been staged or discontent expressed in other forms against rising tariffs and taxes, against rising costs of living, against rising petrol prices, against rising youth unemployment, and against legislators’ fat salaries and allowances. Highlights of these protests include the Agbekoya revolt against tax in 1968 and the Occupy Nigeria revolt against the removal of fuel subsidy in 2012.

In addition to politics and the economy, religion and security have also been motivations for protests. As recently as July this year, the Shiites’ protests for the release of their leader, Ibrahim Zakzaky, from detention turned deadly as the police resisted the protests with tear gas and live ammunition. The Shiites’ prolonged protests were viewed as a further security threat by a government confronted simultaneously by insurgency and kidnappings.

Just over a year earlier, in May 2018, Nigerian Catholic bishops led a nation-wide peaceful protest against repeated killings by Muslim herdsmen of predominantly Christian farmers in conflicts over fertile land. The herdsmen want to feed their cattle but the farmers want to protect their land and crops. The Benue state government and leading sociocultural organizations from the South also protested against the government’s lethargic response to the conflicts.

The herdsmen were also associated with rampant kidnappings, which Boko Haram shot into global news in the kidnapping of over 200 schoolgirls in 2014. The Bring Back Our Girls movement developed in response to this kidnapping and led several protests against the government, demanding the release of the girls from captivity.

True, many of the protests mentioned so far have involved casualties and property damage, none has succeeded in completely changing the nature and structure of government, save for the series of military coups and counter-coups between 1966 and 1999. Omoyele Sowore, activist and founder of the anti-corruption online news service, Sahara Reporters, as well as former presidential candidate, set out to do just that this past August.

In preparing supporters for his #Revolution Now protests, Sowore declared: “This series of marches and rallies will continue until we have the Nigeria of our dreams … there is no respect for our dignity as a people. For you to get back your dignity, do what they’re doing in Hong Kong, in Algeria, in Tunisia and in Puerto Rico”. He then added: “Shut down this unworkable system …The revolution is now.”

However, Sowore was quickly arrested, to which The Premium Times editorial responded: “Without a contest of ideas, fueled by dissent, Nigeria will grow more ignorant, timid, and ultimately, impoverished”. The various protests since 1999 may have been suppressed by the government. Nevertheless, they are a gathering, disruptive storm, like the harmattan. With rising income inequality and about 90 million Nigerians living in extreme poverty; rising food, rent, and healthcare costs; deteriorating infrastructure; plummeting education standards; controversial democratic transitions; and rising youth unemployment, the Nigerian Harmattan may well be around the corner. It will be fueled by the teeming unemployed youth population, do-or-die political thugs, so-called area boys, and social media.

Niyi Akinnaso

 

IN political semiotics, protests are signs, that is, signifiers, of discontent. They take place everywhere—at home, at school, at work, and within larger political units, from the local government to the national level. Protests even could be, and have been, staged against supra-national organizations, such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.

Wherever there are resources to be shared or distributed, protests must be expected by those who feel cheated, shortchanged, sidelined, or oppressed in some way. This is especially the case where such resources are kept disproportionately in a few hands, That’s why political scientist and astute ethnographer, James Scott, describes protests as “weapons of the weak” in his classic study of peasant resistance against the rich in a small Malaysian town.

Such protests could be covert or peaceful, as in the Malaysian case Scott studied, or overt or violent, as in the ongoing Lebanon protests, depending on the nature of society, the volatility of the political and economic situation, and how soon and how well the protests are resolved. In some cases, protests could lead to civil or even international wars.

Protests have been with us from the beginning. In modern times, they escalated with protests against slavery and colonialism. The American War of Independence (1775-1783) could be regarded as a watershed, which crystallized a series of protests against increased taxation imposed by the British colonial government. Ultimately, Americans rejected the monarchy and replaced it with a Republic. The French Revolution (1789-1799), which followed a few years later, was also a protest against the French monarchy and economic oppression, typified by increased taxation and rising food costs.

The American and French protests would be replicated centuries later in various colonies for similar reasons. At the end of the day, more independent nations developed than there were before the independence movements. The demand for freedom from slavery, oppression, and colonial exploitation became a universal ideal.

Nevertheless, internal colonialism, capitalist exploitation, poor governance, and corruption also became widespread, leading to increased protests everywhere. Globalization has also come with its own discontents. More and more countries are resisting immigrants. So has terrorism led to discrimination against certain ethnic groups and certain religions.

Moreover, some older nations, such as China, do not wish to let go of some old dominions, such as Hong Kong, which was ceded to the British Empire in 1842. True, the British returned Hong Kong to Chinese rule in 1947, over 100 years of British rule has changed the face of Hong Kong and the orientation of her people. Hence the ongoing agitation for democracy and self rule, triggered by an extradition bill rejected by the people.

True, political and economic reasons underly most protests today, the dimensions have since broadened. It is not simply because the gap between the rich and the poor has widened but also because the number of people living below the poverty line has increased, partly because of population explosion and partly because of increasing unemployment figures, especially among the youth population.

Thus, the reasons for protests today range from the desire for self rule and self actualization to the crave for the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing. The people want a change from temporary economic benefits to gainful employment. They want a change from pretend democracy to true democracy and from pretend federalism to true fiscal federalism. They also want governments to change policies that put the people or a certain proportion at a disadvantage.

These demands came to a head nine years ago in Tunisia and spread into what has come to be known as the Arab Spring. Today, there are similar protests, albeit for slightly different reasons, in various countries around the globe, including Hong Kong, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Chile, and Uruguay. And we should not forget about the ongoing Yellow Vest protests, which began nearly a year ago in France on November 17, 2018.

Nigeria is not exempt from this global trend. To a reasonable degree, Nigeria provides the archetype of the trend. Nearly everything that happens elsewhere happens here. And nearly everything (good or bad) that happens elsewhere has a Nigerian participant.

Here in Nigeria, the rising costs of food, housing, and other commodities have even thrown some erstwhile members of the middle class out of position. You probably know of one or two previous car owners, who now travel by public transport, or of another one who moved into a smaller apartment or even a single room to avoid rising rent increases.

Perhaps what is most detestable to the rising youth population in search of employment in Nigeria is the obscene lifestyle of the politicians, businessmen, contractors, and others who are believed to feed fat on government.

Remember the guy you knew a few years ago, who could barely get his car running? He comes home now in a new Jeep, complete with backup vehicles, one or two patrol vehicles, and police orderlies. Your stomach turns when you recall that this guy probably didn’t even win his election fair and square.

And then you hear of billions of Naira confiscated today and billion-Naira estates and jewelry confiscated tomorrow.

Then you visit your old primary or secondary school, not to speak of your old university. And you want to cry. They are all worse than you left them. OK. Some have been renovated or rebuilt. But what about teachers? Not enough or not well trained. No appropriate facilities for teaching and learning.

The road to the school is bad as are the roads between towns and cities. Highway repairs take forever, taking with them many human lives. Accident. Kidnapping. Robbery. They all happen on the roadways.

And the unemployment rate keeps rising, in tow with the rising, poorly trained, youth population.

True, various protests staged in Nigeria since the return to democracy in 1999 have been shut down one way or the other. Nevertheless, unless drastic measures are set in motion to reverse the present negative political and economic trends, the Nigerian Harmattan will surely come. It will be the Nigerian version of the Arab Spring. It may not be this year. It may not be next year. It may not be during the life of this administration. But it will happen, unless we begin to change course.

Niyi Akinnaso

 

WITHIN the last one year alone, the Federal Government and several state governments have held retreats for their new Cabinets. The Osun Cabinet retreat stood apart in several ways. It was held last week at the MicCom Golf Resort in Ada, State of Osun, from Tuesday, October 15, through Friday, October 18, 2019.

Unlike other Cabinet retreats, the Ada retreat brought together political appointees, featuring incoming Commissioners and Special Advisers, and top bureaucrats, featuring Permanent Secretaries, Executive Secretaries and General Managers of various Ministries, Extra-Ministerial Departments and Agencies. The goal is to promote shared ideals and values as well as forge cooperation between political officeholders and public servants in delivering the Development Agenda carefully established by the Gboyega Oyetola administration.

Here’s how Oyetola rationalised the format of the retreat in his opening remarks, in which he unveiled the Development Agenda around which the retreat was organised: “It is certain that political appointees cannot succeed alone. To succeed, we must work closely with our colleagues in the bureaucracy and forge a shared vision, mission and passion that prioritise the interest of our people and the development of our beloved state above primordial sentiments”.

Prior to the retreat, the administration restructured the ministries and carefully worked out the functions and priorities of each Ministry, Department, and Agency in line with the administration’s Development Agenda. Rather than embark on projects that the administration likes or fancies, it went out to seek the input of stakeholders in two ways.

One, during the Governor’s Thank-You tour of the entire state, the citizens in each Local Government Area were asked to prioritise their demands. Two, at the request of the administration, the UK’s Department of International Development conducted a robust Citizens’ Needs Assessment, compiled LGA by LGA. The data from both sources were aligned with Oyetola’s Campaign Manifesto in developing the mandate and priority agenda for each MDA.

Furthermore, to avoid the historical conflict between Commissioners and Special Advisers, their distinctive functions and mandates were spelt out, even where a Commissioner and one or more Special Advisers were allocated the same Ministry.

The objectives of the retreat included (1) specifications of the priorities and strategic direction of the administration; (2) enhancement of the capacity of political officeholders and key public servants to think and act strategically around the government’s policies, programs, projects, and priorities; (3) deliberation on the most effective ways of delivering political goods to Osun citizens, by aligning budgets with government priority programmes and projects; and (4) adoption of a framework for impact measurement and performance evaluation.

Accordingly, all the 16 substantive retreat sessions were held in plenary in order to promote team-bonding and forge shared vision, values, and passion for service delivery. They were organised around the economy, with particular focus on the place of Osun in the national economy; budget planning and monitoring; the nature and functions of the Executive Council; the role of the bureaucracy in service delivery; how to stay out of trouble by adopting high ethical standards, values, and integrity in governance; service delivery and performance evaluation; and how best to communicate government policies and programmes to the stakeholders in particular and the the general public.

The focus on the economy and revenue generation provided several interesting possibilities for raising the economic profile of the state, which is currently low, although the state has the lowest unemployment rate due to its high investment in social protection initiatives. The possibilities include engagement with potential funding partners, in addition to existing ones. To this end, a robust database was recommended that could facilitate the effective management of donor-supported funds.

Moreover, various ways were discussed by which the state’s Internally Generated Revenue could be accelerated. They include enhancing the value of market places, parks, and transit corridors; revamping the agricultural sector and building on the huge markets for agricultural produce presented by Lagos and Osun’s five neighbouring states of Ogun, Oyo, Kwara, Ekiti, and Ondo; developing Information Technology Hubs across the state for harnessing the youths ICT skills and diverting them from negative enterprises on social media into productive enterprises; developing a robust framework for regulating the mining sector to increase its income generating potential; attracting Foreign Direct Investments, including Diaspora remittances and the floating of the Osun Diaspora Bond; and effectively implementing the Osun Tourism Master Plan in order to leverage on the state’s potential as s cultural destination for global tourism.

Several interesting messages to the incoming members of the Cabinet emerged from the sessions. First, they are entreated to cooperate with the public servants in their ministries for effective service delivery. Second, they are admonished to uphold the principle of confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations and decisions. Third, they are advised to consider themselves as image makers of the state; as such, they should be mindful of what they say or do in public, how they appear and comport themselves, and how they communicate government policies and programmes to their constituencies. Finally, they are advised to relate with their communities and identify with their causes.

The sessions on ethics, communication, and performance evaluation were particularly interesting and valuable. The session on ethics focused on the ethics of implementing civil service rules and financial regulations, while the session on performance evaluation emphasised the need for Osun to develop a robust service delivery and performance evaluation framework. The session on communication highlighted the need for positive image branding for the state through the centralisation of information and the designation of  spokespersons for the effective control of information and its dissemination. The state must avoid being branded by negative press.

A constant fixture throughout the retreat was Governor Oyetola himself. He gave three presentations on (a) the state’s Development Agenda; (b) the ministerial structure and the administration’s development priorities; and (c) the governor’s charge and closing remarks. Even more noticeable was his ubiquitous presence throughout the retreat. He attended all sessions, took copious notes during the proceedings, shared the same meals with the participants, and shared the same hotel. His punctual and regular attendance, his attentiveness, and the commingling with the participants throughout the retreat were outstanding demonstrations of leadership by example.

 

IN a conversation with a retired professional colleague like me, who also writes occasionally on the Nigerian situation, we wondered aloud why the Nigerian press waited for the BBC undercover investigation of sex-for-grade in a Nigerian university before going to town with “wise” commentaries and “know-it-all” editorials on a crime that has bedeviled our universities for decades.

Instead of reflecting on the lack of attention to proper investigation of the problem, some newspaper editors got their team together to catalog old cases of ousted lecturers in sex-for-grade scandals in various institutions. As usual, they were all stories recycled in various newspapers, some well after the assaults had taken place. Beyond chastising randy lecturers and their institutions, there isn’t much to their contributions. Worse still, there is a chance nothing else will be heard of this problem once the ongoing hue and cry dies down. Yet, the problem will persist in our universities unless drastic measures are taken.

My colleague and I were not alone in recognising the dearth of investigative journalism in the Nigerian press. Days after our conversation, Martins Oloja rebuked the Nigerian press for allowing such a gap in our journalism that allowed the BBC to lead the way in the sting operation on sex-for-grade scandals in our universities. He concluded that “the sting operation is, indeed another wake-up call for the Nigerian media . I would like to appeal to media owners and operators especially in Nigeria that the development has exposed a log in our eyes. And so, we need to remove such a reproach that can further diminish our stature as an African giant and tower of strength for the black race” (The Guardian, October 13, 2019).

Nevertheless, I do not share Oloja’s snide remark that the BBC’s sting operation is part of what he calls “the Western media’s strategy to de-market our universities so that their universities will continue to admit students from West Africa”. The remark detracts from his main argument about the dearth of investigative journalism in Nigeria. It also fails to acknowledge the contributions of the government, university unions, and randy lecturers to the de-marketing of Nigerian universities.

If, in fact, the BBC had such a sinister agenda, what do we make of CNN’s agenda in being the first media outfit to send reporters to Chibok in 2014 in the wake of the kidnapping of schoolgirls there by Boko Haram? Who can forget the courage of two female CNN reporters, Isha Sesay and Nima Elbagir, who risked their lives to go to Chibok to uncover details of the abduction and its aftermath?

Fortunately, they did not labour in vain. They jointly won the Peabody Award for meritorious media coverage of the abduction of the Chibok girls, their ordeals, and the struggles for their release. Here’s part of the Peabody citation for their award: “Sesay’s tough, live-TV interviewing, along with high-risk field reporting of Nima Elbagir … and other CNN journalists made the network’s coverage comprehensive and indispensable.” It was common knowledge at that time that many reports in our print and electronic media were no more than spin-offs of the reports by these bold American journalists.

Isha Sessay did not stop there. She continued with investigations, whose findings are now available in her recently published book, titled Beneath the Tamarind Tree: A Story of Courage, Family, and the Lost Schoolgirls of Boko Haram (Hardcover, 382 pages). Like Sesay and Elbagir did in their investigative coverage, Sesay’s book exposes the complicity as well as negligence of the government and its agencies in the Chibok episode. It is a book a Nigerian journalist should have written.

It is not the case, of course, that investigative journalism is completely dead in Nigeria. There have been occasional brilliant cases since Dele Giwa and Newswatch. However, they are few and far between. Why is this so?

The major problem is the fear of reprisal by those who are exposed, especially politicians, businessmen, the government and the security agencies. The reporters fear for their lives, while newspaper publishers are always apprehensive of possible rupture to their bottom-line.

Corruption and, especially, sex scandals happen to be topics affecting not just the individual perpetrators but also the institutions they represent. More importantly, the endemic nature of these problems often promotes indifference or slap-in-the-wrist punishment of offenders, if they are censured at all.

This, however, should not discourage investigative journalism. On the contrary, the way to sidetrack indifference to these problems is to continue to expose them through investigative journalism. Imagine how responsive to normative behaviour and best practices our politicians and businessmen would be if they knew that some undercover reporter might be on their trail.

Another problem with our reporters is poor training and lack of investigative skills and appropriate equipment. You do not launch into the BBC-type investigation without adequate training, equipment, and background ethnographic work. For example, the BBC undercover reporters interviewed many girls and identified prolific sexual predators, before setting them up.

It must be admitted that one of the reasons corruption and sex scandals proliferate in Nigeria is lack of press pressure. Rather than wait to report what has happened, the press should warn on what may happen through investigative journalism. That is the big lesson from the BBC undercover investigation.

That’s why I suggest today that reporters should set up cover in ministries, universities, and businesses of their choice and get to work, gathering data that would enable them to expose corruption, sexual advances, and other untoward behaviours.

At the same time, however, focused attention on the presidency is needed in order to sensitive the political leadership to the dangers of corruption and sex-for-grade on the future of the country. It is not enough for the President to condemn sex-for-grade. He needs to do more. He should be reminded of how Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, revised the fortunes of his country and even neighbouring countries within two years to the point of winning the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

A panel must be set up to collate the findings so far and carry out further investigations on sex-for-grade. The goal will be to provide adequate measures for minimising, if not eradicating, the practice. Unless some drastic measures are taken on the rampant sex-for-grade scandals in our universities, the future of girl-child education, in particular, and manpower development, in general, in this country will be permanently doomed.

 

Niyi Akinnaso

 

Barely a week ago, a 19-year old female student I mentor in a state university called me up early in the morning. She told me of a lecturer, who had singled her out as they walked out of class and asked her to see him in his office. “I haven’t noticed you in this class until today”, he told her. “You should come and see me in my office later”, he concluded. My mentee said she had been reluctant to go and asked me what she should do.

I advised her to go but with her phone recorder turned on and a friend loitering outside in the hallway. Should anything untoward happen, a shout would alert her friend to bang on the door.

She was the first person I called after my wife drew my attention to the jaw-dropping BBC video of a senior university lecturer cum pastor at the University of Lagos, making brute sexual advances to a female journalist posing as a teenage girl seeking admission and of another lecturer making similar advances to another female journalist, posing as an adult student wanting to change her course to the lecturer’s department.

Both cases reminded me of a 2003 a pop song, titled Mr. Lecturer, by Eedris Abdulkareem. Here is an excerpt:

My lecturer wants to have sex with me …

Hey! You girl … what’s your name?

My name is Bimbo, Bimbo Owoyemi

That’s very good, very smooth and very nice

Come and see me immediately in my office.

Bimbo goes to see the lecturer, who then tells her she failed his test and exam, and then added: “You know what to do”, a quid pro quo code for sex for grade.

Sexual advances to female students by male lecturers or staff were not unknown even when I was an undergraduate in the 1960s. However, by the time I joined the teaching staff in the early 1970s, the practice had taken root. Sexual escapades between lecturers and students were going on in the offices and in the few hotels around.

The practice escalated with the inroads of Army officers into the university campuses in the 1970s, more than 30 years before Eedris’s Mr. Lecturer lyric. At that time, it was not unusual for an Army guy to snatch even a lecturer’s student-lover and send her off to London or Paris for a weekend.

What makes lecturer-student sexual encounters different today is fivefold. One, there are widespread across universities, public or private. Two, they are frequent. Three, they are often non-consensual. Four, they are often cases of sex for grade. Five, the offense goes largely unpunished. As a result, the practice is not only rampant today, it seems to have been normalised. Yet, it is a serious breach of professional conduct.

It was only in 2015 that a case of rape of a teenage girl by a part-time lecturer inside a study hall at the University of Lagos came to the limelight. The fellow was arrested by the police, alright, but not much was heard about the case thereafter and no lesson seems to have been learned from it by other lecturers, especially at UNILAG.

Then came the case of Professor Richard Akindele, who was involved in a recorded sex for grade scandal. He was promptly suspended by the university management and eventually dismissed by the Dr. Yemi Ogunbiyi-led Governing Council after investigation. True, the UNILAG management promptly suspended the lecturers involved in the scandal reported in the BBC video, the public awaits the decision of the Dr. Wale Babalakin-led Governing Council of the university.

These cases have serious implications not only for the reputation of the universities involved in the scandals, and of Nigerian universities in general, but also for the public attitude to the quality of Nigerian education and especially of female academic flyers.

Only recently, I was shocked when someone talked down a young lady who had a Second Class Upper degree from a premier university and was looking for a job commensurate with her qualification and degree classification: “A female student? She might have attained the degree classification through sex for grade”. This is a serious indictment of hard-working women, who genuinely deserve their grades and degree classification. Such a comment could only complicate the psychological pain that predatory victims go through.

Sex for grade is only one of the serious ethical problems confronting Nigerian universities today. I have written repeatedly about corruption in university management, from the offices of Principal Officers to the executives of the unions, including the Student Union. Like the sex for grade cases, corruption cases in the universities have festered without due attention or deterrent measures.

Corruption cases involving investigations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission have never gone beyond sensational arrests and court appearances. The kid gloves with which such cases are handled have fueled the militancy of university unions in recent years. This is especially true of the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities, whose members often know about the deployment of resources and the movement of files within the university system.

In 2017, in reaction to cases of corruption involving the management of some Federal Universities, I drew attention to lessons to be learned from Romania, where the negative practices now going on in Nigerian universities have been rampant for quite some time, leading that country to stagnate for years without skilled labour.

The Romanian Academic Society, an education think tank, rose to the challenge by forming the Coalition for Clean Universities, drawing participants from university unions, students, journalists and other stakeholders. A university integrity ranking system was developed whose outcome is used to name and shame institutions that are failing in their duties, as well as to celebrate and spread good practices.

An evaluation team, consisting of both faculty and students, periodically performs a governance audit of public universities, basing its evaluation on four major criteria, namely, transparency and responsiveness; academic integrity; governance quality; and financial management. To this list, we might add gender sensitivity. Appropriate documents are obtained from university management in these areas, followed by a field assessment during which management, academics, administrative staff and students are interviewed. Based on the data obtained, universities are assessed and ranked and the results are made public.

Since the first evaluation in 2009, Romanian universities have improved significantly in the four categories assessed. It is high time a similar system of evaluation was developed in Nigeria. The current practice requiring universities to assess themselves and be corruptly assessed by the NUC, has proved unsuccessful. A broad coalition of stakeholders and independent assessors is sorely needed.