The Nation Newspaper

Category: Hardball

  • Rice on the menu

    Predictably, rice will be on the menu in many homes across the country this first day of the New Year. Generally regarded as food for celebratory occasions by a good number of Nigerians, it will be served in a variety of forms, particularly the popular Jollof rice and Fried rice. However, as rice eaters enjoy their food, it is pertinent to highlight the brewing storm related to the Federal Government’s recently announced plan to stop the importation of rice by 2015 as part of efforts to ensure sufficiency in local production.

    Remarkably, two concerned groups lately added their voices to protest from various quarters, urging the government to review the policy in the interest of the country’s economy. The Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria (MWUN) and the Seaports Terminal Operators of Nigeria (STOAN) in separate statements argued against the implementation of the policy, stressing that the authorities appeared to be too much in a hurry without adequate planning for its success.

    According to MWUN, the announcement of the policy’s take-off time has increased smuggling, leading to high market penetration by uncontrolled poor-quality rice with negative health implications for the people. The group’s President General, Mr. Anthony Nted, and General Secretary, Mr. Aham Ubani, said in a December 27, 2013, letter addressed to President Goodluck Jonathan, “The policy on importation of rice has made it difficult for genuine rice importers to bring in their products through our ports. The effect is that revenue accruing to the nation is lost to neighbouring countries and some Nigerians who genuinely work in the ports are also denied their livelihood.”

    On its part, STOAN spokesman, Mr. Bolaji Akinola claimed that the country was losing N1 billion daily to the subsisting policy on rice importation and the consequent high-level smuggling. “Before January 2013, rice importers paid 60 per cent duty, but when duty was increased to 110 per cent, importers shunned Nigerian ports for neighbouring countries, “ he said, adding that smugglers brought the same rice into the country illegally.

    Of course, it is relevant to ask: Where is the Minister for Agriculture, Dr Akinwunmi Adesina, who regularly boasts about “a revolution in rice production” and “the rice transformation strategy to make Nigeria self-sufficient in rice by 2015”? Whatever may be the merits of the government’s plan to make the country less import-dependent, it is clear that there are inevitable issues arising from the idea, which just won’t go away and should be addressed with all sense of responsibility.

    It is one of the tragic wonders of Nigeria that, according to Adewunmi’s figures, it “has 84 million hectares of land of which no more than 40 per cent is cultivated.” Obviously, among the reasons for this agricultural under-development must be not only the wrong and wrong-headed priorities of successive administrations, but also their lop-sided and short-sighted focus on oil, the country’s main revenue earner. Ironically, perhaps oil is also the bane of the country.

    Certainly, it won’t be enough to ban rice importation only to encourage local production of rice that falls short of the quality of imported rice. The challenge of ensuring that locally produced rice meets consumer standards of acceptability is a major one, and it would amount to a denial of the people’s right to the best if the official restriction merely helps to impose undesirable sub-standard products in the name of home-grown rice.

    Furthermore, it is unclear whether local production, even where it enjoys consumer acceptance, would be adequate for consumer demand. In another apparent instance of grandstanding, Adesina asserted, “We have every natural endowment to be a major exporter of rice… At least, we should be exporting rice to all of West Africa after we have met our own self-sufficiency requirement.” Evidently, this is easier said than done.

  • May God hear Pope’s prayer on Nigeria

    Pope Francis’ Christmas Day informal intervention in strife in Nigeria, specifically the apparently religious war by Islamic fundamentalists under the banner of Boko Haram, should be cause for deep reflection by the presidency, which does not seem to be winning. It is noteworthy that the Goodluck Jonathan administration extended emergency rule in the troubled Northeastern states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe by another six months with no end to the destructive conflict in sight. There are indications that the insurgents have reviewed their strategy in a counter move to the government’s approach, and their recent devastating penetration of military facilities demonstrated that they were not about to surrender or concede defeat.

    So, when the new Vicar of Christ, elected on March 13, in his first “Urbi et Orbi” (to the city and world) message on the theme of peace, called for dialogue to resolve the violence, he was understandably speaking as a priest and perhaps without a clear understanding of the basic issues. It is certainly difficult to imagine a compromise on the part of the rebels, who have escalated hostilities since 2009 and callously terrorised the people with a view to imposing an Islamic theocracy, which amounts to an unacceptable contradiction of the secularity emphasised by the country’s constitution. How do you talk with closed-minded desperadoes who refuse to co-exist with others outside their own faith?

    Ironically, the Roman Catholic leader, who preached a homily of harmony to tens of thousands of the faithful from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, represented a symbol of the very religion that Boko Haram considers anathema and deserving of destruction, to go by its consistent attacks on churches. It is interesting that with particular reference to the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, and the crisis in Nigeria, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq, the chief of the 1.2 billion-member Church said, “God is peace; let us ask him to help us to be peacemakers each day, in our life, in our families, in our cities and nations, in the whole world.”

    Of course, the Pope’s recommendation of dialogue in connection with the Nigerian conflict is not novel; various other voices from different quarters have before now suggested that the government should pursue the path of negotiation and lay down arms. However, there is no doubt that, on account of his immense stature and moral influence, the Pope’s verbal mediation has not only further publicised the clash internationally, it has also reinforced the need for government to critically re-evaluate its road map to peace. It is a development that demands a high degree of strategic creativity, especially in the light of the fact that the prolonged fighting continues to arrest progress in the affected areas.

    It is intriguing that the government has been unable to crush the rebellion through the force of weapons, which makes the Pope’s wisdom attractive. However, apart from the rigid resistance of the militants to dialogue, there is the inevitable possibility that such accommodation may set a counter-productive precedence, which could be exploited by others. The situation places the administration in a tight spot, but it will need to do something anyway and expeditiously too.

    It is clear that the world is watching and waiting to see how answers will be provided to the problem, and what answers. The Pope’s supplication for peace brings to mind the poetic construction of Alfred Lord Tennyson, who wrote, “More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.” In this context, it is optimistic to dream of a New Year that will bring an end to terror in the land. May God hear the Pope’s prayer!

     

     

     

  • Who is on the ‘hit list’?

    What does it matter if anyone is first on a hit list, in this case an alleged federal government project? Since everyone presumably on such list is in mortal danger, and the listing may not be based on schedule or priority, it follows that someone even at a lower position could get hit before others who are placed higher.

    So Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi’s claim of preeminence on an alleged political watch list would appear to be fundamentally neither here nor there. It is disturbing enough that the said list reportedly has over 1,000 people; and the presumed sequence of names shouldn’t be overly exploited for political ends.

    Of course, it is a grave statement on the country’s dire political circumstances that Amaechi not only seemingly corroborated ex-president’s Olusegun Obasanjo’s open allegation about a killer unit nurtured and sustained by the Goodluck Jonathan presidency, but also claimed that he was the first person on the list of targets. According to him, “I read the President’s letter and he said ex-President Obasanjo should prove the 1, 000 names on the watch list. I am number one on the list. They want to kill me, but they have no God.”

    It is a reflection of the frosty relations between Amaechi and Jonathan, compounded by the former’s defection from the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), that the governor made such an implicating declaration. However, it is apt to wonder how Amaechi became aware of the alleged list and his place on it. More importantly, Amaechi’s apparent validation raised the inevitable question as to the identities of the others on the list. What is more, do the others know that they are on a danger list?

    Significantly, this talk of a watch list has further exposed the hideous underbelly of politics in the country, especially in the PDP which is faced with an implosion of gargantuan proportions, following the defection of five governors from the fold and an exodus of federal legislators. Expectedly, Jonathan has denied the charge, describing it particularly as “incomprehensible,” and the public is left wondering where the truth lies. However, the fact that the allegation came from a political leader of Obasanjo’ s stature, with his military background as a retired general, makes it worthy of comprehensive investigation.

    These are terrible signs ahead of the country’s all-important 2015 general elections, and with Jonathan yet to confirm his alleged interest in a contentious second term, the future promises to be stormy. God forbid, but what if, for instance, something happened to Amaechi, to put it euphemistically? With the yet-to-be-disproved accusation against Jonathan, what will the public believe?

    It is likely that there are others who, like Amaechi, believe they are marked for destruction, and there is no doubt that the onus is on the presidency not only to prove its innocence but also to demonstrate that it will be guided by a sense of fair play in the build up to the critical polls.

    Death is not a thing to be toyed with, and it is relevant to contemplate the nature of recruits for the alleged killer project as well as the recruitment process. Where are they from? Will such people join the reported death squad conscious of its purpose? What will be the attraction for them to help kill perceived enemies of the administration?

    There is no doubt that the news of the existence of a political watch list is likely to fuel paranoia among members of the political class, especially those who are on the other side, from the perspective of the powers that be. It is an unacceptable development that should be condemned by everyone with a drop of patriotic blood.

  • Jonathan’s talk-back opportunities

    At least, President Goodluck Jonathan is unmistakably psychologically troubled, even if his physical state may not be publicly discernible. Evidence of his inner turmoil is the fact that his talk nowadays is loaded with defensive innuendos and snide remarks, which betray a tortured soul. From the look of things, Nigerians may be in for a long-term presidential combativeness, worsened by a constant search for a chance to get back at the source of discomfort, a euphemism for “the enemy”.

    Consider Jonathan’s latest not-so-veiled return punches, right inside The Cathedral Church of the Advent at the Anglican Diocese of Abuja, and during the Christmas Day service too. It was disturbing enough that he chose the venue to continue a fight; but even more unsettling was his choice of a day traditionally regarded as a time for expressing goodwill to all men. What could be more demonstrative of his hurting psyche and implacable vengefulness? God have mercy!

    Listen to Jonathan: “For us at this time, especially we the politicians that we think we own the country, begin to think about the next election and doing what we ought not to do, making statements we ought not to make, writing letters we ought not to write.” You may excuse the assault on grammar, but without mentioning names, he nevertheless succeeded in clarifying his major target, namely, former president Olusegun Obasanjo, who spoilt his December with a devastating 18-page open letter that is still the talk of the town.

    After implying that politicians do not own the country, he interestingly went on to identify those he considered as being in charge. His words: “I call on clergymen and statesmen who really own this country because this country belongs to our statesmen, traditional rulers, religious leaders, our men, our women and our youth. Nigeria does not belong to any politician or group of politicians. So we continue to urge you to pray for this country.” However, apart from being nauseatingly hypocritical, it all seemed like a cunningly political statement intended to sell his brand, if anything. Lest we forget, he has been perceptibly central, even if subtly so, to abuse of power by the federal government, more recently in Rivers State where official impunity continues apparently with his nod.

    Although he found the platform irresistible for his purpose, he strangely failed to exploit it to the fullest; for the church environment, with the implication of spiritual presence, would perhaps have helped his case in rebutting Obasanjo’s damaging allegations against him. Imagine if he had sworn in that sacred space that he really knew nothing about Obasanjo’s incredible claim, among others, that the presidency was harbouring trained killers ready to be unleashed on presumed foes of the administration. Perhaps he would have been believable, given the tendency of the religious public to accept, often uncritically, declarations of innocence delivered on the altar of faith. It is possible, then, to interpret the loss of opportunity as an indication that Jonathan may indeed have something to hide.

    However, though it will not be surprising if Jonathan treats future formal presidential appearances as extensions of his battle, it will surely reinforce the downward trend in governance, not to talk of good governance. This is because using every public forum to attack “others” would not only be obsessive; it would also regrettably point to a dangerous distraction from the essential function of government.

    Despite the fact that Jonathan has written his own open reply to Obasanjo, and requested the National Human Rights Commission (NHCR) to investigate the allegations of the existence of a political watch list including over 1, 000 people as well as the training of snipers, which the presidency links with “human rights violations”, it is intriguing that he won’t let any opportunity pass without talking back.

  • Obasanjo, Alao-Akala and nonsensical pugilism

    Boxing Day is an appropriate time to learn from the incivility of certain public figures, specifically in their relations with journalists. Starting with ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo is symbolic of his stature as a former head of a democratically elected government for eight years, 1999 to 2007, during which he ought to have imbibed a modicum of good manners. Alas, the 76-year-old retired Nigerian Army general recently demonstrated that such flattering expectation was erroneous.

    Following the publication of his daughter’s disparaging letter to him, it was understandable that Obasanjo’s deflated ego yielded to bad temper. Nevertheless, his advanced age and leadership background should have tempered his reaction, especially in public, and in the context of interaction with reporters. The media definitely cannot be faulted for publishing Iyabo Obasanjo’s open letter to her father; there was neither a breach of secrecy nor a violation of confidentiality on their part.

    If the Chief was hurt, and he should be, because the negative missive was apparently written in response to his own 18-page fault-finding letter to President Goodluck Jonathan and significantly represented a massive put-down by his own daughter, the balm could not have been the transferred aggression against Vanguard, the purveyor of the bombshell. His rude reaction to the paper’s reporters involved in a follow-up not only left a sour taste in the mouth; more importantly, it further discredited him.

    Here is the December 19 report of the revealing phone exchange between Vanguard and Obasanjo:

    Vanguard: Sir, we tried reaching you all through yesterday, to no avail, over the letter written by your daughter, Iyabo, to you.

    Chief Obasanjo: You are a bloody idiot, you have published the paper and you are now looking for me, you are an idiot, don’t call me again.

    His abusive language, which was disappointing enough, was compounded by the reflex response. A huge minus it was, without any doubt.

    It is interesting that another well-known political player and a former governor of Oyo State, Adebayo Alao-Akala, also recently displayed discourtesy to two journalists who interviewed him for Punch, Adeola Balogun and Tunde Odesola.

    In this particular case, the ex-police officer became irritable, following a question concerning his alleged romance with bleaching. The interviewers asked: “Is it your fashion to bleach?” Alao-Akala replied with a blast: “Bleach? That is stupidity; you are asking a very stupid question, how can I bleach? You are very stupid to ask that question. What do you mean by that? What gave you that impression…So if you want to write that, put it there that I said you are very stupid to ask me that kind of question. Don’t ask that kind of question again.”

    According to the publication, “(He pulled up his clothes and singlet to show his fair complexion)”, saying, “Is this bleaching? Have you seen the cream that I use that makes me bleach or did you know me when I was black?” With a sense of decorum, his reaction need not have been so insulting, did it? Even if it was prompted by the rather frontal question, his furious defensiveness could have been without abuse- couldn’t it? It would appear that his unseemly conduct was, at bottom, a function of ungentlemanliness.

    Furthermore, speaking of the word “stupid”, Alao-Akala’s handling of a particular question arising from his self- acknowledged love of jewelry suggested that perhaps he was more deserving of the adjective. The interviewers probed: “Is it not illegal for you to wear necklace with your uniform? Alao-Akala unthinkingly answered: “It was not legal but my uniform would cover it.” Wow! This was a former police officer unwittingly condemning himself.

  • Festival of fabulous figures

    The ritual of budget reading is in season and Nigerians are again being entertained with figures that hardly yield results. It may be an indication of the Federal Government’s unserious intentions that the central individual traditionally expected to make the presentation to the National Assembly was missing, that is, President Goodluck Jonathan. Whatever interfered with his faithfulness to the responsibility deserves to be probed, for his absence sent an unsettling signal about his order of priorities.

    Intriguingly, Minister of Finance Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who also goes by the grandiose title, Coordinating Minister for the Economy, was the face and voice of the administration at the event, a fact that perhaps betrayed the identity of who is actually in control in a government that has often been accused of ceding power to a small circle of dominant, if not domineering, women.

    The immediate puzzle arising from the show is the projected spending of N4.6 trillion for 2014 inadequately backed by anticipated revenue of N3.73 trillion. Next is the mystery that N1.1 trillion, about 27 per cent of the budget, is for capital expenditure, while N3.5 trillion, which represents about 72 per cent of the financial plan, is for recurrent expenditure. It is deplorable that, as the breakdown shows, a disproportionately greater slice of the funds is not meant for development purposes, but to oil the system, so to speak. With such uncreative approach to planning, is it any wonder, therefore, that the country continues to move at snail speed, to put it charitably?

    It is interesting that the budget also mirrored backwardness in a highly symbolic way. Or, what is to be made of the fact that the 2014 budget is lower than this year’s? Okonjo-Iweala’s explanation was food for thought. She said: “You can understand that we have some revenue challenges, which we had been very clear on all along because of the losses we suffered in terms of oil revenue. And also the losses from non-oil revenue due to the lower customs duties.”

    Tragically, illegal bunkering, vandalism and production shut-ins, which have been long identified as drawbacks to the country’s development, given the centrality of oil to its economy, are finally taking an intolerably destabilising toll on its budget estimates. Specifically, when Okonjo-Iweala in July appeared before the House of Representatives Joint Committee on Appropriation/Finance, she lamented that the country was losing 400,000 barrels of crude oil daily to theft, which represents 20 per cent of the daily production capacity of two million barrels. Against this revealing background, it is time to recall the government’s politically motivated and counter-productive award of unjustifiably costly oil-pipeline surveillance contracts to some prominent ex-Niger Delta militia leaders. It looks like money down the drain, after all. Common sense suggests that it would have been more sensible, institutionally correct and perhaps more effective if the administration had instead reinforced the navy’s capabilities to arrest maritime crime, especially offences related to oil-theft. But it would appear that the administration is cerebrally challenged.

    Not surprisingly, against the background of widespread criticisms of alleged over-travelling by Jonathan, it is reflective of the self-focus of government to the detriment of the very people it is supposed to serve that a fascinating sum of N2.3 billion will be available for his junketing in 2014, according to the estimates. More importantly, to go by the figures, the presidency would spend over N8 billion as total expenditure next year. Significantly, in the outgoing year over N400 million was earmarked for the purchase of foodstuffs at the State House, which translates into over N1 million daily.

    It is difficult to resist the feeling that this episode is another mere celebration of figures, which is exactly what the people do not need. What truly counts are people-consciousness and reasonableness in the planning of government spending, which are clearly not guiding principles for this administration.

     

  • Uduaghan and state police

    The question of state police has been an enduring debate in the polity. This contention should be unnecessary because we are a federation. And each component part, which is a state, is a federating unit, and that should guarantee its entitlement to undertaking its own security measures.

    But Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan of Delta State gave the argument what many will describe as native wisdom. In a recent interview with this newspaper, he simplified it to what security experts would call local policing.

    Said he: “I have always believed in state police. It is not just because we are funding police, but it is because of the ability of the local person who is the police force to work better than the foreigner. What do I mean by the foreigner? You bring someone from Maiduguri as a policeman to the community. He really does not have a stake, so to say. It will take him some time to know the place. When you have a lot of criminal activities, his ability to even know who is involved is not as good as the person who comes from the community. Two, he can do anything and get away with it. But when you have somebody from that community, apart from the fact that the person knows the in and out of that community, if he misbehaves, it will backfire on his family and relations.” Bull’s eye!

    Those who cavil at the desirability of state police ought to understand that the local policing is also a democratic idea. It is about a police force that holds a strong credential of legitimacy where it operates.

    We have always failed in Nigeria to understand that the most important approach to security is intelligence. When we bring a so-called stranger to a community he knows little about, he can work his way to legitimacy but that is not an easy proposition. He, sometimes, in this multi-ethnic society, does not even understand the culture deep enough. He may not understand the local language, and he has to rely often on a long process of mediation from locals before he can make judgment on matters of local urgency.

    This can be dangerous in a volatile society like ours where crime can escalate fast. If it is a matter of terrorism, or a matter of armed robbery or even kidnapping, judgment of the quick variety are essential.

    The sense of individual legitimacy is also intelligence in its own. When the police officer feels as sense of stake in the community, he or she would want to be a hero or heroine on that community rather than an indifferent bully or a hectoring presence.

    Uduaghan also gave instance of the United States where policing is fragmented to cater to the smallest community.

    “If you go to a state in America, apart from the state police, they even have county police. Even the universities have their police, so you are able to deal with smaller issues,” he said.

    With the police legitimately engaged in the local area, the state is able to collaborate with the federal on larger issues. This simplifies security and puts all in context.

  • Jonathan’s New Year agenda

    What will President Goodluck Jonathan do with the report of the controversial 13-member Presidential Advisory Committee on the National Conference headed by Dr. Femi Okurounmu? The delivery of the document to Jonathan on December 18 opened a fresh chapter in the country’s chequered quest for nationhood, and there is a palpable social anxiety over the unfolding of subsequent related events.

    Interestingly, while receiving the report from Okurounmu whose committee worked within a specified six-week period, Jonathan provided a clue to the future, saying, “ I have directed the Coordinating Minister of the Economy and Minister of Finance to make adequate financial provisions, so that the conference will take off immediately we enter next year.” However, it is curious that Jonathan appeared to have started preparation for the process supposedly without knowing the contents of the very report designed to guide him.

    This oddity was reinforced by his uneasy hint that he was intimidated by the sheer size of the report, as if he had expected a far less voluminous package. With surprising candour, he declared: “The committee has presented a document with volumes that are quite frightening.” Why was he terrified? Amusing, isn’t it? It was perhaps foreseeable that the business of welding together a federation as complicated as Nigeria, with its plurality of rival ethnicities and consequent implications, would yield extensive, if not comprehensive, contributions from a deep diversity of interest units and stakeholders. So if Jonathan had anticipated that it would be a joy ride, he is obviously better informed now.

    Nevertheless, advocates of dissolution may wish to take their cue from Jonathan’s revealing words. He disclosed, “ I was told that majority of Nigerians , who participated in the interactive session you conducted in 13 major cities across the country, agreed with our commitment to an indissoluble, united and stronger Nigeria. I understand, however, that one person demanded an outright dissolution of our federalist structure.” With this expression, Jonathan cannot escape the charge of jumping the gun. There can be no doubt that he took advantage of the occasion to set an agenda. He should have played the honourable role of a gentleman by waiting for the proposed talks to clarify issues. Isn’t that what the so-called National Conference is about?

    It was, therefore, a self-contradiction when the same Jonathan said, “I have no personal interest in this conference. I will allow the will of Nigerians to prevail.” However, it was reassuring that he recognised the historic dimension of the project, saying, “The world is watching us and whatever we do will be transparent.”

    It is intriguing that, on his part, Okunrounmu was keen on stressing a supposed unanimity of minds on the committee, which may not necessarily be the case. His words: “I say emphatically that we have no minority report.” The import of his emphasis may be to back Jonathan’s allegation of majority endorsement of an unfragmented country.

    With Jonathan’s specification of an early 2014 date for takeoff of the talks, it would be interesting to see how such timing will work, particularly in the build up to the all-important 2015 general elections and his yet-to- be-confirmed second-term dream. Certainly, there are dense clouds on the horizon. How fast can the confab be held and concluded? What will be the consequences for the political election calendar?

    Prophecies of doom emanating from certain unbelieving quarters surely have vigilance value that should not be discounted. Jonathan’s agenda has provided greater reasons for reflection on the country’s politics as the New Year approaches. The spectre of annus horribilis is disturbingly concrete. The last word, pregnant with infinite interpretation, must go to Okurounmu, who reportedly said of Jonathan, “What he does with the report is left to him.”

  • Not a time to fall ill

    It sure must be tough for doctors in public hospitals in Nigeria, especially from the moral point of view. Their predicament was correctly captured by one of them while speaking on the five-day warning strike by members of the Nigeria Medical Association (NMA) working in government-owned hospitals across the country, which started on December 18. The obviously disturbed doctor was quoted as saying, “We are tired of these frequent strikes. As I am talking to you now, many patients will die today due to lack of attention. We have been trained to save lives. Their blood will be on our heads, if we fail to save them because of our disagreement with the government.”

    Reconciling their passion for professionalism with their demoralising working conditions must be a huge challenge for these physicians; and perhaps nothing demonstrates their constant frustration more than the perennial wars and warnings of war involving them and government. Predictably, the latest action is to protest unacceptable operational circumstances, alleged inadequate funding and abysmal infrastructure in the country’s health sector. These complaints have the quality of a familiar refrain; unfortunately, there appears to be no end in sight. Of course, it is no news that quite a significant number of professionals in this sector have relocated overseas to retain their sanity.

    While the doctors’ definite strike has unsurprisingly paralysed public hospitals nationwide, it is fair to observe that the country’s health care system has almost always been on the verge of total collapse or paralysis. It would be dreamy to picture a different scenario under the present constrictions. Fundamentally, it appears that government is getting exactly what it bargained for, considering the unhelpful policies that have governed the sector for as long as anyone can remember. You may pause for a moment to reflect on a worrying comment by a senior resident doctor at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi-Araba, Dr Peter Ogunnubi, who was quoted as saying, “The budgetary allocation of five per cent to the sector also falls short of the World Health Organisation’s standard that stipulated at least 15 per cent.” Obviously, the difference between five and 15 is no joke.

    If the government is wiser in reverse, it cannot be for lack of resources, the same wealth that ends up regularly in private pockets in mind-boggling instances of official corruption. The incredible truth is that the country’s leaders just do not care a damn. With positive political will, the country’s health care system can be developed to rank among the very best in the world. To stretch the optimism, it is even possible for Nigeria to become a medical tourism destination.

    In the meantime, however, the people continue to suffer on account of short-sighted leadership. It is distressing that in complying with the NMA’s strike directive, doctors were forced to recommend private hospitals to patients needing emergency treatment. Also, the situation meant that hospital admission cases had to be discharged unceremoniously.

    Tragically, the doctors’ strike means little or nothing to a class, speaking of those who can afford to hop on a plane at the slightest sign of physical discomfort, or even mental unease, to seek treatment abroad. Ironically, many of those who belong to this privileged circle are the very ones officially positioned to effect desirable changes in the sector without the desired result.

    It promises to be another hell of a time. According to President of Association of Resident Doctors, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile Ife, Osun State, Dr Adeolu Ajibare, “We will resume after five days, but if the government refused to respond to issues at hand we will embark on a total and indefinite strike from January 6, 2014.” Certainly not a time to fall ill, is it?

  • Before ASUU strikes again

    Fascinating verbal nuances were evident as the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) ended its marathon five-month old industrial action with effect from Tuesday, December 17. ASUU President, Dr. Nasir Fagge, said “ NEC has resolved to suspend the strike embarked upon on July 1, 2013, with effect from Tuesday, December 17, 2013, and directs its staff to resume work forthwith.” Interestingly, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator Anyim Pius Anyim, said “Notwithstanding the fact that some of the sessions were typically stormy, I am gladdened by the fact that the strike has been called off and we are here to formalise the process that will work to uphold the renewed confidence between ASUU and the government.”

    Note that while Fagge used the word “suspend”, Anyim employed the phrase “called off”. To the discerning, the one implies possible resumption, while the other suggests an ending. This subtle but significant difference in diction deserves contemplation.

    In connection with the likely import of the divergence in their choice of words, in fact, reinforcing the discrepancy, is Fagge’s pregnant statement while addressing journalists at the Bosso Campus of the Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, where he said, “ASUU would have preferred to undertake the re-negotiation of the 2009 agreement in the second quarter of 2014, but we were persuaded to shift the date to the third quarter, and we agreed as a gesture of goodwill.’’

    So the third quarter of 2014 might be problematic, given the history of conflict resolution involving ASUU and government. It took a marathon 13-hour meeting between ASUU and President Goodluck Jonathan on November 4 to resolve the complicated disagreement, with the government committing itself to injecting N1.3tn into public universities between 2013 and 2018. The compromise involved N220bn yearly government release beginning from 2014, and an agreement to domicile N 200bn in a special account at the Central Bank of Nigeria for the remaining part of this year.

    The high figures were understandable in the context of the dispute which centred on increased funding of the public universities, a declaration of state of emergency in tertiary education, improved wages as well as payment of earned allowances to academic staff.

    It remains to be seen whether the formation of a 12-man monitoring committee on the implementation of the recommendation of the Committee on Needs Assessment of Nigerian Universities can stop a recurrence of strike. It is interesting that the chairman of the committee is no other than the Supervising Minister of Education, Nyesom Wike, the very character who, apparently in a moment of pitiable confusion, threatened to sack any lecturer who failed to return to work on or before December 4, 2013. With such a bossy mentality, may Wike not provoke another storm!

    Fagge put the issue in perspective, saying, “It is our hope that government will honour these resolutions as signed.” This is the crux of the matter. Before the just ended strike, four years ago ASUU had a similar faceoff with the Federal Government which lasted four months, and the terms of resolution unbelievably formed the basis of the 2013 industrial action. So it’s like you never can tell what will happen.

    Sometime ago, in an intriguing creative response to the challenges facing management of public universities in the country, the respected Nobel laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, declared that the institutions probably should be shut down for a two-year period to allow for a re-imagining of the concept of tertiary education. Far-fetched, some critics observed at the time. But, in the light of developments, doesn’t it sound reasonable, given the unending see-saw that the ASUU versus government conflict has become?