The Nation Newspaper

Category: Comments

  • Obaseki’s 100 days in office

    From virtually every indication, Mr. Godwin Obaseki, governor of Edo State has made quite an impression on the people of the state as he clocked 100 days in office on Monday, February 20. I was not an enthusiast of his while he was campaigning for the election, but then, I was neither enthusiastic about Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu. While his clergyman act was and continues to be fascinating, it did not particularly have any effect on me. Obaseki’s quietness also made me doubt, like every other concerned son of Igodomigodo, whether his regime would really be his and whether he even had any plan for what path his government would take.

    In a hundred days, he has corrected that notion and even made me blush like an errant analyst for harbouring such a notion in the first place.

    His January 1 speech this year was the first sign I perceived of a man of steel.  Without batting an eyelid, he ‘upped and done away’ with manual tax collection in Edo State. Some cynics, quite unsatisfied about the genuineness of his intent with that move, labelled it a political move to curtail the overreaching influence of the All Progressives Congress (APC) youth leader, Comrade Eriyo Osakpanwa.

    I beg to differ. In hundred days, Obaseki has been able to show that he has little time for politics because he has a state to run. To buttress this, he has warned political figures not to come to the Government House in Benin City without prior appointments otherwise, they would not be granted audience.

    Valid reports from dailies and workers at government house prove that he has thus far stuck to his guns with that policy. The Government House has now developed some significant level of decorum, and even loitering around the place could earn an individual some questioning. This, I believe is how a government house should be.

    Still keen not to let politics interfere with his administration, he has delegated the task of political appointments to the various wards and Local Government councils.

    However, while in 100 days he is keeping a level head with political affairs, he has also done commendably well with his interim appointments thus far – he has appointed mostly young fellows and women who know their onions. Yet, he operates without a cabinet or any permanent appointments.

    Based on how well Obaseki listens to the people’s voice, he seems like he already understands that the people of Edo whisper in the streets that it is about time he appointed his cabinet so that people will know who is who in the state.

    However, he is a careful man. He takes his time and plans exceedingly well before implementing any decisions. What will it profit him if he allows himself to be carried along in haste by people’s whispering and then he appoints the wrong people who may even end up sabotaging his government? It is better to take a shot once and hit the target than to misfire severally.

    Having excluded politics from the equation in his administration, Obaseki has shown genuine concern for the people, for though he may have a heart of steel, this heart beats, and it beats with emotion and care for the people.

    He understood pretty well the power women have when given the chance to excel; he has accordingly appointed what has come to be known as lady mechanics to fix the broken vehicles at The Government House in Benin City.

    In addition, he hosted religious leaders at a breakfast in the Government House where he discussed, among things, how to sort out the issue of street children. They talked at length with the religious leaders proffering solutions on how to handle the issue.

    To that end, Governor Obaseki is set to get the educational sector functioning at its optimum capacity so that even when the children have been lifted off the streets, they will be grafted into a functional educational system.

    Meanwhile, his economic policies also seem to have developed a pattern in tandem with his 2017 budget philosophy. The idea of the budget philosophy was to “develop a modern and progressive Edo State, where every citizen is empowered with opportunity to live life in its fullness”. These were modelled along the following pillars; Economic Revolution, Infrastructural Expansion, Institutional Reform, Social Welfare Enhancement, Culture and Tourism and Environmental Sustainability.

    He has since held a strategic dialogue with stakeholders in the production industry, and has started working to make sure that technical colleges around the state are what they are meant to be. He has also held an agribusiness conference, and he has put plans in place to make Tayo Akpata University of Education in Ekiadolor an excellent tertiary institution. The essence of these moves is to groom talents locally in the state.

    The truth is that highlighting Governor Obaseki’s achievements in 100 days would take a small book. He has however indicated enough zeal towards executing his mandate that we, the people of Edo, can rest easy in the knowledge that we have not shopped in error for a governor, despite what misgivings we may have initially harboured.

    Still, the good governor must neither relent nor rest on his oars. His conduct thus far has revealed a tendency for extra-meticulousness in his affairs. That is a commendable trait and people need to come to the realisation that if every leader Nigeria has witnessed had been this careful, perhaps we would not be as bafflingly backward as we are in our affairs as a country. It is only just 100 days, and time’s winged chariot has not yet found reason to hurry Mr. Obaseki along. He is so far on the right track, and in the next 100 days, there is some hope people will start seeing action.

     

    • Dr. Oviosun, a public affairs analyst is based in Benin City, Edo State.
  • Sagay on the appointment of CJN

    Sagay on the appointment of CJN

    ON page 2 of the February 1, edition of The Nation, Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, forcefully inveighed against the debate on the appointment of the Hon. Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen as acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (ACJN) by the Presidency, a metonym for President Muhammadu Buhari, a debate which, according to him, “has generated a lot of heat, acrimony and self-generated anger without generating a single ray of light…” He, therefore, decided “to intervene in the debate as lawyer (sic) and as someone who is an occasional beneficiary of informal sources of information.”
    After stating correctly that the appointment of a Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) is provided for in section 231 of the Constitution, he went on to state that “the President is the appointor”, subject to the condition that, prior to such appointment, “he must receive a recommendation from the National Judicial Council (NJC) after which he forwards the name of the appointee to the Senate for confirmation.” All these are statements of fact as they are they dovetail into the provisions of subsections (1) and (4) of section 231 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) except for the construction he has quite clearly given to the words, “the President is the appointor.” If, by the word “appointor”, the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria means (as is clearly evident in his later submissions), any person who, as a puissant functionary, appoints, or executes a commanding power of appointment of a CJN, and not as an official who makes an obligatory or automatic appointment of any person recommended to him by the NJC, then we come to a parting of the way.
    In disagreeing with his fellow Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Wole Olanipekun, Prof. Sagay said, among other things, that the President is not “a cipher or a robot, who has to pass on a nomination coming from the NJC to the Senate without discretion, input or without the right of rejecting such an appointment and calling on the NJC to send other nominations” (italics mine). “The truth of the matter,” the Prof. further added, “is that the President can turn down the recommendation of the NJC and request that another name be recommended,” the President not being a rubber stamp.
    With the profoundest respect, I strongly disagree with the learned professor in all his arguments. As far as the 1999 Constitution is concerned, the provisions of s. 231 thereof make the President a “robot”, a “cipher” and a “rubber stamp” in the appointment of a CJN. He cannot turn down the nomination decided on by the Federal Judicial Commission (FJC) and sent, after due consideration by the NJC, to the President for action only. If the Prof. insists that this is not so, he should show Nigerians which portion of the 1999 Constitution provides for such executive powers, or show how any of the known canons of statutory interpretation enabled him to construe s.231 as giving the President such powers of rejection of FJC/NJC’s recommendation and request for another one, or a canon of construction which grants the professor a poetic licence to smuggle an idea that is foreign to the Constitution into it!
    Section 231 (1) of the Constitution provides that the “appointment of a person to the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation by the Senate” (underscore mine). And where the office of the CJN is vacant, the President MUST, under the provisions of subsection (4) of s. 231 of the Constitution, appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as acting CJN. He cannot, by reason of that subsection, exercise any discretionary power in favour of any other legal officer in or outside the Supreme Court. When applied to a public functionary, discretion means a power or right conferred upon him/her by law to act officially in certain circumstances, according to the dictates of his/her own judgment and conscience, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others. The 1999 Constitution grants no such discretion to the President. For proof, whereas s.211 (1) of the 1979 Constitution provided that “The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President in his discretion subject to confirmation of such appointment by a simple majority of the Senate”, the sagacious draftsmen of the 1999 Constitution rightly expunged the word discretion from subsection (1) of s.231 when they realized that the doctrine of separation of powers is enshrined in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution, which presumes that the appointment of the CJN should not be the sole prerogative of either the executive or the legislature. Or which constitution are we talking about, 1979 or 1999? As the learned SAN knows very well, the popular Latin maxim, “leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant” (later laws abrogate prior laws that are contrary to them) continues to be valid!
    According to the late learned, piquant-witted Professor of Law, Jadesola Akande, in her seminal book Introduction to the Nigerian Constitution, “there is a provision for the appointment of an acting Chief Justice in the absence of the substantive office holder for any reason. Although it is provided that the President does the appointment, in practice, this is a mere formality because the Supreme Court Justice next in order of seniority acts as Chief Justice.”
    Quite clearly, there is no zone of twilight between the President and the NJC in which both the former and the latter have equal rights in the appointment of a CJN. Unlike s.147 of the 1999 Constitution which empowers the President to APPOINT his ministers according to his own judgment and conscience but subject to confirmation of such ministers by the Senate, s.231 on the appointment of a CJN (head of the third arm of government) confers no such powers on the President. The President cannot, for example, appoint any person other than the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as acting or substantive CJN as was done when His Excellency Judge Taslim Olawale Elias or Sir Darnley Alexander was appointed CJN from outside the Judiciary.
    I posit, with respect, that subsections (1) and (4) of section 231 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), in contradistinction to subsection (1) of section 211 of the 1979 Constitution forcefully prevent the President from exercising any discretionary power over any recommendation of a successor CJN that may be made to him by the NJC. Nobody should goad this President, already characterized by imperious tendencies, into full-blown tyranny or to assume powers that are alien to our written constitution through the instrumentality of legal misconstructions.

  • NDDC and the politics of regional integration

    NDDC and the politics of regional integration

    When the Niger Delta Masterplan was launched in 2007 by the then outgoing government of President Olusegun Obasanjo, it was meant to fast- track the development of the region, with a view to encouraging regional integration. Ten years after however, the dream appears far from being realised.
    Chairman of the Niger Delta Development Commission, (NDDC), Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba,(SAN), believes that now is the time to either come up with a new masterplan, or upgrade or review the old one launched by Obasanjo, if the agency must stop being seen as a competitor to the states in the region, in terms provision of infrastructures.
    Ndoma-Egba believes that the current approach to the NDDC’s budget, where states and host communities have no inputs into the policies and programmes of the agency would never bring development to the region, adding that instead it would perpetually put the NDDC in competition with states and local governments, a development, he noted, would be a “monumental distraction.”
    Rather than continue with the avoidable “distraction,” Ndoma-Egba, is advocating for the creation of a regional economy, with” identified drivers” that would be “youth friendly,” saying that “a motivated, educated and empowered youth remain the real resource of any nation, not oil or mineral resources.”
    He further said that an “ill motivated, uneducated and underpowered youth, on the other hand,” would be a “curse and danger to the nation. We therefore have a sacred responsibility to make our youth a real resource and a blessing to our region and country.”
    Drawing inspiration from the Act establishing the NDDC, especially section 7 (1) (b), which mandates the commission, to ‘conceive, plan and implement, in accordance with set rules and regulations, projects and programmes for the sustainable development of the Niger Delta area in the field of transportation including roads, jetties, waterways, health, education, employment industrialization, agriculture and fisheries, housing and urban development, water supply, electricity and telecommunications,’ the NDDC chairman, further said the “Act therefore envisages a diversified but integrated regional economy for the region.”
    And to him, endeavours like ICT, sports, the creative industry; agriculture and manufacturing supported by inter modal transportation, health, and education infrastructure, with adequate power supply, are largely youth friendly, which would help take the youths out of the streets, and engage them in productive ventures, which in the long run would make vandalisation of oil installations less attractive to the youths in the region.
    To him, infrastructure should be such that, it would link the region and facilitate commerce within the Niger Delta, while involving all and every stakeholder in the activities of the Commission, so as to give them sense of belonging, as well as make them own the projects.
    “We must encourage sustainable partnerships with all stakeholders and partners for the overall development, security and peace of the region. We will work to earn the confidence of stakeholders and partners. We do not demand or request their confidence; we will earn it through our honest work and single minded focus. To demonstrate our commitment, to achieve this, this board at its inaugural meeting created its committee on Partnerships for Sustainable Development. This is to underscore our determination to optimize these partnerships”, Ndoma-Egba, added.
    He was also oblivious of the fact that all the lofty objectives the commission set out to achieve would not be possible in an atmosphere of violence. To this end, he appealed to all militant groups in the region to stop violence and vandalisation of oil facilities in the area, saying the region could not be complaining of environmental pollution and at the same time being responsible for the spate of environmental degradation in the area, occasioned by vandalisation of oil installations.
    While insisting that the militant groups’ point of absence of development in the region has long been made, Ndoma-Egba believes strongly that, it was now time for the militant groups too to give peace a chance and allow the region to develop.
    “We need security and peace in the region. I had in my remarks at our inaugural board meeting posited that ‘we cannot complain about environmental pollution and degradation in the region and at the same time engage in activities like pipeline vandalisation and breaches that not only pollute and degrade the environment but also shield those who should bear responsibility for the sorry state of our environment from liability. All of us from the region must take responsibility for peace and security in our own interest and the interest of generations to come. All of us must be committed to the peace, security and prosperity of our region. It is our duty. ‘
    “I will continue to appeal to all militant groups to stop the breaches and vandalisation of oil facilities. Their point has long been made. Now they are inflicting injuries and suffering on themselves and our already hapless and helpless people. They should give us a chance to develop. We will continue to collaborate with the various security agencies to ensure peace in the region. We can only develop in a peaceful atmosphere and environment, “Ndoma-Egba, declared.

  • Kashamu: Litmus test for rule of law

    Kashamu: Litmus test for rule of law

    have never been an admirer of Senator Buruji Kashamu. His long-drawn travails over drug trafficking allegations cum extradition war waged against him by the government of the United States of America have somewhat made an unjust judge out of me; a judge who, at the mere sight of headlines relating to the case, instantly passes a silent verdict of guilt on the Ijebu-born business guru.
    But, the current round of altercations over the culpability or otherwise of the controversial multi-millionaire seems to have purged me of the error of subjectivity, which, I am convinced, multitudes of my compatriots are wont to commit purely as a function of socio-economic and political ideological differences.
    What endeared me to a painstaking reading of the lengthy press statement of the senator, titled US Court Ruling: I have no case to answer, published in The Punch (pp.32-33) edition of January 31 was, perhaps, a deeply-rooted instinct to garner further damaging facts against the man. But, the narratives of the statement actually turned out a chronology of facts or, at least, acclaimed historical facts about the transcontinental case which only imposes the task of simple verification on the Nigerian authorities and every other corporate or individual stakeholder for final resolution. In other words, Kashamu’s pictorial account is an open challenge to the federal government, particularly the Nigeria Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) and other law enforcement agencies. It necessitates the simple responsibility of contacting the British judiciary to enquire whether it is indeed true that previous attempts to get Kashamu extradited to the US were judicially knocked out, by an English High Court, on the ground of mistaken identity.
    Even an outright request by the US authorities for the extradition of the senator, under the present circumstance, cannot logically warrant steps aimed at automatic enforcement by the Nigerian authorities.
    In the first place, the existence of legal cooperation partnership between Nigeria and the US does not and can never erase the fact that our country is a sovereign nation and equal partner under such agreements. It is noteworthy that the UK judicial proceedings, occasioned by the US extradition request, were a manifestation of the due process that fundamentally protected more of that nation’s sanctity than the interests of a foreigner on its soil. Obviously, the request would not have emanated if legal partnership, reminiscent of the US-Nigeria relations, never existed between the US and UK.
    In effect, overzealous actions by Nigerian agencies would come with far-reaching damaging effects, more on the nation and its sovereign status as well as its socio-economic and political interests than on her citizen targeted by such actions. What would be overzealous in this instance will be a similitude of the last attempt by the NDLEA to comply, hook, line and sinker, with a supposed extradition directive from the US, probably better referred to as Big Brother US, without attempting to subject it to any internal due process of the law, unlike in the British case.
    Still, the direction of due process, at this stage of the matter, has been initiated by the senator himself. Having claimed that the English High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, in year 2000, has nullified the extradition request on the ground that it emanated from an identity error, logical reasoning demands that NDLEA, on the strength of the strong affinity between the Nigerian legal system and that of the UK, proceed, through the Office of the Attorney General, to relate with the UK authorities on the case. Such a procedure would simply align with the strategy adopted by Abuja in trashing the Halliburton allegation leveled against Hajia Aisha Buhari, the wife of the President, by Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State. Co-incidentally, Fayose’s accusation turned out a case of mistaken identity heralded by name similarity, as a result of a well publicized formal confirmation request by the Nigerian authorities, from their US counterparts.
    Meanwhile, the latest US court ruling that re-incarnated the Kashamu brouhaha is never an explicit extradition request, rather it is mere nullification of the claim of the plaintiff, Senator Kashamu himself, that the 2015 attempt to arrest and transfer him to the US by the NDLEA, in collaboration with some US agents, was an abduction attempt. In other words, the court held it was indeed an extradition attempt, not abduction. Nevertheless, it never proceeded to issue a fresh order.
    Even if it did, the question remains whether Nigeria, a supposedly independent nation is bound to unquestionably obey without initially sifting the chaffs from the grains.
    Let me now relate the case to our cherished national interest. At this crucial stage of our international relations history, particularly in relation to the entirely new Donald Trump’s US, the imperatives of relating with the supposed God’s own Country from the position of strength have, within the short period of Trump’s ascension into the most exalted office in the world, become a loud music, blaring forth the mouths of globally respected foreign affairs experts into the ears of Nigerian authorities. If anything is sure, judging by the globally understood psychology and predilections of the current xenophobic leader of the US, an unquestioning compliance in respect of any US extradition order, regarding any Nigerian, not just Kashamu, would earn Nigeria nothing but a White House comical laughter and scorn. For a new President whose initial utmost priority lies in replacing inter-racial bridges with divisive fences, extradition compliance, at this point, would be scorned as a desperate action by Nigeria to curry his favour.
    The recently published England experience of our Vice President, Professor Yemi Osibajo depicts some great depth of extant negative international perception of Nigeria, which manifested in an open insult heaped on our nation, particularly our judicial system, by an English judge in an open UK court. Surely, to firmly respect, uphold and implement our own laws without sacrificing the welfare and interests of the least significant citizen would go a long way in strengthening our worth in the international circle.
    Interestingly, one cannot but find the simultaneous refusal of the US authorities to appeal the UK judgment on Kashamu and their insistence, so far, on his extradition baffling. Is it then not plausible to infer that the supposed fountain of rule of law is trying to get what they failed to achieve legally through the backdoor, probably taking advantage of our seemingly porous willpower and system as a country?
    On the whole, the ultimate position taken by the current Nigerian administration of Muhammadu Buhari in the whole Kashamu saga that actually predated its inauguration would tell the world how objective is its rule of law pretensions.

    •Olonade is a Lagos-based public affairs analyst.

  • Southeast governors, wakeup

    Sometimes, I feel disillusioned by some of the ineffective practices we borrowed from western civilization, particularly our system of government. Imagine for instance, if the type of democratic government practised in the Southeast is rooted in the audacious, egalitarian democratic ethos, as perspicaciously enunciated, in Things Fall Apart, the seminal work of Chinua Achebe. I recall the swift, democratic and effective gathering of the Umuofia clan to determine how to deal with the challenge posed by the people of Mbaino whose son wilfully murdered a daughter of Umuofia.
    Without much ado, a decision was quickly reached, and a patriotic emissary and an eminent clan leader, Okonkwo, was sent to Mbaino to deliver the message of the people of Umuofia. According to Achebe, Okonkwo took his mission with the greatest sense of responsibility expected of such high office and “was treated with great respect and honour” by the people of Mbaino. In no time, he returned with the appropriate price, from the culprits. Compare Okonkwo’s patriotic sense of duty and efficiency, with the recent embarrassment, from the governors of Anambra and Imo states.
    For reasons best known to them, Governors Rochas Okorocha of Imo State and Willy Obiano of Anambra State, instead of concentrating on the time-bound responsibility handed over to them, by the people of their respective states, choose to play the role of Unoka, who “was quite incapable of thinking about tomorrow.” I urge the duo and their brother governors from the southeast states to wake-up to the intense efforts of the governors of the states in the north and southwest to organise their respective people towards regional economic blocks.
    As Okorocha and Obiano bickered, I wondered in agony, how such meaningless spat about who said what to the other, and who did what, will answer to the national economic emergency enveloping their respective states and indeed our nation. Instead of organising to save their people from the prevailing economic crisis, they engaged in play. I rebuke them in the words of Chika, the Priestess of Agbala, to the playful Unoka: “when your neighbours go out with their axe to cut down virgin forests, you sow your yams on exhausted farms that take no labour to clear.” In case they don’t know, the federation account, is increasingly, becoming like Unoka’s exhausted farms.
    Not long ago, the governors and leaders of the northern states met in Kaduna to seek ways out from the pervading morass threatening the very existence of our country. Again, last week, the governors of the southwest states set aside their political differences, and meet for the second time in months, in Ado Ekiti, to further deliberate on how to manoeuvre their region, away from any danger, should the Nigeria ship, continue on its trajectory to self-destruction.
    Instead of Obiano and Okorocha sitting down with their colleagues and other leaders of the region to brainstorm like the men of Umuofia to find answers to the challenge posed to the people of the southeast by a nation in mortal danger, they spend quality time and resources, placed in their hands by their states, to engage in egocentrism. The fact that the electorates who gave them such high office are hamstrung to quickly deal with their intransigence is part of my frustration with the system of government that we borrowed from the west.
    Consider for a moment what would have been the fate of Okonkwo, the nominated emissary of the people of Umuofia, in Things Fall Apart, were he to have taken time off, the serious mission to Mbaino, to engage in meaningless cant and self-serving endeavours. Perhaps, the fates that later befell Okonkwo each time he committed nsoani is a pointer to how quick the retribution can come even for the highly revered in the society. Also, compare the efficiency of the criminal justice system of the Umuofia clan with the cumbersome and yet inefficient criminal justice system in practice in our country.
    Sometimes I wonder, if our democracy had evolved naturally from our respective traditional systems of government; whether it was possible for instance, for the latest megalomania, in town, the former Group Managing Director of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Andrew Yakaubu, to own up to the millions of dollars and thousands of pounds, dug out from his house in the Kaduna suburb even as excruciating hunger, is ravaging his kit and kin. In my part of the country, an open, fair and efficient trial would have been conducted and after a guilty verdict, the chant of nzogbu, nzogbu, would rent the air and young men, as bailiffs, would march to exact retribution from the felon after which he is sent on a long exile.
    Instead of Governor Okorocha seeking apologies from Governor Obiano, or Governor Obiano using disparaging words to describe Governor Okorocha, both of them should jointly and singularly issue apologies to the people of southeast and their respective states for engaging in frivolities while their peoples are undergoing, perhaps, the worst economic induced stress, since the failed second republic. They should also champion a resuscitation of the meetings of the southeast governors to chart a regional economic programme to lift their zone out of the prevailing national morass.
    Such a meeting should find out the share of the southeast, from the nationally available megawatts of electricity, and how that has impacted on businesses in the region. Their meeting should set up technical committees to determine the energy needs of a prosperous southeast and proffer how to meet it. A perspicacious group of leaders should be working on ways to integrate a southeast industrial belt, feeding on, and supporting a zonal agricultural belt, in such a way that all their peoples would be winners.
    The governors, who are arguably the leaders of the two richest states in the southeast – Anambra and Imo states, instead of bickering like market men suffering from a very ‘bad-market’, should be interested in how to develop an integrated transport plan that will include a rail line, which will run like a ring from the famous River Niger, in Anambra, through Imo, to Abia, to Ebonyi, to Enugu and back to Anambra, to effectively move her people and evacuate the agricultural produce, from the agricultural belt that they will create.
    While working on the plan, to export a million tubers of yam to President Donald Trump’s country, the United States of America, as reported in the press, Governor Obiano, should encourage a cluster of agro-allied industries around the farms to turn the yam tubers into flour, chips and other by-products, that will be more cost effective to export to anywhere. Governor Okorocha on his part should also spare his energy to source for funds to complete the several roads which his administration has excavated in Imo State.
    Let our leaders make no mistake: the ship of our nation is adamantly moving in a manner that can cause it great harm unless urgent steps are taken to change course. To save the ship and its people, our leaders “must cross seven rivers to make their farms.” They cannot like Unoka, “stay at home and offer sacrifices to a reluctant soil.” Each of them should: “Go home and work like a man.”

  • Caveat exemptor

    No thanks to the ‘gospel’ according to President Donald Trump and company, we are the wiser that there are facts, as there are ‘alternative facts’. Facts are what they always have been: objective and accurate accounts of reality, whereas ‘alternative facts’ are subjective, demonstrably inaccurate accounts of reality rendered as counter-facts. The idea of alternative facts hobbled Mr. Trump’s inauguration in office as the United States President last January. Remember? The American media pushed back though, and nailed ‘alternative facts’ to what they really are – falsehoods.
    This Trumpian input to contemporary lexicon helps in explaining a recent development in our own clime, namely the circumstances surrounding the return of former Delta State Governor James Ibori to the country. In the past couple of weeks, we have seen alternative facts issuing from Oghara, Delta State, following the return of native son Ibori from incarceration in the United Kingdom.
    If he were returning from a daring conquest of the Queen’s very throne, the former Delta governor couldn’t have arrived home to a more profuse embrace by his jubilant kinsmen. But he certainly wasn’t returning from any valiant or noble exploit, but rather from a 13-year jail term in the UK for corrupt self-enrichment and rapacious looting of the Nigerian treasury, particularly that of his home state. He served some four years and half of the jail term before being let off last December.
    Mr. Ibori arrived his native land on Saturday, February 4, in a triumphal entry that must have left his jailers back in the UK and whoever else knew the facts of his judicial odyssey confounded by the Oghara townsfolk’s view of morality. Because the former governor is, to boot, an ex-convict: he had pleaded guilty to 10 counts of money laundry and conspiracy to defraud at Southwark Crown Court in London before he was sent to the can on 27th February 2012. Actually, some items of idle riches were seized from him, and proceedings on assets confiscation are pending as we speak in the UK.
    But if you had thought the hero’s welcome was a fluke, you needed to follow the proceedings of a special thanksgiving service held in the former governor’s honour penultimate Sunday, February 12, in the Oghara kingdom. The special service, which commanded attendance by the state’s manor lords as well as the peasantry, was a panoply of alternative facts whereby the Ibori narrative that had become a byword for grand larceny was flagrantly rewritten.
    “I’m not a thief. I cannot be a thief,” the former governor told the crowd of kinsmen and supporters who thronged the service held at First Baptist Church, Oghara. He spoke mainly in his native Urhobo tongue and we can’t be exact here with what he said. But sundry reports of his remarks aggregate to his saying he was a sacrificial lamb: “What I went through has nothing to do with me as a person, because for some reasons, like I said to you, I drew my strength from God and somehow I knew that God would stand by me. I knew that one day, this day would come. I am indeed very pleased that I can now stand before you and look at your faces…It has nothing to do with me.” Alluding to the UK trial, he said he pleaded guilty only to regain his freedom.
    Other speakers at the service, including the clergy, dug in on the ‘Saint Ibori’ narrative. In his homily. Archbishop God-do-well Avwomakpa described the returnee as God’s gift to his generation, because a man bearing the gift of God is one who brings joy to his people. “What we need are politicians who would go into politics for betterment of the land. James Ibori comes from God and, as we speak, he represents another government up there,” he reportedly said. The host monarch of Oghara Kingdom, Orefe III, likened Ibori to the biblical prodigal son who was joyfully received back home by his people. “Oghara is blessed with a very big son in whom we are well pleased,” he said, adding that Ibori brought honour to Oghara as well as Delta State and had gone to a “special school” from which, like the prodigal son, he was back.
    Perhaps a most ironic remark was that by an Ibori loyalist, Olorogun Paul Abu, who was reported saying the people were thanking God on his return because “as executive governor of Delta State, he initiated and inaugurated a lot of laudable projects and programmes that impacted on the lives of a majority of Deltans positively.” He added: “Yes, it is true he also made a few mistakes, but his real sin was that he bravely championed the resource control advocacy to the chagrin of some big shots who hitherto were beneficiaries of the deplorable exploitation of the Niger Delta…It is high time Deltans far and near put aside their differences and rally around the Ibori Resource Control Brand to ameliorate their sufferings and get a better deal.”
    Blood, as they say, is thicker than water. And so, it isn’t unthinkable that the gushing embrace of Ibori by his kinsmen was a deliberate spite targeted at Ijaw leader Chief Edwin Clark-inspired Delta State Elders and Stakeholders Forum, whose petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) originated the former governor’s ordeal. When Nuhu Ribadu, who was then EFCC chair, initially foot-dragged on its petition, the forum dragged both the anti-graft agency and Ibori to court to compel his prosecution. It was the forum’s crusade that snowballed in 2007 into a raid by the Metropolitan Police on the London offices of Ibori’s lawyer, Bhadresh Gohil, where was found hidden in the wall behind a fireplace computer hard drives detailing sundry off-shore firms run for Ibori by Gohil in concert with fiduciary agent Daniel Benedict McCann and corporate financier Lambertus De Boer. The three men were subsequently jailed for 30 years. But Ibori denied involvement; he rather fingered Ribadu and the UK courts for alleged political witch-hunt.
    Other than defiant kindred loyalty, it goes beyond the pale to by any contortion portray the former Delta governor as a sacrificial lamb. That thanksgiving service in Oghara penultimate Sunday was a heady voyage in blasphemy and communal living in denial. Because there shouldn’t be any question about it: Ibori stole the Delta treasury blind. Former Central Bank Governor (now Emir of Kano) Lamido Sanusi made it known that he used the state as collateral for a N40billion loan he personally resource-controlled while governor. Olorogun Abu said he was a ‘resource control brand,’ didn’t he?
    Upon his conviction by Southwark Crown Court, Ibori forfeited assets that included a house in Hampstead, north London; a property in Shaftesbury, Dorset; a mansion in Sandton, South Africa; a fleet of armoured Range Rover jeeps, a Bentley Continental GT and a Mercedes-Benz Maybach 62. These obviously were not acquired with his legitimate means. Besides, the Delta State Government was for some time in court to retrieve the $15million cash that Ribadu alleged Ibori tried to suborn him with, and which he deposited with the Central Bank as exhibit. Justice Gabriel Kolawole overruled the state’s claim on the money because it had withheld evidence to show the cash was stolen from it.
    It is alright for Delta folk to be large hearted and generously forgive Mr. Ibori his wrongdoings. But it won’t cut the dice to pretend the wrongdoings never occurred. God sustained Ibori in jail not as vindication of his innocence, but from His sovereign mercy that leaves every man room for rectitude. And so, the biblical prodigal son was joyfully received back home only after he repented and returned, not before. Rather than grandstand on false innocence, Ibori should seek closure by tendering a public apology for his waywardness.

  • Unnerving rise of false news

    Our intertwined world is encountering a vastly changed narrative of news flow, reportage and cause-advocacy via media. The change is linked to growing universal rage – the so-called “age of anger”, and a sense of audacity, which drives anti-establishment sentiments and protestations. Yet two realities are incontrovertible: fake or false news, hate speech and post-truth via social media are spiralling globally, as the mainstream media is battling a crisis of legitimacy. But just as the social media accentuates mass communication, it has thrown up an unnerving flip side – false news and post truth – which makes social media an adverse game changer. Those who contend that social media offer a level playing field, overlook the pitfalls.
    The scariest part of false news is the absence of an undo button. Evidence exist that false news has for some nations, become a tool of statecraft. Russia meddling with recent U.S. elections is a case in point. Globally, the social order is being changed. Alternative or rogue governments are being elected, due to the impact of false news. Also, false news is now abetting recrudescence of right-wing extremism in Europe. The global tsunami of disinformation is replete with hybrid threats fostered by hoaxes. Yet, the most insidious generators of false news, is the lone perpetrator, sequestered by choice in a room or café with an iPhone or tablet and access to Wi-Fi, who feels the awesome power afforded by anonymity and driven by indignation or righteousness to redress perceived societal ills. The desire to shape opinion by legerdemain and revenge are also compelling factors.
    Indubitably, false news is now the electrified third rail in global politics, Nigerian politics included. With its vast reach, false news retains huge capacity for destructive consequences. Worryingly, there is no agreed antidote. Recently, the Czech Republic set up a specialized anti-fake news unit to combat Russian fake news inundation. In Africa, the response has been slow, notwithstanding that within one month, the news of the demise of Gambia’s president-elect Adama Barrow and of Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari were published and gained currency, until refuted. Less perturbing but equally fabricated news included, Eritrea polygamy report; Tanzania’s president ban on miniskirts; and Nigerian lawmakers making 11 years the age of sexual consent? All these are examples of the dreadful phenomena we confront daily.
    There is real and false news. Until recently, false news was rare and benign, except for some non-injurious clichés; “bad news is good news” and “no news is good news”. Not anymore. False news is bad news and therefore trouble. While rhetoric remains the bedrock of political obfuscation, false news stretches rhetoric beyond the acceptable. Moreover, false news is primarily fuelled by politics and peaks during electoral periods. Hence, the 2016 U.S. elections added credence and impetus to false news.
    Why the sudden groundswell of false news? The social media is false news breeding ground. All that’s required is just a click of the “share” icon. Besides the anonymity provided by social media, the convenience of instantly tweeting or retweeting a news item, without confirming the veracity, underpins the spread of false news, but not the reasons for fabricating untruth. Interestingly, the attentive public has unwittingly become part of the problem. The natural instinct to question the authenticity of a news report, has been dulled by the euphoria of being among the first to share a scoop, be it on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or WhatsApp. What is overlooked is false news potentials as a tripwire for mob action or restiveness and possible national security implications.
    False news traits include sensational and captivating headlines; oftentimes without a direct quote from the subject of the story. False news goes beyond stretching the truth, often in malicious and troubling ways. Hence, false news is not just capable of upturning nations’ social balance, but capable of fostering and foisting violent extremism. False news abets political exigencies; more so where state-controlled broadcast media outlets and on air personalities resort to spewing of verbiage during unmodulated call-in programmes.
    There exist an inextricable nexus between false news and hate speech. Both aim to hurt. This explains why ahead of the 2019 elections, the Abuja-based Savannah Centre for Diplomacy, Democracy and Development (SCDDD) constituted the Democracy Stability and Media Accountability Project (DESMAP) Council, “to address the administrative and legal gaps that exist in the extant body of laws and code of ethics on journalism and media practice, especially as they relate to the propagation of dangerous, false news and hate speeches.”
    Nigeria is facing its share of false news, but despite the broad awareness of the negative impact of false news, the federal government is yet to contextualize fully the alarming challenges posed by false news and hate speech, and thus has not risen fully to the task. A recent legislative effort by the National Assembly to regulate the social media via the so-called “anti-social media bill” fizzled. Now, there is no consequence whatsoever, for the perpetrators of false news. An added implication is the seeming reluctance by media outfits to fact-check their reports, as they rush to be the first to put out breaking news stories.
    Meanwhile, the closest Nigerian law for checkmating false news is the Cybercrime Act that does not necessarily focus on false news or defamation. Still, many argue against new laws for combatting false news, since Nigeria’s constitution makes provision for punishment of slander and defamation. The point is also being made that sanctions enforcement and litigation will curb false news. Comparatively, real commitment exists in other countries towards fighting these spiralling phenomena. Indeed, some countries are set to amend their laws to also capture would-be offences on the internet, including making false news punishable. Germany, which exemplifies a best-practice country in terms of defamation and slander laws, is moving to combat false news ahead of its forthcoming national elections.
    With the freedom and scope social media confers, combating false news remains an uphill task. In all fairness, activists on the social media still attempt to self-regulate through rebuttals. But such uncoordinated measures are grossly insufficient. Besides, national laws governing the use of internet could be promulgated by nations, but not without the risk of impeding the freedom of expression of citizens, more so in developing nations. Ironically, nations with repressive governments, including closed Arab countries have managed the spread of false news and hate speeches better, through broad restrictions on the use of social media platforms. Meanwhile, global efforts to curtail false news without impeding access and free speech are ongoing, with Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook announcing recently, efforts to checkmate the influx of false news on the Facebook platform.
    The upshot is that false news is a growing trend and is likely here to stay. Just as the social media, it will only evolve in more diverse ways. World governments, Nigeria’s included, must work in concert, with various stakeholders, including media practitioners and the national legislatures to find a citizen-friendly solution to this menace. Leaving the matters unaddressed will spell doom for Nigeria and other countries.

    •Obaze & Udeh are with Selonnes Consult Ltd, Awka, Anambra State.

  • The Oba of Benin – A royal oversight!

    The Oba of Benin – A royal oversight!

    Early in 2015, the Benin monarch, Omo N’ Oba n’Edo Uku Akpolokpolo Erediuwa, the 38th Oba of Benin, bowed to nature’s call and joined his ancestors.  And so it was that after a long year, on Thursday October 20, 2016 in Benin, the then governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, performed the ceremonial handing over of office to the Oba’s successor, Prince Eheneden Erediuwa, the Edaikenn’Uselu, who was officially crowned the next Oba of Benin and head of the Eweka Dynasty.    His father before him was Prince Solomon Akenzua, son of Oba Akenzua II, before adopting the name Erediuwa upon ascending the throne in 1979.The new Oba chose to go by the name of Ewuare II.

    His coronation was a wonderful one; however there was a big BUT in the course of the ceremony which cannot comfortably be wished away.  As is usual with such ceremonies, the coronation of the Otu attracted dignitries from the length of breadth of Nigeria to Benin, and even the Diplomatic Corps was well represented, along with several other foreign guests.  To underscore the importance of the coronation and indeed the position of the Oba, Nigeria’s Vice President, Prof. YemiOsinbajo, was sent by the President to represent him.  All other first class chiefs and Natural rulers (6 in Nigeria) were present, including the Sultan of Sokoto, Mohammad Sa’ad Sanusi; Emir of Kano, SanusiLamidoSanusi; and the recently crowned Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi.  These monarchs were not only visible throughout the ceremony, but were seated conspicuously in the front now.  And this is exactly where the BUT arises!

    The Obong of Calabar, Edidem Ekpo Okon Abasi Otu V, was present but it was a strain for one to even catch a glimpse of him throughout the proceedings!  His presence was hastily acknowledgedbut throughout the NTA network live transmission, there were only a few passing glimpses of the Obong.

    At the end of the event, I came away with a feeling of unfulfilment and dissatisfaction but I put my expectations on the print media to assuage these feelings.  However, the reverse was the case.  By the time I went throughallthe major national dailies, the same omission was glaring.

    BUT PUTTING FACTS IN THEIR HISTORICAL PERSPEC-TIVE, this omission should never have happened.  In 1897, Oba OvonramwenNogbaisi was the Oba of Benin when the colonialists were trying to corner the economic produce of the hinterland of Nigeria, which today is known as the Niger Delta region.  In line with the tradition of the area of resistance to colonial oppression and economic sabotage of the region, the Oba, like his counterparts, King Jaja of Opobo and others, stoutly resisted the encroachment of the colonialists and imperialists.  In anger, the colialists sought how to do away with the Oba and initially planned for his execution.  But upon having him deposed, the decision was later taken to banish him from his Kingdom.  The Oba was sent on exile to a distant part of the hinterland, specifically:CALABAR.  And so it was that Oba of Benin was bundled with his entourage to Calabar where the Obong of Calabar hosted him, treated him graciously and even gave him wives from Calabar to add to the ones he had come along with. Thus the cordial relationship between the present day Cross River and the Benin Kingdom was born even till this day.

    The Oba lived in peace in Calabar and was given all the dignity of royalty that he actually was, until he died in 1914 in exile.Upon the death of the Oba, the throne was returned to its original lineage.AND THAT IS EXACTLY HOW THE KINGDOM WAS RESTORED AND WE HAVE THE OBA OF BENIN ON SEAT TODAY.

    The Obong of Calabar, EdidemEkpoOkon V is a true custodian of the rich cultural heritage of his people, and is a torch bearer of excellence.  His influence spreads solidly over old Cross River, meaning that he is a monarch highly revered across the state and even up to AkwaIbom and far beyond.  He is cultured and well educated man of integrity, a Christian who upholds the tenets of Christianity right in the palace for which he was commended by the notable Rev. W. F. Kumuyi of Deeper Life Christian Ministries some months ago.

    Now, President MuhammaduBuhari has described Oba Erediuwa, father of the current Oba as one of the most principled and forthright Nigerians he had ever met.  And as Oba Ewuare II begins the quest to write his name in gold in Nigeria’s history, I want to wish him good success in continuing the traditions of excellence which his predecessors laid.  I also add a whispered word of appeal that he makes arrangements to host the Obong of Calabar specially in his palace to further cement the wonderful relationship between the two kingdoms.

    So finally to the former Ambassador of Nigeria to Angola and Norway, a man of pedigree and dignity, as you rule on the throne of your fathers, I congratulate your whole kingdom for the rancor-free succession which has been the tradition of the ancient stool.  As the custodian of Bini custom and tradition, I congratulate you on the way you are incorporating women into chieftaincy affairs – notably Chief Daisy Danjuma (nee Enakhire), And Others You Will Bring In.  Bini monarchs have traditionally had a noble place for women; I recall stories of Queen Idia and Madam Emotan, to mention a few.

    • His Royal Majesty, Oba Ewuare II, I say long may you reign.

    Oba Gha to Okpere, Ise!

  • 2017 Budget : Taking the process a notch higher

    2017 Budget : Taking the process a notch higher

    Since President Muham-madu Buhari submitted the 2017 Appropriations proposal to the joint sitting of the two branches of the National Assembly last December, many Nigerians have been on the watch to know what difference will attend the process of passing it compared to that of last year.

    The 2016 process was bedevilled with so many problems. First, while members of the National Assembly proceeded on End of year recess after receiving the document so late from the President, during the holiday, there were speculations that the document submitted in the full glare of the public had developed wings. Though the National Assembly insisted the information was untrue, later facts revealed that what happened was an attempt by some officials from the executive arm to replace what the President submitted with a new document.

    President Buhari eventually wrote the federal legislature formally replacing the budget proposal. This was followed by series of denials of the proposed estimates contained in the budget by some Ministries, Departments and Agencies. These rebuttals and rejection of the proposed estimates by MDAs became what is now famously referred to as ‘Budget Padding’. This is because it is believed that some bureaucrats in the Budget Office inflated and imported strange figures into the Appropriation Bill without the knowledge of the heads of MDAs to which they are attributed.

    The budget padding syndrome led to the sanctioning of some officials in the Budget Office. To strengthen the operation of the office, a new head, Dr. Ben Akabueze was appointed. Remember the 2016 budget was the first full budget to be prepared and implemented by the Buhari administration. Thus, apart from the shake-up in the Budget Office, it is obvious that both the executive and the legislature needed to buckle up to avoid a repeat of the embarrassment that attended the last year’s budget.

    In preparation for this year’s budget, the Senate set up a committee comprising Senators and members from the Ministry of Budget and the National Institute of Legislative Studies (NILS) to review the process and make recommendations for improvements. The committee headed by then majority leader, Sen. Ali Ndume suggested several methods and measures which if eventually adopted will ease the process, make it more thorough and transparent.

    One of the recommendations is a time table which will see the President submitting the budget well on time while the passage and assent to the Appropriation bill will take place before the end of the year.

    More importantly, the National Assembly under its Chairman and Senate President, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki canvassed and emphasised improved consultations between the Presidency and the legislature so that majority of the grey and dark areas of the budget would have been cleared between both sides before the process commences.

    From the legislative point, the lawmakers on their own had several in-house discussions where all members were made to understand what to do and have their time-line on the process of passage of the budget. The Senate and House of Representatives officially commenced the process on January 24 with a three-day plenary debate of the general principles of the 2017 budget. On  January 26, Saraki held a meeting with Committee chairmen to brief them on the need to be diligent, transparent and be fast about the budget. During the briefing, Saraki distributed a document prepared by a Civil Society Organisation, BudgIt, which already identified 601 areas of the budget proposal which it termed “Frivolous and Suspicious Items”. The BudgIt document is expected to serve as a guide for the legislators.

    Last Monday, the National Assembly unfolded another innovation into the budget process with the commencement of a three-day unprecedented public hearing. This enables members of the public, Civil society groups, socio-cultural groups and others to have a say in what the budget will eventually look like. Through the public hearing, the National Assembly is broadening and democratising participation in the budget process.

    The defence before the legislative committees by MDAs which was concluded last Friday has been devoid of any allegation or scandal. The committees are keeping to the time table agreed with their leadership. It is also expected that harmonisation at committee level has been concluded. By tomorrow, submission of committee reports to the Appropriation Committee based on an earlier announced schedule will begin and end on Friday, February 24.

    On Tuesday February 21, plenary will resume. All that will now be left will be compilation of committee reports, engagement of the leadership by the appropriation committee as well as interface with some committees, laying reports at plenary and consideration/passage of the budget.

    It is expected that before the end of March, the budget should be ready for assent by President Buhari. This will be clear ten weeks gained considering that the 2016 budget in operation was passed in May. The early passage of the budget will give ample time for the National Assembly to roll out the plan contained in the reports of the Committee on Budget reform to create a system-driven, process-oriented auto-Pilot budget process before the next exercise.

    The success of the budget process as planned by the National Assembly will affect its implementation and relevance in uplifting the standard of living of the people. That is the objective of the first ever public hearing on the passage of the Appropriation Act introduced by National Assembly.

     

    • Olaniyonu is Special Adviser to Senate President on Media and Publicity.

  • How would posterity judge my generation?

    PERMIT me to preface this piece by celebrating two of my friends whose promotions provided the occasion for me to reflect again on an issue that keeps returning to my attention, especially on the Nigerian conundrum of development and progress.

    I am indeed (just like very many in different forms) obsessed with Nigeria, and often frustrated as to how we could be so blessed and yet so impoverished. Almost any issue communicates significance for me on how Nigeria can regain its greatness and empower its citizens. And in celebrating one of these two friends of mine, Prof. Olubunmi Olapade-Olaopa, in Ibadan recently, this whole generational issue resurfaced again in my remarks at the occasion.

    The issue having been a subject of a prolonged inter-generational conversation which the Ibadan School of Government and Public Policy – ISGPP, had listed as a flagship, I had invited Prof. Akin Mabogunje to make a statement, thereto, at the reception. He had to leave unfortunately, as we could not gather ourselves together to commence to time, again, a generational concern which remains an issue with my generation.

    Let me begin by borrowing the words that William Shakespeare committed into the mouth of Bolingbroke, a character in Richard II: I count myself in nothing else so happy As in a soul remembering my good friends. I am such a soul today, and it is my delight to advertise my extreme joy and fulfillment at the promotion of my two friends, Professor Bunmi Olapade-Olaopa and Professor Sade Ogunsola (nee Mabogunje). Bunmi has just been appointed as the Provost of the College of Medicine, University of Ibadan while Sade now occupies the same position at the University of Lagos, for a while now.

    These two instigate some serious nostalgia for the moments that define our time together at the University, Bunmi at UI and Sade at Ife. Since hindsight is our only perceptual access into the past, I could say categorically that the frenetic academic pace we kept back then was the only indication we had as to how our future individually would turn out. And in that recollection, I cannot forget Bunmi and Sade as the very personification of indignant restlessness, especially when it comes to the duty of righting what is wrong.

    Together with all the others who have survived the Yorùbá proverbial twenty years, we have all come a long way, and justifiably scattered across all the human endeavours both in Nigeria and in the diaspora. I have no doubt that Professors Olapade-Olapade and Sade Ogunsola would succeed immensely in their respected positions as the change agents I have always known them to be. However, apart from felicitation, I suspect that a greater honour to the achievements of these two would be to tie their promotion into a dynamic reflection about the larger concern with institutional transformation and national greatness.

    Their promotion is significant because they now head colleges whose significance for the recalibration of our medical education and health institution cannot be underestimated. Institutions require commitment and foresight to be transformed into optimal functionality. But transforming an institution is not just a function of commitment and foresight; it is a function of competence with a solid touch of patriotism. But ask yourself: What happens if the entire endowment, competences and talents of an entire generation like mine, specifically highlighted in achievements of my two friends, were to be patriotically injected into the national development strategy for Nigeria? I could populate a list of all those in my generation who have reached the very top of their careers. I could outline many more whose competences are transforming their endeavours in many unique ways.

    But such an exercise always leads me to one query: Would posterity judge our generation on our individual achievements or on what those achievements cumulate into in terms of national development? I have been an advocate of a generational understanding of Nigeria’s predicament and greatness. In other words, we can get critical insights into where we are and where we can get to on the basis of generational commitment, or lack of it, to the Nigerian national project. It is the trepidation borne out of my remembrance of Wole Soyinka’s judgment of his generation as a wasted one that stimulates beaming the searchlight on mine too.

    Soyinka’s generation might still be around but, to all intents and purposes, the generation is technically gone; but mine is still around and kicking. But what have we done for Nigeria. I ask that question in the light of John F. Kennedy’s admonition: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

    There is a philosophy behind this profound statement. One strand of it is simple: No one works for his/her endowments; we are all essentially blessed with them, and some more than others. Second, there must be a providential reason why some specific individuals with some specific critical endowments are specifically born as Nigerians within a specific generational timeline. Add all these together: If you are endowed and are a Nigerian, does that not essentially place a certain generational responsibility on you to be up and standing on behalf of Nigeria— the specific society that Providence has placed you in? Of course, there is no sin in translating your talents, competences and endowments into individual promotion; but then there is a moral issue involved if that is all one does.

    Like all the other generations before mine, this generation constitutes a critical mass of endowments that could be deployed to the rethinking, rehabilitation and reinvention of the Nigerian nationstate. We have public intellectuals, engineers, scholars, medical doctors, provosts, professors, clergies, architects, business men and women, civil servants, military personnel, diplomats, managers, and lots more. All these were equally present in generations past. We had the Awolowo-Bello-Azikiwe generation; there was the Soyinka- Gowon-Ojukwu generation too.

    There were a lot of other generations before and after. Given the state of the Nigerian predicament and the enormous endowments that these preceding generations were blessed with, the conclusion could only be that there is a saddening proportionality missing in correlating endowments to national progress. That successive Nigerian government had to contend with the tragic and accumulated national burden of the past is a damning report on what has gone before. But it is so easy to pass judgment on the past. What happens to the present? Most people in my generation are in their late 40s, in their 50s and 60s. I am in my mid-50s too. And the clock has not stopped ticking—Tick tock; tick tock. Posterity is also getting ready to pass the same judgment we eloquently passed on the past and its ambivalent generations of Nigerians who had so much but could deliver so very little.

    Do not get me wrong. Generational analysis of politics and development involves a complex analysis that cannot be understood in terms of white and black. There are a lot of grey areas that one must thread very softly so as not to sin against history and political sensibilities. Take Awolowo, Bello, Azikiwe, Adebo, Akilu, Eni Njoku and Okigbo on one hand; Soyinka, Achebe, Obasanjo, T.Y. Danjuma, Saro Wiwa, Bolanle Awe, Ayida, Fawehinmi, and Ahmed Joda on the other. These two strands combine politics, scholarship, activism and professionalism. In Awolowo alone you have politics and professionalism. Awolowo was a lawyer and a politician. Soyinka was an intellectual and an activist.

    Bolanle Awe, Mabogunje, Billy Dudley and Bala Usman were scholars and public servants, Tejumade Alakija, Francesca Emanuel, Joda, Asiodu were technocrats and civil servants and Gowon, Obasanjo, T.Y. Danjuma, and Ojukwu were soldiers and administrators. What united these people and their generation is an intricate relationship with the Nigerian state that begs for a delicate interpretation. Would anyone dare say that these ones were not committed to the Nigerian cause? That seems obvious, even if you are duly concerned about the ethnic dimension that Awolowo, Bello and Azikiwe introduced into the Nigerian polity. Or, the provincial turn that led some away from an otherwise national concern about Nigeria’s post-independence evolution.

    I doubt, for instance, that Nigeria appreciated Idika Kalu, Aboyade, Alhaji A. Alhaji (Triple A) and the significance of their national development economics. Yet, Soyinka considered his generation a wasted one. Wasted in what regard? It is definitely not in terms of individual talents and endowments. In their own right, other individuals were as great as Soyinka and Achebe in their own personal endeavours.

    But then imagine that the activism of Soyinka has been multiplied several times into a thread of collective generational reaction against the Nigerian predicament? Imagine that the most endowed in these generations have the boldness of Soyinka and Saro Wiwa to engage Nigeria, the courage of Achebe to interrogate her, the vision of Aboyade and Mabogunje to propose alternative economics and spatial dimensions for her? Imagine we can abandon our self-centered pedestrianism and imbibe a sense of history and how our collective competences could facilitate social engineering. Unfortunately, generational capital is not working for Nigeria.

    I quake when I think of what the coming generation will (not) do? Horace, the Roman poet, already sees ahead. He pessimistically projects the enormity of generational deficiency: “What do the ravages of time not injure? Our parents’ age (worse than our grandparents’) has produced us, more worthless still, who will soon give rise to a yet more vicious generation.” Today, we talk strenuously about human capital, social capital, moral capital, etc. Generational capital is equally fundamental, if not more so.

    The downside to deploying generational capital is that it requires a touch of patriotism, and that is in a critical short supply in Nigeria. In fact, those who deployed their talents and endowments to the Nigerian predicament that I call heroes and heroines—Billy Dudley, Bolanle Awe, Gambo Sawaba, Oladipo Akinkugbe, Umaru Shehu, Ojetunji Aboyade, Chinua Achebe, Margaret Ekpo, Bala Usman, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Pat Utomi, Odia Ofeimun, Chimamanda Adichie, Bukola Elemide ‘Asa’, Kanu Nwankwo, Hebert Ogunde, Joke Silva, Ahmed Joda, Ake, Peter Ekeh, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, Taslim Elias, Ben Nwabueze, Christopher Kolade, Gani Fawehinmi, Omolara Ogundipe-Leslie, Isawa Elaigwu, etc. Unfortunately, all these could not pull their generation behind their patriotic commitment to Nigeria in spite of grievous loss to being. In their cases, patriotism kills.

    Ask Aboyade, Saro-Wiwa, Ransome-Kuti, Fawehinmi, etc. I suspect that Achebe died very bitter about Nigeria. And yet, we could have made a lot of national recovery if we have paid attention to his masterly diagnosis of The Trouble with Nigeria. We did not. And our trouble remains. •Tunji, Executive Vice-Chairman Ibadan School of Government & Public Policy (ISGPP) tolaopa@isgpp.com.ng