Category: Discourse

By Mohammed Adamu and Lisa Olu Akerele

PREAMBLE

In 1630, during the rush for the ‘New World’, an immigrant Puritan lawyer from England, John Winthrop, sailing aboard a ship named Arbella, delivered to his fellow immigrants, a religious sermon which would become historic for the reason that it elevated a beautiful biblical metaphor of moral exemplary-ness into a secular adage of leadership and development.

John Winthrop had chosen a text out of the book of Matthew (5:14-16), from the ‘Sermon on the Mount’, and in which Jesus was saying:

“A city that is set upon a hill cannot be hid”. Meaning that there’s no hiding place for the one who stands upon the elevated plane. Who dares to climb the moral high ground, like Caesar’s wife, must live above board.

The ‘city upon a hill’ metaphor, which was later adopted by politicians to project America as a beacon of hope, freedom and self government, was excised from a larger biblical piece by Jesus, which read thus:

“You are the light of the world. A city that is set upon a hill cannot be hid. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it giveth light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works”.

And whereas Jesus sounded sanctimonious in the projection of righteous exemplary-ness, quite the flip of it, John Winthrop, in his aboard-the-ship sermon, had parodied Jesus’s text with a more secular undertone that drew the attention of his audience to that famous Robert Ingersoll’s trinity of democratic virtues, namely of “duty, honor and country”.

By the way Winthrop’s parody did not open with Jesus’s existential affirmative of “You are the light of the world”. And perhaps it was because whereas Jesus was addressing a lighted entity which already existed, Winthrop was merely romanticizing the dream of a future America, but which he was already happy enough about, to dress in the figurative words of Jusus.

Said Winthrop: “we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword”.

THE CODE OF PRESIDENTS

And in a rather pleasantly ironic twist of fate, Winthrop had gone to become the first Governor of the Colony of Massachusetts, where he was said to have had the words of the ‘city upon a hill’ metaphor chiseled in stone and donned on the ‘Boston Common’ as a memorial of the dream of the immigrants and as motivation for self governance.

In fact Governor Winthrop would be elected 12 times in a yearly election circle, majorly for his establishment of a ‘conservative aristocratic theocracy’ and for his articulation of individual liberty side by side with the enforcement of ‘civil order’, -a concept which they said had helped to form “the basis of the early American legal system”. It was too, a product of that dream.

The ‘city upon a hill’ metaphor would come to be variously used especially by former American Presidents, and particularly by John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan who had not infrequently used it to inspire leadership, service and development in the American political space.

John Kennedy’s first usage of the ‘City upon a hill’ metaphor, ironically, would be some nearly 300 years after Winthrop, at the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1961, where he read a powerful speech admonishing state assembly lawmakers about leadership and governance across the three branches and the three tiers of government.

Said Kennedy on that occasion: “Today the eyes of people are truly upon us -and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill -constructed and inhabited by men, aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities”.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, in his 1989 Farewell Speech titled ‘The Shining City Upon a Hill’, had uniquely embellished his usage of the metaphor with the anecdotal binoculars of a political seer who proudly said that he saw the vision of an America as:

“a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teaming (he said) with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity”.

And although Kennedy proudly spoke about a nation already sitting ‘upon the mountain top’, Reagan, some ….. later, had the humility to still speak about it as a ‘dream’ in making or as a piece of ‘work’ still in progress. The lesson being: you are never ever done with nation building. And maybe reason too, they say that democracy is a journey, not a destination.

MAY 29TH

This should be the dream of every patriotic Nigerian. Or if for Sunday reasons we had been in a nightmare, let’s all resolve from the 29th of May 2023, to dream a dream.

This should be our dream all, irrespective of tribe and tongue, religion or geography; this should be our dream irrespective of partisan leneage; irrespective of geopolitical differences and notwithstanding even our fiercely contending electoral interests which are before the courts.

It is time we all put our differences away, and maybe for the first time, in unison, began to envisage Nigeria as the ‘City upon a hill’ that God has always intended it to be! It is time we buried the hatchet and unite around the one mutually-beneficial objective of awakening this ‘sleeping giant’, Nigeria, so that it assumes its rightful place as the cynosure of all eyes.

Let May the 29th be the date that we make this solemn promise to ourselves and to our dear country, of unanimously breaking away from our rancorous past and forging a united future whereat, though tribe and tongue may differ, as we are wont to give lip service to, at least in brotherhood yet we should stand.

It is time we inspired ourselves, and claim the glory, as in the pontifical words of the Prince of Peace, Jesus, who affirms we are: “the light of the world”; and that being therefore “A city that is set upon a hill….. In the same way, (we must) let (our) light shine before others, so that they may see (our) good works”.

It is time we reminded ourselves, in the inspiring words of Kennedy, that after May the 29th:

“the eyes of people (will) truly (be) upon us”; and that like Kennedy had said of America some sixty years ago, “our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill -constructed and inhabited by men, aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities”.

We have to let go off the dragging past and move onto a beckoning, promising future. We have severally dreamt the dream of Reagan; it is thus time that we began to build for ourselves the reality of the dream of Reagan, about:

“a tall, proud (Nigeria) built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teaming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity”.

This should be the Nigeria of our dream after May 29.

EPILOGUE

But it is time also that we told ourselves the blunt truth, as in the words of John Winthrop, that after May 29th:

“The eyes of all people shall (not only) be upon us, (but) so that if we (ever) deal falsely with our God in this work (which) we have undertaken.., we shall (continue to) be made a story and a byword”. 

By Festus Keyamo

A Heart Full Of Unquantifiable Gratitude To President Muhammadu Buhari, Gcfr, and recommendation To address The constitutional conundrum of “minister of state”

Being valedictory speech by Festus Keyamo, San as minister of State for Labour and Employment at the council Chambers, Presidential Villa, on Wednesday, May 24, 2023.

  Mr. President, you first appointed me as Minister of State inthe Ministry Niger Delta Affairs in August, 2019 and you later redeployed me as Minister of State in the Ministry of Labour and Employment.

 Today, I cannot find the words to express the depth of my gratitude to you for finding me worthy, out of over two hundred million Nigerians, to be nominated and subsequently appointed to serve as a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. My curriculum vitae has been greatly enhanced – forever.

From my very humble beginnings in a small dusty town in Delta State where I was born and raised by my struggling parents, all the way to the Council Chambers at the Presidential Villa where I had the honour and privilege to participate weekly in decision-making for my country in the last four years, it has been like a fairy tale. I give God all the glory.

What I am about to say, therefore, is not and should not be construed as an indication of ingratitude. Far from it. What I  am about to say is just my own little contribution to our constitutional development as a relatively young democracy and to aid future governments to optimize the performance of those they appoint as Ministers. 2

Mr. President, the concept or designation of “Minister of State”is a constitutional aberration and is practically not working for many so appointed. Successive governments have come and gone and many who were appointed as Ministers of State have not spoken out at a forum such as this because of the risk of sounding ungrateful to the Presidents who appointed them. However, like I said earlier, this is not ingratitude.

As a private citizen, I am on record to have gone to court a number of times to challenge unconstitutional acts of governments for the sake of advancing our constitutional democracy, so it will be out of character for me to have gone through government and be carried away by the pomp of public office and forget my role as a member of the Inner Bar and my self-imposed role over the years as a crusader for democracy and constitutionalism.

Mr. President, I crave your indulgence to explain this constitutional conundrum of “Minister of State”. Sections 147 and 148 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), deal with the appointments and responsibilities of Ministers of the Federation. The said sections state as follows:

Section 147

“(1) There shall be such offices of Ministers of the Government of the Federation as may be established by the President. (2) Any appointment to the office of Minister of the Government of the Federation shall, if the nomination of any person to such office is confirmed by the Senate, be made by the President.

(3) Any appointment under subsection (2) of this section by the President shall be in conformity with 3  the provisions of section 14(3) of this Constitution:- provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the President shall appoint at least one Minister from each State, who shall be an indigene of such State.”

Section 148

“(1) The President may, in his discretion, assign to the Vice-President or any Minister of the Government of the Federation responsibility for any business of the Government of the Federation, including the administration of any department of government.”

 Furthermore, the 7th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides for the Oath of Office to which each Minister must subscribe. There are no different Oaths for “Minister” and “Ministers of State”. They all take the same Oath of Office.

 In addition to the above, the Ministers-designate appear before the Senate and are grilled and cleared AS MINISTERS, not as Ministers in some instances and Ministers of State in some other instances. It is at the point of assignment of portfolios that successive Presidents then reclassified some as “Ministers of State”.

Some may want to justify this by saying the President is given the discretion by the Constitution to assign whatever responsibility(ies) he likes to Ministers. Yes, I concede Mr. President can do that, but not by a designation different from that prescribed by the Constitution. Simply put, it is akin to the President assigning responsibilities to the office of the VicePresident and re-designating that office as “Deputy President” under our present Constitution. That is clearly impossible. Why then should that of the Ministers be different? 4

 What is more, Ministers are appointed pursuant to Section 147(3) of the 1999 Constitution to represent each State of the Federation. Therefore, Ministers sit in Cabinet as the eye of Mr. President in each State of the Federation. It is therefore against the intendment of the drafters of our Constitution for a  representative of a State to be reclassified as against another representative of another State.

 The Schedules of Duties of Ministers and Ministers of State that intend to cure some of these anomalies hardly help the issues. Firstly, the Schedules of Duties are observed more in breach by the Permanent Secretaries and Directors who really cannot be expected to serve two masters. And in any case, many of the roles of both Ministers are so ambiguous that the bureaucrats would always interpret them to satisfy the ones they see as the “Senior Ministers” or “main Ministers” for fear of being persecuted by them.

  Secondly, parts of the Schedules of Duties seem to suggest that the Ministers can delegate functions to the Ministers of State. This is a constitutional impossibility. It is only Mr. President that can delegate Presidential powers as one cannot delegate what he does not have (delegatus non potest delegare). In any case, how can someone who took the same Oath of Office with another delegate functions to that other?

 Thirdly, the Schedules of Duties leave so many gaping holes that bring conflicts between the Ministers and Ministers of State. In addition, the provision that “Ministers of State” cannot present Memos in Council, except with the permission of the Minister, is another anomaly. It means the discretion of the Minister of State is subsumed in the discretion of the Minister, yet both of them represent different States in Cabinet.

 It also follows that it would be difficult to assess the individual performances of the Ministers of State since their discretion is shackled under the discretion of the Ministers. Original ideas 5 developed by a Minister of State are subject to clearance by another colleague in Cabinet before they can sail through for   consideration by Council. The drafters of our Constitution obviously did not intend this.

 As a result, many Ministers of State are largely redundant, with many going to the office for symbolic purpose and just to while away the time. Files are passed to them to treat only at the discretion of the other Minister and the Permanent Secretary.

Yet, the Ministers of State will receive either praise or condemnation for the successes or failures of such Ministries.

I understand that when this practice first surfaced in the First Republic, it was used as a contraption to give a semblance of “Government of National Unity”, when in actual fact no “real power” was ceded to the opposition members co-opted into government who were mostly designated as the Ministers of State, so as to keep them in check under the leadership of the ruling Party’s Ministers. But, over time the custom has come to stay and now it has been established as a norm, even  regarding Ministers from the same ruling Party. In fact, one political absurdity that has emerged from this is that some Ministers of State won more votes from their States for the party in power than the “main Minister”.

THE WAY FORWARD

Many Ministerial Retreats have been held to try and resolve the issues between Ministers and Ministers of State. President Obasanjo held four of such Retreats, with the last one holding at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Jos, from 23rd to 25th February, 2001. Yet, the problems persisted.

Mr. President, unknown to many successive Presidents and the general public, these conflicts gravely affect the optimal  performance of Governments. What is the way forward? 6

Obviously, the argument that two Ministers are cramped into some Ministries in order not to unnecessarily proliferate Ministries and therefore save Government’s money is no longer tenable. This is because Government does not need any extra infrastructure or more money to maintain all Senior

 Ministers or even a bit more appointed as is now the custom. This is because the present Ministers and Ministers of State have their separate offices, cars, security personnel and  personal aides. So, what is the point?

 There are enough Permanent Secretaries within the system to be assigned to each Minister, or in the least, one Permanent Secretary can serve two Ministers. Since the Schedules of Duties of both Ministers already reflect the broad Mandates of the Ministries, the Ministers can be named in line with those Schedules of Duties, instead of continuing with this unconstitutional arrangement. For instance, there is no reason why we cannot have a Minister of Labour and another Minister of Employment.

 In my case, whilst the Schedule of my colleague had to do more with Labour and Productivity, mine had to do more with Employment. The Directorates in my Ministry that were under my office would then be fully under the Minister of Employment, without any double loyalty to the Minister of Labour and Productivity.

  We can also have a Minister of Trade and another Minister of Investment. We can have a Minister of Education (Tertiary) and another Minister of Education (Primary and Secondary); we can have a Minister of Mines and another Minister of Steel; we can have a Minister of Works and another Minister of  Housing and so on and so forth.

In all of these, no extra infrastructure is needed to sustain this suggested arrangement. The present infrastructure and present personnel in the Ministries can very well sustain it. It 7 will be at no extra cost to government. This is preferable than successive governments continuing with this present unconstitutional arrangement.

Finally, I want to place it on record again that Mr. President gave me maximum support as his Minister to function optimally. So, this treatise is not a personal complaint. This is just a respectful recommendation for record purposes and for the sake of posterity. It is also intended to correct an anomaly that has existed for ages.

Thank you, Mr. President.

FESTUS KEYAMO, SAN, FCIArb(UK) Honourable Minister of State, Labour and Employment.

By Louis Odion, FNGE

His bonhomie was unusually absent that night in 2009. He spoke little, his luminous eyes mostly staring at us intensely with an expression difficult to fathom. The “Governor of Example” (BRF) and this writer ended up being the last to leave the putative den of the “Lion of Bourdillon” in Lagos at past midnight. 

Not until we were outside at the car park of our host’s Ikoyi home (sufficiently beyond his earshot), did the then Governor Babatunde Fashola (the one who had been Jagaban’s Chief of Staff for five years) share his observation: “Louis, I can tell Asiwaju is very, very depressed tonight.”

 Drawing on an intimacy earned from working very closely with Asiwaju, BRF’s diagnosis could hardly be faulted. Lately, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) had suffered a series of reversals in courtrooms in Osun, Ekiti and Edo in pursuit of mandates “stolen” in the 2007 governorship polls in what had become multiple convoluted legal tussles.

 Having immersed himself as the chief inspiration and sole financier of the legal kerfuffle unfolding simultaneously at multiple fronts, Asiwaju was thus the one who often bore the burden more. So absorbed, so invested was he in those difficult moments that one could, in fact, be pardoned to imagine that even in his sleep, Jagaban probably still found himself mixing it up with the adversaries he earlier contended with all his waking moment. In the same vein heavyweight boxing champion Joe “Smoking Joe” Frazier once admitted he sometimes found himself in dreams engaged in ferocious fistic combat with eternal rival Mohammed Ali, only to wake in the middle of the night covered in hot sweat.

 Such was the exacting climate under which “stolen mandates” were recovered in Ondo, Edo, Ekiti and Osun after epic battles championed by Tinubu, the man young Nigerians (the millennials and Gen Z) do not seem to know or have been misled to hate and deny credits as arguably the biggest champion of multi-party democracy in the Fourth Republic.

 The instinctive warrior never shy to insert himself in a battle for others, but often with eyes on the greater prize not easily perceived by the shortsighted.

 The one who curbed Obasanjo’s imperial aspirations and excesses particularly in Yorubaland and who, from 2003, began to stitch, one thread after another fragile thread, what would blossom into the historic coalition that sensationally unhorsed a ruling party at the centre in 2015.

To be sure, the man from Lagos is no saint. True saints would only be found in heaven. However, there is something extraordinary about Jagaban. His agglomeration of laser focus, daring, Trojan stamina, improvisation, organisational acumen and mental acuity is surely never seen in any other politician in all of Nigeria’s recent history. It speaks to a forbearing virtue or what the Yoruba call “aforiti” central to “iwa” (good character) which partly defines the Omoluabi ethos often invoked to describe the Yoruba identity and epistemology.

 An integral part of “iwa” is, of course, loyalty to friends or values subscribed by the community. Jagaban is a study in loyalty. He expects no less from those for whom he is prepared to take a bullet. (Ask President Buhari or Baba Akande.) In exile, he taxed himself to fund Radio Kudirat set up in the U.K. to battle military dictatorship in Nigeria. As well as provide for fellow exiles pushing for June 12 while its symbol, MKO, was languishing in Abacha’s gulag in Abuja.

 “Revolutionary” Tony Nyiam (of the April 1990 coup fame) once told this writer how regular stipends from Tinubu helped alleviate the adversities of exile for him and  a number of other June 12 activists. Of course, he gave from the proceeds realised from either properties he sold discreetly back at home or returns from his chain of gas stations in the U.S. being managed by his wife, Senator Remi.

 Ever so inventive, he mooted the idea of using the name of the Nobel laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, as collateral in Thailand for shipments of rice on credit to be sold clandestinely in west Africa to fund NADECO struggle.

 Greater is even the loyalty shown by assisting the dependants when their breadwinner was no more or in a position to repay. In death, no one has stood by MKO’s family more than Tinubu. As Lagos governor, he instituted a special monthly welfare package for some members of his family, a scheme still sustained by the state government to date.

When told about the precarious financial position of Concord Press (owned by MKO) in 1999, he made a generous offer to buy the company’s idle giant power generator on behalf on Lagos State Water Board. The money offered would have been sufficient to offset the long arrears of salaries owed Concord workers and re-finance its operations. But just before the deal could be consummated came a caveat emptor in a national newspaper placed by one of MKO’s children. It did not take long before Concord Press, the asset most dear to Bashorun, finally went under.

 The virtue of “aforiti”, it bears restating, is not a province for those given to instant gratification. Nor for those who switch political loyalties for electoral convenience or casually break oaths for any accommodation, however transient. Rather, it is a mantra for the committed marathoner, for the patient sower who plants in faith, ?hoping for boom with the same zeal they are prepared for bust. The pot truly seeking the honey in pepper must endure the ravages of fire.

 Such resourcefulness was very much in evidence in the way and manner Osun was recovered in 2010. In 2007, the electoral bandits stole too much for the owner not to notice. But it would require exceptionally ingenious application of forensic testing of the ballots by Englishman Adrian Forty to establish what everyone had suspected: ballot stuffing on a mindless scale. All thanks to Tinubu.

 The same wizardry came in handy in unearthing illicit exchange of text messages between the presiding judge and the defence counsels to confirm offer and receipt of dirty cash, thus extending the frontiers of Nigeria’s jurisprudence in general and criminal investigation in particular.

 Finally sensing his fall from power, the story is told that the embattled infantry General, who had exercised a stolen mandate for almost three years, now pleaded, “Bola, fimi sile o! Awon lawyers ti gba gbogbo owo mi tan!” (Bola, leave me alone! Lawyers have emptied my pockets!) shortly afterwards when he and Jagaban met at an Owambe.

 Elsewhere in Ondo, forensic examination of ballots revealed even more comical details. Among those listed to have voted PDP’s Olusegun Agagu was one-time “baddest man on the planet”, Mike Tyson, widely known to be domiciled in faraway U.S.  So pervasive, so audacious were the forgeries that famous poet/journalist Sam Omatseye, otherwise registered and permanently based hundreds of miles away in Lagos, was also implicated to be among those who voted Agagu in Akure!

 Indeed, few days away, Tinubu will be crowned the 16th leader of the most populous black nation on earth. How fitting that he is ascending the golden throne his mentor, MKO, was denied. Suddenly, his trademark cap with distinctive embroidered broken shackle, perhaps the worst contraband to be caught with in Abuja between 2015 and 2022, has turned the hottest fashion item craved by new fortune-seekers.

 But a quarter century ago, his dream was no more than a chance to return to the senate after Abacha died in 1998. A meeting in Lagos altered that trajectory. On arriving Murtala Mohammed Airport in Lagos after five harrowing years of exile in the U.S/UK, his first stop in his green Mercedes was Concord Press premises (less than a mile away) to reunite with his old “co-conspirators” in the June 12 struggle, Messrs. Dele Alake, Segun Babatope and Tunji Bello (editor of National Concord, Editorial Board chairman and editor of Sunday Concord respectively).

 After bouts of long, fraternal bear-hugs with old comrades amid bitter-sweet reminiscences on the darkness that had pervaded Nigeria in the preceding five years, the returnee hinted a plan to return to the senate where he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee until Abacha’s coup of November 17, 1993.

 “Why not contest the Lagos governorship instead?,” Bello interjected. Alake and Babatope shared that view, perceiving a vacancy in Lagos’ emerging politics after Abacha.

 “Well, to be honest, that has not crossed my mind,” he replied and before leaving Concord that day, promised to reach out to his base and consult widely.

 The vacuum the Concord editors were seeing was in the abdication by the “Prince of Hope” (Ademola Adeniji-Adele). Upon his release from military detention in 1996, the erstwhile chairman of Lagos Island council had received a tumultuous welcome in Lagos, thus becoming the new darling of the progressive community, having played a pivotal role in June 12 protests in 1994. And when Abacha announced a transition programme, many began to see him as the next governor.

But in a moment of grave indiscretion, Adeniji-Adele would allow himself to be lured into moving the motion for Abacha’s adoption as GDM’s “consensus presidential candidate” at the party’s national convention in Maiduguri in April 1998, at the expense of the revered and consequential Dikko Yusuf. Just like other teleguided parties memorably characterised as “the five fingers of a leprous hand” by Bola Ige.

 Confronted by Segun Adeniyi and this writer in an interview we conducted for Sunday Concord shortly afterwards, Adeniji-Adele told us in confidence that he had been directly threatened by a notorious army Major close to Abacha, listing that as a pre-condition for him to contest the coming elections. In his own calculation, he did not consider that a significant price to pay “if only to reclaim Lagos and use it to defend Abiola’s interest”.

But the jealous Lagos progressives never forgave that betrayal. It took Abacha’s death two months later for Adeniji-Adele’s political stock to crash from the zenith of fame into the valley of infamy. The revanchist spirit that generally gripped the land thereafter meant that anyone associated with Abacha instantly turned a leper. The heartbroken progressives in Lagos were now looking for a new bride. 

That was the moment Tinubu arrived. So, he could not be said to have forced his way into Lagos governorship in 1998. Rather, unique circumstances of the moment anointed him for the historic journey ahead. His first acid test soon came over alleged discrepancies in the form submitted to INEC.

 A lesser mortal would probably have buckled in the heat of vicious smear campaign that ensued. But sometimes, the truth is not so straightforward. In the rush to submit the nomination form for Lagos governorship in 1998, Tokunbo Afikunyomi, a fellow NADECO returnee, did the filling. In some regards, he mixed up some information.

 Unfortunately, once the form got submitted, all the depositions therein became binding. To claim otherwise elsewhere is perjury. Out of malice, political opponents twist this to mean he told lies about his past. It is one of the burdens Jagaban has had to bear ever since.

 As an editor of a national newspaper with more than a casual knowledge of what transpired at the time, I can attest another exaggeration in Tinubu’s much trumpeted drug story. Ahead of the 2003 polls, someone with deep connections in the national security establishment was interested in AD’s governorship ticket in Lagos. Apparently privy to the original court papers, he twisted the story to present Tinubu as villain and was looking for any newspaper to publish the story dangling a blank cheque, with a view to tainting him ahead of the AD primaries.

 Once he found a platform and the contrived story was uploaded, conspiratorial Obasanjo jubilated thinking he finally got Tinubu in the bag. Malicious mischief was barely concealed in a confidential memo immediately dispatched to the United States by the Inspector General of Police Tafa Balogun, earnestly seeking clarity on the rather “disturbing story about Tinubu’s drug trafficking in the U.S. in the past”.

 Responding swiftly in no unmistakable language in a public statement, the State Department declared Tinubu was not involved in any drug trafficking nor convicted for any drug crime.

 In all the wild goose chase, the real substance of the story was not more than the fact that someone abused Tinubu’s trust. Being naturally a magnet for people, his Chicago residence was open to all folks from Nigeria in the 80s. It turned out that one of those who had been allowed access got entangled in a drug mess, warranting U.S. investigators to list him as a person of interest and his bank accounts frozen in the interim. But after months of forensic investigation, they found nothing against him, except the “offence” that due tax was not paid on some cash found as fixed deposit, for which a surcharge was imposed.

 This essentially is the actual meat of what would be misappropriated to feed the apocryphal tale about “Tinubu’s massive drug involvement in the U.S.”, now grown into a cottage industry in the past two decades, spawning a vast army of media experts and procured pundits surfacing in every election season, elaborately theorising a petty lie.

When it was time to share the spoils of APC’s victory in 2015, it is common knowledge that Tinubu was virtually left empty-handed, without being able to nominate anyone of consequence in Buhari’s first cabinet. Party leaders he earlier helped install also forsook him. The new one he was allowed to nominate on the eve of the 2019 polls was again defenestrated soon after victory was secured. Such serial heartbreaks would certainly leave a lesser mortal broken.

But again, Tinubu’s “aforiti” shone forth.

Perhaps the unkindest cut of all is the betrayal of close disciples who had climbed on his back to power and glory. Like the biblical Apostle Peter who forsook his master three consecutive cock-crows before dawn, thrice many had denied Tinubu too. First, immediately they got appointed in Abuja in 2015. Next was 2019 after APC got re-elected. And later on the road to APC presidential primaries of June 2022 when they reckoned Jagaban was not the anointed of the “Villa cabal”.

Still, the man kept faith.

Upon being declared winner of the February 25 polls by INEC, wherever he went or whomsoever of consequence he met, Jagaban formed the habit of flaunting his certificate of return as “my own World Cup”. But on account of his tortuous and thorny odyssey to Aso Rock in the past twenty-five years, that may as well pass for a testament in tenacity.

The new leadership of the intervention agency in the Niger Delta is exploring an innovative approach to its task, writes Willie Etim

As an interventionist agency, the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), with the mandate to drive the process of developing Nigeria’s oil-rich region was established by the NDDC Act of 2000. Its mandate was to facilitate the rapid, even, and sustainable development of the Niger Delta into a region that is economically prosperous, socially stable, ecologically regenerative, and politically peaceful.

It is no longer news that the Niger Delta produces nearly 75 per cent of the nation’s export earnings, but the news is that 43 per cent of the region’s population still lives below the poverty line. This paradox is due primarily to ecologically unfriendly exploitation of oil and gas resources that expropriate the region’s indigenous people and their right to these resources. Hence, the Niger Delta Development Commission is determined to change this narrative and bring back prosperity to its land and people. 

There is no gainsaying the fact that the story of the oil-rich region has changed for the better since the coming on board of Dr. Samuel Ogbuku as Managing Director of the Commission.  Since he took over the helm of affairs at the commission, he has been able to articulate the demands of the people, embarked on practical initiatives to complete the gargantuan projects which he met and conceived, and carried out the execution of several other projects for the benefit of the people, and by so doing, calmed the restiveness which abinitio signposted the region.  

At the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Summit which was held at the Eko Hotel, Lagos State on Tuesday, April 25, 2023, Dr. Ogbuku made it clear that since its inception, the NDDC had tried to faithfully deliver on its mandate to fast-track the development of the Niger Delta region as envisioned in its enabling Act. 

Speaking on the theme of the Summit: “Rewind to Rebirth” and re-igniting the importance of stakeholders in the agency’s engagements,” Ogbuku disclosed that as part of the efforts to renew and reposition the NDDC, the Governing Board has stepped up collaboration with various stakeholders. “We have started engagement with the key stakeholders, such as the oil companies, who contribute three per cent of their operational budget to the Commission; the state governments, traditional rulers, Civil Society Groups, youth organisations, and contractors,” he said. 

He disclosed that the NDDC has met with members of the Oil Producers Trade Section (OPTS), of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who are no doubt critical stakeholders of the Commission. “This group, which embodies the International Oil Companies (IOCs), stands out for us because we need their cooperation to get full and prompt remittances of their contributions as prescribed by law,” he stated. 

He maintained that it was important to engage stakeholders in project conceptualisation and execution, adding that the oil producers work in the communities and sometimes have first-hand information on the needs of the local people. He explained that the NDDC could not shoulder the enormous responsibilities of developing the Niger Delta region alone. 

It was against this background that the current Board and Management of the agency, in its bid to effectively drive sustainable development in the region, decided to adopt the Public Private Partnership (PPP) model to provide an alternative source of funding for key development projects and programmes. That was why in January 2023, it constituted a Management Committee on Public-Private Partnership to drive the vision of fast-tracking the development of the region. The committee is expected to review all the Commission’s existing partnerships as well as explore new partnerships that will result in enduring regional projects. 

Ogbuku emphasised the need for institutional collaboration with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), Community-Based Organisations (CBOs), and international institutions. “We need the assistance of foreign institutions such as multilateral agencies, foreign government agencies, donor agencies, and multinational corporations, to promote sustainable development in the Niger Delta region,” he said.

 His targets are multilateral agencies such as the World Bank, African Development Bank (AfDB), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and International Monetary Fund (IMF) which can provide technical support, funding, and policy advice to the NDDC. These agencies, according to him, have wide experience promoting sustainable development in developing countries and can give us valuable insights and direction.  

Other foreign government agencies he is looking at include the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department for International Development (DFID) in the UK, and the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), which he disclosed, could equally partner with NDDC to promote sustainable development in the region. 

“These agencies can provide funding, technical assistance, and policy guides, as well as collaborate with us on specific programmes and projects. Multinational corporations such as Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Total, have a significant presence in the Niger Delta region. We expect them to collaborate more with us in executing legacy projects. They have what it takes to provide funding, technical assistance, and expertise in environmental management, community development, and corporate social responsibility,” he said. 

Ogbuku explained that the ‘Rewind to Rebirth’ initiative, was a strategic vision designed to recalibrate the Commission’s engagement with the Niger Delta and the NDDC’s overall intervention implementation plan. Embedded in this initiative include exploring more avenues for funding, better technical expertise, for higher yielding varieties of crops, as well as opportunities for collaboration and investment in the Niger Delta region. This initiative aligns with the NDDC mandate, as well as the Sustainable Development Goals 17, which focuses on partnerships. This is the stirring story of the Commission’s partnership with the SPDC Joint Venture on the celebrated Ogbia-Nembe Road, in Bayelsa State. 

As a realist, he did not forget to mention some of the challenges confronting the NDDC development roadmap which he said included inadequate funding for the Commission, emanating from inconsistent statutory contributions from the Federal Government and failure of some oil and gas companies operating within the region to remit their contributions in line with the NDDC Act; Failure of ownership of the Masterplan by the sub-nationals and other key stakeholders; Frequent changes in the leadership of the Commission and Consistent delays in the passage of the Commission’s budget by the National Assembly, among others.  

He assured: “Today, we have introduced a lot of innovations that have helped in boosting the morale of our staff. We have also restructured the administrative system of NDDC by going back to the 13 Directorates recognised in the NDDC Act. It was necessary to reorganise the administration to enhance better service delivery. We are showing in our operations, through our example and conduct, how diligence, due process, and transparency are key ingredients to building confidence and trust among all partners and stakeholders. We are committed to not just being transparent, but we want to be seen to be transparent.” 

 Stakeholders and political leaders used the opportunity offered by the summit to shower encomiums on the minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Umana Okon Umana, and

Ogbuku, for engendering public confidence in the agency through their commitment to good governance. 

The chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Sen. Matthew Urhoghide;  Senator-elect and former chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Adams Oshiomhole; former Managing Director of the NDDC, Mr. Timi Alaibe and former Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Mr. Dakuku Peterside, were among those, who acknowledged the transformation of the commission under Umana and Ogbuku leadership. 

The participants and stakeholders commended President Muhammadu Buhari for returning sanity and order in the running of the NDDC and noted the salutary impact of the president’s action on peace and stability in the Niger Delta. 

Other dignitaries that graced the occasion included the Executive Secretary, Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB), Engr. Simbi Wabote, who also delivered a paper titled “Innovative Funding and Sustainable Development for the Niger Delta”.  

Others who delivered keynote addresses included Kayode Kyalidson, who advised the federal and state governments on a donor-funded transport initiative between 2009 and 2016; Nimi Wilson-Jack, a sound legal practitioner of more than 39 years experience and a former Secretary-General of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA); Janita Ferentinos, a certified PPP Consultant and trainer with over 20 years experience; Oliver Everett, a former CEO of Common Wealth Enterprise and Investment Council and Chair of Commonwealth Business Forum, Kigali 2020 Taskforce; and Abubakar Suleiman, a Nigerian Banking and Economics professional and the current Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Sterling Bank.

Etim, the media assistant to the NDDC managing director, writes from Port-Harcourt