The Nation Newspaper

Category: Opinion

  • Politicians delegitimizing and de-marketing Nigeria

    Up front: this write-up is not about fake news! It is instead about the reckless and unguarded utterances and statements of our public officials that are capable of delegitimizing the country and its governance institutions at home and de-market Nigeria in the eyes of the rest of the world. While it is true that Nigeria has a terrible image problem across the globe, mostly on account of pervasive official corruption that has vitiated its development for several decades now, Nigerians themselves, ostensibly in exercise of the guaranteed freedom of speech, do willfully delegitimize and de-market their country for purely selfish or self-serving partisan political purposes. All manner of political desperadoes and their co-travellers, mostly political jobbers who have nothing to offer Nigerians by way of fresh and innovative ideas and solutions to our myriad problems of underdevelopment and the crisis of the nationhood, backed by an array of ethnic jingoists, tribal rabble-rousers, failed and lapsed politicians seeking relevance, and even politically motivated religious merchants, regularly spew out ruinous garbage.

    But by far the most galling are not the desperate politicians seeking electoral success by all means but those who are already involved in governance at all levels. Nigerian officials (elected and appointed into public offices at state and national levels) do willful and irreparable damage to the country’s image during election cycles. Legislators, ministers, serving state governors, commissioners and others often make gratuitous official statements that, deep down, threaten the fabric of national unity and call into question not only the quality of governance but the integrity of the Nigerian state itself. I don’t have a serious problem with political parties, civil society organizations and other private groups and private individuals making various self-serving superlative claims, but it is a different ballgame entirely when officials of the Nigerian state make public statements that invariably subvert the integrity of the state and de-market it in the eyes of the rest of the world. And they do this by careless utterances and reckless official statements that are neither backed by fact nor analysis; issuing appeals to foreign governments and international organizations to intervene in matters that are essentially of domestic jurisdiction, unwittingly handing over Nigeria’s sovereignty to outsiders. Do these people have any sense, or they have been dulled by sheer desperation for public office?

    Whilst freedom of speech and the other basic freedoms are integral to liberal democracy, and they are explicitly spelt out and guaranteed in the 1999 Constitution, and whose enjoyment by the citizens should not be hindered, shouldn’t the freedom of state officials holding sensitive public offices in terms of public utterances and statements on partisan political issues be further guided by some constitutional requirements? Let us remember that as officials and agents of the government, they can longer publicly express purely personal opinion on official state matters. Though they swore to uphold the constitution but many are fond of making reckless and unguarded public statements that are readily capable of causing disaffection, havoc and disunity which, if made by ordinary folks may attract arrest and prosecution. For example when state governors openly accuse the INEC, without fact or shred of evidence, of intention to collude with the government in order to rig elections in favour of the governing party at the national level, they call into question the integrity of the entire electoral process. When state governors brazenly accuse the police and other security agencies of planning to rig elections in favour of the federal government, they invariably delegitimize the outcomes of such elections in the eyes of the rest of world.

    What irks me is whether these people ever realize that the rest of the attentive world will assign considerable weight to such utterances? Will it be asking too much that officials of the state should be circumspect in their outbursts so as to avoid jeopardizing the interests of the nation? Must they set the country on fire just to win elections? In the 2000 presidential election in the US, then Vice President Al Gore won the most votes but the US Supreme Court later ruled in favour of his rival, George W. Bush. Al Gore neither called the integrity of the election into question nor derided the Supreme Court. Instead, he demonstrated statesmanship, sagacity and maturity when he said: “Now the US Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt. While I strongly disagree with the court’s position, I accept it.” He continued: “While we yet hold…and do not yield…our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put the country before party. We will stand together behind our new president.” To have done otherwise might have set the country ablaze.

    That’s the quality that statesmen are noted for! The opposite, unfortunately, is usually the case in Nigeria over electoral contests which are seen and fought as bloody zero-sum games! In Nigeria, winners of elections in their triumphalist jubilations and gloating often fail the test of magnanimity. Losers on the other hand are also bereft of gallantry, and blame their opponents, the electoral umpire, security agencies and everyone else, for their loss. It never occurs to them to do a careful and honest assessment of what might have led to their failure. An example is former President Goodluck Jonathan who lost to Muhammadu Buhari in the 2015 presidential election and who has found it difficult to accept that he actually lost. Instead, and as is reflected in his book, My Transition Hours, he is still laying the blame for the electoral loss at the feet of the opposition party, the INEC, civil society organizations, the mass media, and even former US President Barack Obama, all who he believes conspired against him. No wonder there are very few, if any, statesmen in Nigeria!

    Why are adult Nigerians in public office not capable of such of statesmanship and consideration for national integrity? Shouldn’t there be sanctions for public officials who make incendiary public statements? Or is it fair for them to set the nation on fire while they and their families are enjoying state protection? Chinua Achebe was right all along: the trouble with Nigeria is squarely the inability of its leaders to rise to the stature and responsibilities of leadership!

    While not advocating gagging public officials, we need a mechanism to make them understand the weight of their public utterances can bring odium to our country in the eyes of the world. There must be a way to call to order and discipline public officials who make reckless and incendiary statements that are capable of delegitimizing our governance institutions and give Nigeria a bad image abroad. When damage is done to the country’s standing in the world, it is innocent Nigerians that bear the brunt while applying for visas at foreign embassies here in Nigeria and shabby treatment at entry points into foreign countries. How can we complain that the rest of the world has no respect for us when our own elected and appointed public officials willfully and carelessly de-market the country through irresponsible conduct?

  • Atiku and restructuring bait

    One of the greatest pains of patriots who truly love the African continent is that it continues to lag behind despite her enormous potentials. Africa’s bane has largely been due to Africans who continue to show contempt towards a continent so blessed in human and natural resources, though some still refer to her colonisation by foreign powers as a major drawback.

    Nigeria which was truly the giant of Africa is a typical case of the unfortunate scenario after showing some glimpses of greatness at infancy.

    Many still recall the Malaysia story where that country came to Nigeria many years ago to explore how she could tap the potentials of oil palm and is today a major foreign exchange earner from that commodity, years after, while Nigeria continued it’s over reliance on oil until recently.

    Similar stories are legion, but the sad story was that Nigeria was almost left to bleed to death – administration after administration – largely due to corruption, even as the civilian administrations did not fare better.

    Compared with other African countries, which have done better, the difference no doubt has been the issues of leadership and followership, which are very critical in any nation state.

    Though Nigeria like most other African countries has good people at various rungs of the ladder, what separates us from other nations is attitude.

    For instance, have you bothered to ask yourself why Nigerians especially the elite suddenly become mute when they see issues that are injurious to the health of the nation?

    Why do they look the other way when somebody tells us to our face, that he will do the impossible when he becomes the president, when we know he lacks the antecedents?

    Why don’t they as opinion leaders shape the reasoning of the illiterates and vulnerable positively on issues of national importance as the coming election?

    These questions are germane when one considers the restructuring bait former Vice – President, Atiku Abubakar has been dangling before Nigerians in the last few months.

    Suddenly, the Waziri Adamawa has become an advocate of restructuring after becoming the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Worse still, he says he would restructure Nigeria to correct imbalance in the system to ensure a level playing ground among all segments of the country within six months!

    Beautiful as his proposition appears, it still beats one hollow when one takes a critical look at both the message and the messenger.

    First, it appears that former governor of Lagos State, Senator Bola Tinubu was right after all when he queried Atiku’s democratic credentials. This is because questions about the former vice president’s sudden romance with restructuring needed to be asked.

    Having been on the political turf and rising to the level of the nation’s number two, when and how did he join the restructuring train?

    Meanwhile, he also needs to be asked how he will achieve restructuring within six months in office, if he becomes president.

    This is in view of the fact that we are knowledgeable enough to know that restructuring cannot be achieved by executive fiat. Such a proposition therefore needs to go before the National Assembly, where the two chambers would subject the issue to serious debate before it can be actualized.

    Even foreigners have an idea about Nigerian’s complexity and what that therefore means is that some spade work would have to be done among critical stakeholders, even before such a bill is presented at all.

    This would no doubt require some time, even as government would also be busy with other germane issues of state, which means the six months proposed by Atiku is meant to hoodwink the electorate into voting for him as president.

    This reminds one of the emergency U–turn made by former President Goodluck Jonathan, who had all along rejected the idea of a national conference by Nigerians. His stand before the sudden change was that holding the conference may lead to end of the Nigerian nation and that he would not be party to such.

    However, Nigerians were shocked to see the same Jonathan telling them that he had suddenly had a change of mind due to superior argument.

    But those who saw through the script knew that the former president only shifted ground to fulfill the agenda of certain interests whom he relied on for votes.

    The outcome today is public knowledge.

    Though Jonathan wasted a substantial part of our commonwealth on that conference for personal gains, he was roundly defeated by President Muhammadu Buhari, who is widely respected for his integrity at the polls.

    Today, a similar scenario is playing out with former President Olusegun Obasanjo drumming support for Atiku to become the next president.

    Both Obasanjo and Atiku led this country for eight years and they never touched restructuring with a long pole while their administration lasted.

    Atiku in particular is being clever by half in pushing his agenda during his political campaigns. Has anyone heard him pushing the restructuring agenda anywhere around the North? Never!

    However, the PDP candidate knows that restructuring is sweet music to the ears of those in the South and never forgets to drum it hard whenever he campaigns in the zone. This reminds one of the late political leader in a state in the North-central and father of a leading senator, who employed the strategy many years ago. Each time he took his presidential aspiration to the North, he was known and addressed with an Islamic name, a strategy devised to sway votes from the North, which is dominated by Muslims.

    In the South, he was simply addressed in his Yoruba name, to show his affinity with the South, especially the Yoruba – speaking areas. His posters were designed in like manner but his dream eventually hit the rocks for obvious reasons.

    As February 16 fast approaches, the time to put on our thinking caps is now, especially as we need to take a major decision about our future and our children’s future.

    This is in view of the fact that the date offers us a moment to decide whether to continue with a government that though not perfect, has shown prospects of a better future or one with an outlook of an uncertain future.

    That somebody who wants to become our president would declare equivocally that he would sell the NNPC to his friends as they also deserve to become rich raises fundamental questions even as the same fellow continues to contradict himself now and then on how he would tackle corruption.

     

    • Umohinyang, a social commentator wrote in from Lagos.

  • Between fake and the genuine Afenifere

    Sir: For a long time to come, one will continue to see and hear varieties of Afenifere, the political grassroots version of Awolowo’s thought. One is not really surprised that there are different versions and interpretations of Afenifere today. Considering the complexity of the Yoruba nation, this is not surprising. What is surprising is that a few people located in one single state who are mainly beneficiaries of treasury lootings and political manipulation of yesteryears have the effrontery to perpetually insult our sensibilities by their audacious claim to genuineness   and orthodoxy.

    In these days of political turmoil, and fake news, Nigerians are exposed to all kinds of lies, contentions and postulates. That is why a few Yoruba people, some ageing beyond perception, while others vituperative, outspoken and unbridled could attempt to manoeuvre public opinion in their favour.

    Awolowo and his compatriots notably D.S. Adegbenro, Alfred Rewane, A.M.A. Akinloye, the Babalolas of EfonAlaaye and OyeEkiti, Akomolafe of Ido-Ekiti, Ayo Fasanmi of IlejemejeEkiti and many more others would feel amused by the antics of these few self-serving political turn-coats. The only language which their splinter group understands and which they repeat like parrot almost daily is ‘restructuring’ which if fully examined comes through as rigid ‘regionalism’, a concept which would malevolently turn Nigeria into a loose confederation. Of course, this splinter group knows its method very well. The group is in perfect harmony with the looters of yesteryears, indeed they are beneficiaries and partners with them. They do not have a pinch of conscience and they do not pretend any.

    On the other side of the coin, we have a larger group, silent, studious and in good conscience and partnership with all that is good for Yorubaland and Nigeria. They are certainly not chummy with politicians with deep pockets but they know and appreciate what is good for the Yoruba nation and the federation. They may not command the attention or even respect of newspaper columnists or television newscasters or the so-called political commentators. But they have what the other side lacks-the people, their conscience and the spirit of Oduduwa. They don’t engage in brazen lies, they are not engaged in distributing and acquiring looted funds and they remain humble and devoted to their cause throughout their life time.

    Even Awolowo and Akintola in the hey days of their intra-party struggle did not charge each other with treasury looting or collaborators with swindlers; the only difference between the two statesmen lay in national alignment. While Awolowo thought a horizontal political arrangement involving the East and West of the Niger plus what Awolowo christened Middle Belt was appropriate for a national government and cohesion, Akintola thought a better political and administrative arrangement would be vertical alignment involving much of the North and the South especially the Southwest. Even the Coker Commission of Enquiry instituted by the Majekodunmi emergency administration of the West did not find the Awolowo group stealing public money; the worst sin they could lay at Awolowo’s door was nepotism which involved putting selected men and women in critical positions against what they considered to be national interest.

    I am happy for one thing, the Yoruba are not a volatile people, they observe widely, think deep, and take appropriate action. They know where their interest lies, they know which of the two political parties and their leaders can meet the fundamental objectives and economic well-being of the Yoruba nation. This time, as usual, they will not miss their track. Let’s watch and see. Meanwhile let the four or five-member-Afenifere group go. They represent nobody but themselves.

     

    • Asiwaju Deji Fasuan MON; JP

    Ado-Ekiti.

  • Nigerian judicial impasse: the way forward

    It is of no moment whether Justice Onnoghen has admitted that he forgot to declare some of his assets at the Code of Conduct Bureau. What is of value in the eye of the law is that due process must be followed in bringing an accused person to justice, the principle of fair hearing and due procedure of court processes must be followed. The rule of law is not executive rascality, neither is it selective adjudication, it is laws according to the Constitution. It is no longer news that President Muhammadu Buhari has suspended the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, and sworn in Justice Tanko Mohammed from Bauchi State as Acting Chief Justice. This is in line with the recommendation of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Despite the restraining order from the Court of Appeal preventing the CCT from proceeding with the prosecution of the CJN pending the determination of the substantive suit, the CCT went ahead to give an exparte order that led President Muhammadu Buhari to suspend CJN Onnoghen and swear in an Acting CJN in the person of Justice Tanko Mohammed.

    However, it is trite law that you cannot charge a judicial officer to court for corruption or criminal allegations until the National Judicial Council, NJC, has first disciplined him for gross misconduct. This established principle of law is encapsulated in the case of Nganjiwa v. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Suspending the CJN is a rape on the Judiciary and is unconstitutional. If the procedure adopted to obtain justice is wrong, the whole process is void ab initio. To every wrong, the law provides a remedy, Ubi jus ibi remedium.

    The jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal has already been challenged, and until the issue of jurisdiction is determined, the CCT cannot go ahead to deliver any order, as any action taken is void ab initio. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. Jurisdiction is a preliminary issue. A court cannot give itself jurisdiction over any matter as doing so will result in an error of law. Subjection to the control of superior courts is a necessary and inseparable issue in law.

    Jurisdiction is the lifeline and blood that gives life to the survival of an action in court. Without jurisdiction, the court will be like an animal that has been drained of its blood. No tribunal or court of limited jurisdiction can give itself jurisdiction by a wrong decision on a point collateral to the merit of the case upon which the limit of its jurisdiction depends – Per Lord Coleridge in Bunbury v. Fuller.

    On Monday 28th January 2019, the Code of Conduct Tribunal adjourned further proceedings until the determination of the suit before the Court of Appeal, as according to the CCT, it is law abiding and obeys the rule of law. But how come it proceeded to issue an exparte order directing the president of Nigeria to suspend CJN Onnoghen even when there were already restraining orders against it from various courts of competent jurisdiction?

    How did we get to this sorry pass? Institutions and agents of government now select which court orders to obey. The law is clear on the procedure to discipline erring judges. It is instructive to note that a judicial officer cannot be removed from office before his age of retirement except in accordance with the Constitution, section 292(1), where it involves misconduct or contravention of the code of conduct, and on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council to the president who takes appropriate steps acting on an address supported by two-third majority of the Senate. There is no such provision as acting on the recommendation of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    The Federal High Court has since barred the federal government from prosecuting the CJN. Similarly the National Industrial Court has given similar judgement restraining the federal government and its agents from prosecuting the CJN. The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has also restrained the federal government from acting. The action of the federal government in suspending the CJN is usurping the powers of the judiciary.

    The judiciary should enjoy independence and certain degree of freedom and immunity to be able to carry out its duties freely without fear or favour. The importance of the independence of the judiciary in any society cannot be overemphasised. This all-important sector is so critical that it cannot be humiliated or muzzled into slavery. The law has stated the remedy and the procedure to follow in this kind of controversy. Let the rule of law be obeyed.

    To this end, the National Judicial Council has risen to the occasion as it has already issued queries against the suspended CJN, and even the Acting CJN. That is the way it should go. The insinuation in some quarters that Justice Onnoghen will meddle into his probe is a fallacy as the NJC is a neutral body and upright. The National Judicial Council on Tuesday 29th January 2019 issued a seven-day ultimatum to Justice Walter Onnoghen to respond to allegations levelled against him, especially why he failed to declare his assets as stipulated by law?

    Similarly, the Acting CJN, Tanko Mohammed, was also asked to explain why he allowed himself to be sworn in by President Muhammadu Buhari without the recommendation of the NJC as stipulated in the Constitution?

    With the litany of cases pending in court, and with the recent approach of the Senate to the Supreme Court on this same issue, there is the need to preserve the res in this whole controversy, it is quite apt now for the Attorney General of the Federation to file a Nolle prosequi and discontinue this case with regards to the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to preserve abuse of legal process, as contained in Section 174 (1)(c) & (3) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

    Now is the time to maintain the status quo and let the rule of law take its full course. The National Judicial Council should be allowed to do its job as stipulated in Section 292 (1) of the Constitution.

    • Peter, University of Benin, Edo State.

    erekosepeter@yahoo.com.

    07067446977.

  • Buhari meets Zik

    At last, the Federal Republic of Nigeria has given her first indigenous governor-general and president, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, the Owelle of Onitsha, a befitting resting place.It is however a shame that ittookabout 23 years for the government to finishthe mausoleum in honour of the world famous Zik of Africa.

    The sage, unarguablya model Nigerian patriot and foremost nationalist at Independence,was born on November 16, 1904. He became the first senate president, first indigenous governor-general and later president when Nigeria adopted a republican constitution in 1963. In the struggle for Nigeria’s independence,Zik pressed his sagacious intellect to action, founding a coterie of newspapers to wage the war against colonialism.

    So, when Zik joined his ancestors on May 11, 1996,the country gave him a deserved national burial, and promised to build a befitting mausoleum as a mark of honour to the great son of Africa.To the amazement of Nigerians, building the mausoleum became a major object for political campaign, since 1999. Every election cycle, the federal government would send craftsmen to give a semblance of activities at the site, and immediately after the elections, the resting place of the Owellewould be abandoned.

    While the cycle of shame lasted, candidates for electionsmilked the sentimental attachment of Ndigbo to Zik, as they visited the abandoned mausoleum to make promises that they would ensure the project is completed, if elected. That nauseating attitude of dancing naked on the grave of the great Zik was particularly heightened when President Goodluck Jonathan was campaigning for president in 2015, perhaps to justify the façade of his false middle name of Azikiwe.

    For 16 years that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was in power, the name of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe was usedin vain. They loved to associate the party with his towering personality, even lauding Jonathan as the new Zik, yet they could not gift him a deserved resting place. To their amazement, despite his tug of war with a section of the Igbo elite, President Muhammadu Buhari made a promise to deliver the mausoleum, and last week Thursday he delivered on his promise.

    The President instructively went to the palace of the Obi of Onitsha,HM IgweAlfred Nnaemeka Achebe, where unkempt promises have been made in the past, on his way to commission the edifice. At the palace he asked Ndigbo to vote for his re-election, arguing that he has been fair to them in his appointments. While many Igbo men and women would not agree that he has given them their fair share of key political appointments in the past three and half years, President Buhari is unobtrusively working to deliver key infrastructure to the region.

    Amongst the most notorious infrastructure challenge is the 2nd Niger Bridge, which PDP governments at the centre made a song of, without much to show for it. The Minister of Power, Works and Housing BabatundeFashola, who delivered on the Zik’s Mausoleum on target,has promised that the bridge would be ready in 2022. Of course that will only happen if Buhari is re-elected. Also the Minister of Transportation RotimiAmaechi has promised that a re-elected Buhari will deliver rail lines across the state capitals of the south-east.The PDP sympathizers are however mocking the promises as empty.

    In deciding to complete and commission the Zik’s Mausoleum, many have accused the president of playing politics. Well, that may be true. But a major essence of acquiring political office is to be in a vantage position to determine the deployment of the available resources, and if Buhari, as the president deploys that resources to honour a son of Ndigbo, they should applaud the politics involved.

    If any Igbo man or woman would not appreciate the president for his right sense of judgment, he/sheshould not excoriate him for the kind gesture. That is what those attacking OhanezeNdigbo for the hasty endorsement of the presidential candidates of the PDP, AlhajiAtiku Abubakar, are quarrelling about.To make a bad judgment most deplorable, the Ohaneze hatched the plan to exclude their distinguishedmembers who are in the All Progressive Congress (APC) from the decision making process.

    To achieve the goal, Ohaneze leadership chose to ambuscade their own members. That move has brought opprobrium,in the judgment of many. In the days ahead, theOhaneze leadership will struggle to explain convincingly why it chose to lift former vice-president Atiku Abubakar over President Muhammadu Buhari in the quest for the 2019 presidential election, on the same day the presidentwas honouring their most successful son in Nigerian politics, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe. That is an own-goal, in apolitical game.

    Now they are under attack from the governors of the two most populous states in the southeast. Anambra State which has the rare honour of producing the great Owelle of Onitsha and many other top Igbo leaders is up in arms against the leadership of Ohaneze for disrespecting Zik. The governor Willy Obiano attacked the Ohaneze President Dr.NniaNwodo, calling him unprintable names for the audacity to exclude his state indigenes from the crucial meeting. Also, the governor of Imo State, RochasOkorocha, who is in the same party with the president, considers Nwodo a dimwit for making the hasty decision.

    Other distinguished Igbo leaders, including the former senate president Ken Nnamani, Minister of Labour Chris Ngige, the Director-General of Voice of Nigeria OsitaOkechukwuand former Ohaneze secretary Obi Ozobuhave vowed to ensure the endorsement of Atiku amounts to little. Some have even vowed to fight the leadership to finish, implying they could move for a leadership change. They reminded Nwodo of the ill-fated endorsement of President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015, which did not save him from defeat. The defendants of Ohaneze claim the decision was democratically reached at the Imeobi, the highest decision making organ of the group.

    While members of Ohaneze are entitled to their individual political preferences, I agree with those who argue that as the foremost Igbo socio-political organisation they diminished their worth by dishonouring President Buhari on the same day he was commissioning the Zik’s Mausoleum. A more sagacious leadership would have seen the folly in choosing the same date for the meeting of the Imeobi. If the majority of their members preferred Atiku to Buhari, they would still have achieved their aim, by meeting on a more auspicious date. By their obstreperous judgment, they have made a poor judgment very controversial.

    Their members who were tactically excluded from the meeting which clashed with the commissioning of the mausoleum and the APC campaign in the southeast surely have every reason to excoriate the leadership for a poor judgment. By choosing to honour Nnamdi Azikiwe President Buhari has extended his hands of political friendship to Ndigbo. Unfortunately, Ohaneze is acting blind.

  • Donald Trump and the post-American world order!

    Half way into his four-year term as President of the United States, Donald J. Trump has unquestionably succeeded in redefining and reconstructing the art of politicking, the practice of governance, and the making and implementation of American foreign policy, and almost practically bent them out of shape and recognition. He is such a one-man riot squad with infinite nuisance value that even members of his party, the Republican Party (aka the GOP), stand in awe of him. Anyone who does not identify with him, his preferences and prejudices risks political sudden death. Recent casualties of Trump’s brand of toxic politics include the immediate past Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and a few senators, who either lost their seats in Congress or simply refuse to re-contest.

    If anything, he has shown Americans and the rest of the world how quickly a single authoritarian-minded elected leader can twist democratic governance out of shape. At home, President Trump callously shut down portions of the US government, without any care about the pains this inflicted on nearly a million government employees who had to make do without their regular paychecks. Americans are now experiencing what it is to be held hostage by their own government, a callous thing that most of the rest of the world under authoritarian rule are already used to.

    In a cynical way though, I find it refreshing that Americans are being taught, not by outsiders but by their own democratically elected leaders, the cruel lesson in how democracies become autocracies. I don’t know but I hope this may humble Americans and cause them to become more empathetic to the plight of the hapless billions around the globe who are pining away under corrupt and authoritarian lawlessness. Come to think of it, who would have thought that an intellectually lazy, narcissistic politician like Trump would be the one to teach American political scientists how to revise and refine their age-old theories and analyses of democratic governance!  Wonders, as they say, will never cease. And the leaders of both the democratic and the not-so-democratic countries must be paying close attention to how the evolving Trump-induced trends in America’s liberal democracy and governance may be helpful to them. Translation: America is deliberately encouraging the death of democracy around the globe!

    Tempting as it is to want to keep commenting on the gripping developments in the scandal-ridden US domestic politics of Donald Trump, the focus of this write-up, however, is on how its foreign policy is shaping contemporary world affairs, its impact on global configuration of power, in particular the fast-receding American influence on the world stage. Though cerebral American thinkers like Joseph Nye, Fareed Zakaria and Amitav Acharya had foreseen and predicted the approaching post-American world order, they could not have remotely imagined that the fast-tracking of the decline of America’s influence would be the deliberate handiwork of an elected American president. What an irony. Now it is truer than ever, the era of American domination of global affairs which had begun at the end of the Cold War is fast coming to an end. And it is not only because of the rise of other rival powers seeking to carve a niche for themselves on the world stage alone, itself an indisputably significant development, but much more importantly due to Donald Trump’s deliberate policies and actions.

    In less than two years under Trump, America has withdrawn from several multilateral engagements, amongst others, the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear Treaty, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the North American Free Trade Agreement; downgraded America’s participation in trans-Atlantic relationships, bullied its European allies and accused them of freeloading on American economy, undermined NATO, ignited a trade war with China, ridiculed the United Nations and unilaterally withdrew US participation from some of its organs, withheld funding for other UN agencies, demonstrating open administration for veritable autocrats like Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte, Turkey’s Recip Tayyip Erdogan, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, and Egypt’s Fatah el-Sisi, while shunning the company of democrats like Britain’s Theresa May, Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Emmanuel Macron. Even the traditionally cordial relations with neighbouring Canada and Mexico have come under severe strain.

    These developments are causing other great powers to have a rethink of their relationship with America and their future in a post-American world order. In Europe, Merkel and Macron are advocating greater intra-European cooperation and trying to chart a new course for themselves away from US; China is pursuing a gradual global power status, signposted by a fast expanding global economic influence in Asia and Africa to rival the US, the adoption of the Yuan as a global reserve currency alongside the dollar, a rising military profile and military bases outside Asia; Russia is on the rebound into international limelight from its self-imposed hibernation after the collapse of the Soviet Union, developing fresh economic and military muscles for global reach; Japan and India are not left out in the race for global outreach and influence, all of this inexorably creating what some analysts refer to as a polycentric world order. New multinational blocs are also in the process of challenging US and Western stranglehold on global economy, with the consequence that the architecture of world economy is undergoing drastic restructuring. By the time all these fully unfold, the world order would have changed in spectacular ways, and there would have been a thorough diffusion of political, economic, technological and military power.

    I must hasten to point out that these developments do not necessarily imply a total diminution of America’s political, economic, technological and military power, although its adversaries wished it were so. But its hegemonic hold will weaken considerably in the multi-polar global order, and the American empire as we know it will go the way of all previous empires!

    Though the US has never been an empire in the actual sense of acquiring, holding and physically dominating territories, but it is without question the greatest and most powerful country on earth, with an unprecedented global political, economic, financial and military reach since the 20th century. The breath and reach of its power is without historical precedent for a country that does not have colonial possessions but yet dominate the rest of world in ways that no nation has ever done in all of recorded history. Foremost African scholar, the late Professor Ali Mazrui, famously classified America as an ‘empire of control rather than an empire of domination’. It had perfected all the necessary technological, political, economic, institutional, diplomatic, and military mechanisms, including the means of propaganda, to control the rest of world without actually physically dominating others as previous empires did, hence what is known as Pax Americana. It became the only military superpower and global economic power left in the world after the dramatic disintegration of its arch-rival, the USSR in 1991. With the sudden exit of the USSR from the world scene, the stage was set for America to remake the global political and economic architecture after its own image, an enterprise in which it largely succeeded but not without serious challenges.

    But that global hegemonic stranglehold is fast coming to an end, and a truly post-American world order is in the offing, although its exact outlines remain fluid. And it is America’s deliberate retrenchment from multilateralism and global commitments in the Trump era that is hastening it. The global architecture of power is now being refashioned also by the rise of new competitors such as China, a resurgent Russia, Japan, India, and economic blocs such as the European Union and BRICS. A truly polycentric world order is inexorably dawning on us. This is what Joseph Nye calls ‘power diffusion’. In the final analysis, all great empires have their terminal dates.

     

    • Prof Fawole writes from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife.

  • Corruption as an adopted Nigerian culture

    Corruption can be defined as any intentional act of dishonesty geared towards achieving selfish gains. On the other hand, culture can be said to be a way of life of a particular people. For a while in Nigeria, corruption has been part of us, and has even grown to be our way of life. As a matter of fact, we have also been nurturing and transferring this evil culture to our off-springs.

    Indeed, in 2015, current leader of the country, President Muhammadu Buhari, made the fight against corruption one of the most focal points of his electoral campaigns. His slogan then was: “If we don’t kill corruption, corruption will kill us”. That, of course, underscores the endemic nature of corruption in the country.

    Without a doubt, corruption is the biggest among the numerous challenges in Nigeria. When critically examined, there is every possibility of observing corrupt practices in every facet of our national life, no matter the scope.  Presently, corruption is so entrenched in the country that people factor its consideration into anything they want to do.

    But then, we have not always been like this. In the olden days, as I was told by my grandmother, people were more honest and forthright. This has got me thinking about the actual origin of corruption as a culture in our society. Is corruption indigenously peculiar to Nigeria or is it a colonial legacy?

    Well, probable answers to this can be gotten from two perspectives. These are from colonialism point of view as well as the indigenous point of view. Proponents of the colonialism school of thought are of the view that prior to the coming of the Europeans, corruption was an alien culture in Nigeria. So, advocates of this school posit that it was the Europeans who, out of selfish interest, taught and influenced Nigerians to imbibe corruption.

    As for promoters of the indigenous point of view, the mainstay of their argument is that corruption has been part and parcel of the Nigerian culture, ever before colonialism. They opine that corruption cannot be disjointed from egoism, which is the prioritizing of one’s selfish interest over others’. In other words, human beings are moral agents who are wired to maximally promote personal interest. It can, however, be debated if this human affairs of personal gain is an obligation borne out of psychological innate compulsion or an option, given environmental socializing factors.

    As much as all human beings are bound to be self-interested, man is liable to be corrupt. However, recurring events in the society can kill or nurture this natural inclination towards corruption. The environmental socializing factors of egoism are really being put to check in the old pre-colonial era than it is in the present day.

    This is such that, whoever is regarded and confirmed to be corrupt will get banished from a specific human settlement, gets capital punishments without preferential treatment, lose his/her high Chieftaincy title in the community, forfeiture of assets. Importantly, he/she will be regarded as a social defiant. The stigma attached to being corrupt necessitates remorse from the corrupt individual who wants to be assimilated back into the community again.

    Sadly, the reverse seems to be the case presently as corrupt individuals are often adored, applauded and prompted for higher responsibilities. In my opinion, corruption is an adopted culture in Nigeria. The colonial masters fully exploited the psychological egoism in us to the extreme. They got us insanely married to corruption. It was not ours, it is alien. They “wooed” us to be the bride of corruption. They deceived us with their ugly gifts in exchange for our fellow strong and agile black men; they call them slaves. The end result is that corruption is now firmly rooted in Nigeria.

    Corruption has now become an established culture that has its branches in the minds of many Nigerians. Its ugly effects on the society include poor and bad infrastructures, lopsided government policies, upsurge in cybercrimes (“Yahoo-Yahoo”), encouragement of criminal acts, unemployment, feeble health scheme, poorly funded educational system; insecurity and the list is just endless.

    Corruption poses a serious developmental challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and fair representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary undermines or suspends the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the unequal provision of services. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and officials are hired or promoted without regard to performance. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance.

    Corruption also undermines economic development by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency. In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments, management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting red tape, an emerging consensus holds that the availability of bribes induces officials to contrive new rules and delays. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.

    However, irrespective of how bad the corruption indicator in the country is, the social malady can be brought to a most minimal level. Psychological egoism can be put to check if we leave a communal lifestyle of sharing our wealth with family and friends and not keeping possessions more than we are actually in need of. We should not allow our comfort be the discomfort of others.

    Application of appropriate sanctions on corrupt offenders must not be negotiable. In handling corruption cases, the current arcane court processes and rules that lead to delayed justice must be dispensed with.

    Where persons or group of individuals or corporate bodies have been convicted of corrupt practices, any funds or assets seized by law enforcement agencies must automatically be forfeited to the relevant arm of government which has been a victim of such corruption. In addition, persons convicted of corrupt practices must be disqualified from holding any public office for a specified period.

    On a final note, corruption cannot be wiped out entirely in any society.  But then, any country that can muster the will can, indeed, reduce corruption to the barest minimum. I look forward to a corruption free Nigeria. The movement to actualize this, however, begins with you and I. Corruption should not be our culture.

    • Adebiyi, an NYSC member, is with the Ministry of Information & Strategy, Alausa, Ikeja

  • Ganduje: Open letter to President Buhari

    Following your recent appearance on Kadaria Ahmed’s widely-televised programme, The Candidates, I write to raise some issues regarding your response to several questions on the viral video clips allegedly showing Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje of Kano State receiving bribe from contractors.

    What stood out to me in your answers are that you “can’t understand” the extent of the “technology” used in the clips and that you are counting on Kano State Assembly (KSHA) and the Kano State High Court (KSHC) to provide you with the answers you and every Nigerian want before you go to Kano for your election campaign.

    With profound respect, Your Excellency, these statements left me with only one conclusion: that you have been utterly misled by those people you appointed and trusted to guide you. Contrary to what you have been made to believe, the issue of investigating the clips is not in court and it is not before the KSHA. The whole world is now waiting for you to act. I will explain my assertion below.

    There is currently no ongoing investigation on the said clips at the KSHA and there no pending suit on the investigation. Immediately after the videos went viral, the KSHA instituted an ad hoc committee to investigate the allegations. The committee held public sittings to which it invited Jaafar Jaafar – the journalist who first released the videos – and he honoured the invitation, testified before the committee and made copies of the clips available to it. I was specially moved by the fact that Jaafar arrived the venue with a copy of the Noble Qur’an and he testified while hanging it.

    Next, the committee invited Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje. But Ganduje failed, refused or neglected to appear before it. Instead, he sent his Commissioner of Information to represent him. Predictably, the representative could not offer any convincing explanation not least because he was not there when the alleged facts took place. He merely denied the content of the video and cast aspersions on the personality of Jaafar Jaafar. To recap this point, Jaafar has honoured the committee’s invitation and testified, but Ganduje failed to appear. Doesn’t that tell you anything sir?

    But the worst for Ganduje was still to come. Few days after he refused to appear before the committee, the whistle-blower who shot the video and who was initially hesitant to testify volunteered to appear before the committee if his security and safety could be guaranteed. Furthermore, the committee started making moves to appoint experts to analyse the videos. These developments chilled Ganduje and his team to the marrow. The next thing we heard was that a group of self-styled, unregistered lawyers had instituted an action asking the court to stop the KSHA from investigating the videos. The court first restrained the committee and later pronounced that the KSHA has no power to investigate the videos as they contain criminal allegations. It further declared that it is the function of such agencies as the police, the EFCC and the ICPC to investigate the allegations and that the videos should be submitted to them. Thus, the court has already ruled that the KSHA lacks power to proceed, and then threw to ball to the court of these agencies, all of which are under your watch. So, the matter is not in the court. It is not in the KSHA. Consequently, you unfortunately cannot find the answers you are looking for from the KSHA or from the court. Surprisingly, the EFCC, ICPC, NPF and the DSS have refused to act and they are all under you. Thus, the ball is now in your court, Mr. President.

    Your Excellency, permit me to now turn to your statement that you don’t know “the extent of [the] technology used” in the clips and you “can’t understand it”. I believe you a 110 percent that you don’t know the extent of the technology used, but I state, with profound respect, that you can understand it if you wish to. Qur’an 16:43 teaches you to “ask the people of the message if you do not know”. The only thing needed for you to understand the video is for a forensic investigation to be carried out on them. This investigation would reveal whether the clips are genuine, doctored or fake. Today, Allah has put at your disposal every investigative agency in Nigeria: the DSS, the NPF, the EFCC, ICPC; name them. You simply need to ask them to investigate and brief you so that you may understand “the extent of [the] technology used.”

    But you do not even have to ask and wait for forensic investigation to be conducted because the EFCC has already done one. This is according its acting chairman, Ibrahim Magu and all you need to do is to simply direct the EFCC chairman to brief you on their findings. On November 23, 2018, Magu told this writer in public at Queen Mary University of London that his team was in London to, among other things, conduct forensics into the clips. But upon completion and return to Nigeria, he kept mute on the issue. I suspect that what he found is against Ganduje. Otherwise, he would have publicised the result and the police would have arrested and prosecuted the journalist and the whistle-blower.

    I do not need to remind you that in 2015 you campaigned on the back of three key promises – fighting corruption, unemployment and Boko Haram – and I understand that you are riding on the same promises today. The millions of Nigerians and me who not only voted for you in 2015 but also voluntarily worked for your election to the last atom of our strength did so because we believed that “if we don’t kill corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria.” On May 29, 2015, you swore on the Glorious Qur’an saying I “will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. Section 15 (5) of the constitution mandates you to “abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power” in Nigeria.

    Mr President, the duo of Jaafar Jaafar and the whistle-blower who did their best to complement your efforts in the fight against corruption, are bearing the brunt of your administration’s undoing. While Jaafar is facing a N3billion “defamation” suit, the business interest of the contractor who filmed the videos is on a knife edge. The ongoing contracts being executed by his company have recently been revoked by the state government. It goes without saying that this is counter-productive to your whistle-blowing policy as people will rather remain silent in the future.

    Finally, Mr. President, as you rightly stated in your response to Kadaria Ahmed, this issue, to borrow your words, has “received a lot of publicity” and “the world is [now] watching us”. You are the president whose duty is to lead. If you keep complaining that you can’t understand, what do you expect ordinary Nigerians to do? This will only continue to erode public confidence in your government as you are telling the world that you are not in charge.

    Your Excellency, your actions or inactions on fighting corruption in Nigeria will surely be written in history books and taught in history classes and this case is a litmus test. I pray that you wouldn’t let, nay make, history judge you harshly.

    The long and short of what I have said is that the whistle-blower has fulfilled his obligation as a good citizen, Jaafar Jaafar has paid his dues as a progressive journalist, the KSHA has played its own role and the court has ruled.

    And now I have done my part. The ball is now in your court, Mr. President.

     

    • Bukarti, a Ph.D. candidate at SOAS, University of London, is human rights and anti-corruption lawyer.

  • Social outreach in microfinance

    Reactions to my most recently published essay in The Nation, January 2 titled “Still on the Proposed National Microfinance Bank” were fast and furious. Before misconceptions further concretize and speculations run riot, let me hasten to say that all stakeholders – banking regulators, microfinance operators and microfinance investment vehicles – unequivocally share the same basic goal of providing access to financial services at affordable pricing to millions of poor people in order to reduce or alleviate grinding poverty. However, while there is a shared belief in the imperative of the front-burner position of the social mission, they do not all agree on the best way to achieve it.

    There are two contending schools of thought – the poverty lending approach versus the sustainability/financial systems approach. The former focuses on the poorest of the poor/extremely poor (‘poorest of the poor’ according to CGAP classification) and is described as supply-led i.e. a top-down approach. The self-sustainability approach (also known as the financial systems approach) focuses more on the economically active poor and is said to be demand-driven i.e. customer-centric.

    Both approaches are usually compared on the basis of six aspects of microfinance outreach, namely: worth; cost; depth; breadth; length; and scope. Worth is defined by the value the customer attaches to the outreach effort; cost refers to pricing; breadth refers to the degree of diversification of product offerings; depth to the extent to which poor people are served; length refers to the maturity cycle of product offerings; and scope to the size of the outreach programme.

    Poverty lending approach typically lays emphasis on a benefit-cost analysis while the sustainability approach focuses on cost-effectiveness analysis. The most critical measurement index in benefit-cost analysis is depth of outreach while the most critical index in cost-effectiveness analysis is length of outreach (full-cost coverage plus an ample return).

    Not surprisingly, the poverty lending approach measures success by how well the intervention effort fulfils the needs of the greatest number of the poorest in the short-term while the sustainability approach measures success by how well it expands the frontiers of the mainstream economy in the long-term. The pressing need to combine the best aspects of both approaches led to the dual mission concept of microfinance: fulfilling the social mission of providing affordable microfinance services to large numbers of poor people in tandem with recovering the full costs of operations.

    Although microfinance banks have a social mission to escalate access to financial services to the economically active poor, it must be noted that microfinance is not a charity but a business relationship that targets the economically active poor, not the extreme poor that are more appropriately served by the poverty lending approach.

    Rhyne and Rosenberg (1998) succinctly posited that “Every decision to settle for less than full financial viability is of necessity a decision to reduce the number of people who will gain access to financial services in favour of giving a larger benefit to a smaller number.” It was as a result of the understanding that a large-sized outreach depends on easy access to funding sources that made the CBN to launch its Revised Microfinance Policy Framework. But just about a decade later, we are returning full circle to the days of depending on government hand-outs, subsidizing interest rates and capping lending margins – the very same factors that caused past poverty alleviation intervention schemes to crash!

    Government direct intervention in business breeds inefficiencies and corruption. Political chieftains, traditional rulers and tribal warlords tend to compromise the system by influencing who takes a bite at the ‘national cake’ and those for whom the intervention is targeted hardly ever make it past the doors. And no one should underrate the ability of the typical Nigerian – whether literate or not – to ferret out arbitraging opportunities offered by the huge interest rate differentials on subsidised facilities!

    This is not to say that there aren’t cases of regulated microfinance banks that have successfully used the poverty lending approach. However, they are very few and far between and usually require a plethora of special regulations to prop them up. The most notable example is the Grameen Bank (Bangladesh), a NOT-FOR-PROFIT microfinance bank founded in 1983 by Nobel laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus.

    The formation of the National Microfinance Bank signifies the total repudiation of the financial systems approach and adoption of the NON-PROFIT Grameen business model and a solid vote for the poverty lending approach. But while the proposed National Microfinance Bank can accommodate huge losses arising from providing below-market interest rates, existing microfinance banks cannot do same.

    And even if some buoyant microfinance banks are able to remain in business, it can only be for a limited period of time considering the crowding-out effects the National Microfinance Bank would have on the sub sector. There would be a very high customer churn accompanied by huge revenue losses. The operators must drastically peg costs to remain in business and doing so would mean ‘right-sizing’ their staffing and operations, culminating in job and income losses (these would be amplified in our extended family system society).

    Fewer hands would do far more work leading to declining effectiveness, poor corporate governance, heightened customer dissatisfaction, rising incidences of employee frauds and unethical/unprofessional conduct. The long-term effect on the formal microfinance sub sector would be disastrous as more and more persons will be financially excluded and placed at the mercy of shylock moneylenders and other informal microfinance operators.

    The more intriguing aspect is the willingness of commercial banks to take a significant stake in the project. Those among them that had engaged in microfinance activities either through a subsidiary microfinance bank or in-house unit had their fingers severely burnt. They ultimately either sold off or wound down their operations. So why get involved again against the backdrop of past errors and regrets?

    And it isn’t as if they already banks don’t have enough pressing challenges in their plates. The book value of their toxic loan portfolios taken over by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) between 2011 and 2013 was a staggering N4.02trillion. But soon after the much-touted cleansing of their Augean stables, the latest NDIC Annual Report indicated that their non-performing loan portfolios had again risen to a whopping N2.36trillion as at the end of 2017! What about the Skye/Polaris Bank saga and the CBN-facilitated takeover of Diamond Bank by Access Bank?

    So, why then are why commercial banks willing to engage in mission creep and forage in a pasture they very clearly don’t have the organisational culture and grasp to thrive in? Wouldn’t it have been much better for the economy in general, and the economically active poor and microfinance operators in particular, if the CBN would adopt the Indian example and superintend the allocation of the same funds to microfinance banks without restrictions and at no cost – as it is planning to do with its project – and watch them joyfully achieve the aspects of microfinance with single digit interest rates?

    The following are some universally held principles of microfinance: Interest rate ceilings damage poor people’s access to financial services as they prevent microfinance operators to recoup their high costs of operations and funds; Government is an enabler, not a direct provider of microfinance services and can best support the sub sector by creating an enabling environment that allows private microfinance institutions to thrive; and donor subsidies should best complement, not compete with private sector capital, by promoting human and institutional capacity building.

    Paradoxically, I actually wish the CBN and the Bankers’ Committee a resounding success for two major reasons. First, all the fears I have enumerated here would then prove to just be much ado about nothing. Second, the international microfinance community would be watching with very keen interest. Since the project is contrary to the universal concept of, and consensus on, modern microfinance, it is tantamount to rediscovering the wheel of microfinance right here in Nigeria – a feat that would be hailed as the ideal model to be replicated in most emerging economies of the world.

     

    • Okoye is an economic /microfinance analyst based in Abuja.

  • Presidency and Obla’s panel

    When recently the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property (SPIP), headed by Okoi Obono-Obla said it had submitted some 39 names of alleged treasury looters to the Nigerian Immigration Service to prevent them from escaping investigation and prosecution for alleged criminal acts, not few Nigerians were taken aback.

    The reason is simple: those who were surprised by the submission of the list and perhaps the intention behind could not but wonder what power does the panel has to arrogate such huge task to itself.

    Discerning Nigerians have asked if this the panel has the powers to determine who is corrupt or not? What basis or criteria did it use to determine the corrupt persons it has so identified?

    The other point is, even if the panel was mandated to investigate certain persons, how does one situate its powers to forward such names, straight from its stable to the immigration? Just how possible is that?

    It is still not clear where Obono-Obla’ panel derives its strange powers to arrest, seize property and prosecute public office holders under investigation and even put them on travel ban.

    But such powers are certainly not derivatives of the Act that forms the basis of the panel.

    The panel was set up pursuant to the Recovery of Public Property (Special Provisions) Act of 1983.  In the Act, there is no line that empowers the panel to arrest any suspect. In fact, the word ‘arrest’ does not feature in the Act.

    But as it has been rightly observed by critical Nigerians, the chairman of the panel is not only turning the laws of the land on their heads, he is also through the panel, violating other Nigerians’ fundamental human rights.

    There have also been several allegations that the panel chairman uses the panel to settle scores and for personal vendetta. And truly, there are evidences to support this.

    The recent travel ban that he issued using the Nigerian Immigration Services is a near home example.

    Also, the travails of Tumsah brothers in the hands of Obla’s panel are crystal clear examples.

    Recently, his panel arrested Hope Uzodinma, the senator representing Orlu Senatorial District of Imo State, for alleged corruption.

    Uzodinma’s arrest was in spite of a court ruling stating that the panel can only investigate alleged corruption cases, but lacks the powers to prosecute suspects or confiscate assets.

    Obono-Obla had ‘boasted’ to newsmen after the arrest that his panel “arrested” Uzodinma at the Abuja Airport after the lawmaker had evaded them for a long time.

    Speaking on Uzodinma’s arrest, Obono-Obla said: “The man was arrested. He was arrested…at the airport about 8:30 pm by our operatives and he was kept there till about 12 midnight before he pleaded that he should be allowed to go and we conceded because we don’t have detention facility.”

    Obono-Obla said his committee allowed Uzodinma a one-day respite because he complained that his blood pressure was high, and “we don’t want him to die”.

    Does the panel has power to arrest and prosecute?

    The laws are clear about the government agencies that have powers to arrest and prosecute. In this case, the EFCC and ICPC readily comes to mind.

    For Obla’s panel the law is also not ambiguous about it’s duties and limits.

    The Recovery of Public Property Act confers three powers on the panel, namely: the power to issue search warrants, the power to search properties under investigations, and the power to avoid artificial and other transactions.

    The Act, however, made it clear that the panel can exercise its powers only when a court of competent jurisdiction gives it the go-ahead.

    This, the panel had done without recourse to the court in the first instance in the case of Tumsah brothers.

    The Act also empowers the panel to investigate someone who is not a public officer, but who is “related to, or otherwise connected with a public officer (and) appears to have acquired assets far in excess of any income from his known or ostensible means of livelihood”.

    In a recent judgment, a five-man panel of Appeal Court justices, led by Hussein Muhktar, ruled that the presidential panel on asset recovery “cannot clothe itself with the clothes not given to it by the Act that established it”.

    “The provision of the Act is unambiguous and not confusing. The powers of the panel are to conduct an investigation on any officer who has corruptly enriched himself of breached the code of conduct. No power or authority is conferred on the panel to prosecute offenders,” Justice Muhktar ruled.

    “It is not clear then, on which authorisation or legislation the Obono-Obla-led panel is relying on to arrest suspected corrupt public officials, or to detain them” writes Kingsley Obiejesi of ICIR in a recent article questioning the power of the panel.

    In the case of Garba versus University of Maiduguri (1986) 1NWLR (Pt 18) 550, the Supreme Court ruled that, “The offences for which the appellants were undoubtedly held liable by the board and panel include looting, arson, destruction of property and indecent assault. These are offences under the penal code or criminal code and therefore are triable only by regular courts of law.

    “Neither the investigation panel, which investigated these serious charges, nor the disciplinary board of the senate, which considers its findings, is a court of law. Neither was competent to adjudicate on matters connected with the rights of the appellants once the allegations include crime…”

    In essence, once a person is accused of criminal offence, the court affirmed that he must be tried in a court of law. No other tribunal, investigating panel, or committee is vested with such powers to make pronouncement on criminal matters regarding an individual except a court of competent jurisdiction.

    Thus, on this, it is clear that the Obono-Obla panel is usurping the powers of the court and arrogating to itself, the authority it does not have. Government appears to be taking its fight against corruption to a rather ridiculous level and needs to be told it is strangely stepping out of legal and constitutional lines. That panel cannot suffice for the court and it is a no-brainer.