The Nation Newspaper

Category: Comments

  • Abia: A most curious judgement

    Abia: A most curious judgement

    Following the decision of the Abuja Federal High Court, On Monday, June 27, to relieve Governor Okezie Ikpeazu of his well-earned mandate, concerned stakeholders and informed legal pundits are beginning to wonder if the objective and extraordinary powers invested in the bench is not being assailed. Judges are important judicial officials whose authority reaches every corner of society as they resolve disputes between people, institutions with the Wisdom of Solomon, interpret and apply the law by which we live. Judges must have the capacity to undertake in-depth legal research, able to write decisions that are clear and cogent that will stand up to close scrutiny. Through that process, they define our rights and responsibilities, determine the distribution of vast amounts of public and private resources, and direct the actions of officials in other branches of government.

    The learned judge overreached himself and did not seem to have distinguished between law and politics. Removing a Governor, in a knee jerk and whimsical manner is anonstarter.This judgment is said to be predicated on section 24 (1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act. According to the court, the governor did not qualify to contest the election ab initio and PDP was wrong to have presented him as a candidate, on the unverified accusation of tax evasion/avoidance. On these grounds, he was asked to surrender his mandate to Sampson Uche Ogah.

    To be sure no statute demands the payment of tax as a sine qua non for vying for any election in Nigeria. If OkezieIkpeazu on his own volition did fulfil this obligation on his own merits, must it be an avenue for a legal ambush or political chicanery? Noteworthy to mention is that Ikpeazu did not prepare the tax papers. Like any other applicant, he applied to the Inspector of taxes at the Board of Internal Revenue to issue him tax receipts and clearance for the previous three years. They extracted andprocessed his records from the various department and agencies of government where he had done duty tours, during the period under review. The Inspector of taxcomputed the figures and issued the document. He had no business with how the tax papers were made or how the entries were posted. It is therefore very ridiculous to posit that he “cooked” his tax documents. The issuing authority confirmed that they were responsible for the document and its contents. If Ikpeazu had prepared the tax papers himself or fabricated the signature on an otherwise genuine receipt, then there would have been a case to answer.

    So much heavy weather was made about the so-called many “lies” of Ikpeazu. And now you want to ask what elements of falsehood are embedded in the tax papers? They harangued him that the serial numbers on the tax receipts were dodgy because the three years were written in the same document seriatim.

    Ikpeazu was on the pay as you earn (PAYE) scheme; and it is standard practice that tax certificates are only issued when requested. Consequently the years of a client’s tax coverage will be written sequentially on the same booklet and so the question of how separate years were captured in the same booklet does not arise. Second it is a universally accepted practice that every tax year by convention ends on December 31.  If you requisitionedfor your tax clearance certificate for 2015 today, it will be datedDecember 31, 2015; but where you asked to be assessed for 2016 for extracted in July same year. The endorsement will bear 31st December 2016 signature. That the 31st December of a particular year happens to fall on a Saturday or Sunday which is a non-working day does not invalidate the document.

    One would have thought that in the effort to unravel the truth by the court, the judge should have deployed a sincere mix of forensic tools of interrogation of witnesses, cross examination etc. A hot button issue, like this matter, should have called up the Abia State Inspector of Tax, by way of a writ of summons as a witness to ascertain or deny the veracity of the papers in question. That is how the judge erred profusely. His ruling also was further desecrated when he further anchored his decision on two platforms derived from the Rotimi Amaechi versus Omehia case, which the Electoral Act section 141 had rendered otiose. Not done yet,he proceeded to make consequential order,which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Asking INEC to issue a certificate with immediate effect betrayed the ulterior motives of the forces beating the drum for the governor’s challenger.  Under 48 hours, after the ruling, INEC hastily issued a certificate to the oil and gas mogul even when the legal team of Ikpeazu had filed a notice of appeal and stay of execution.

    In the words of Constitutional lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), the ruling was”hogwash, unnatural, curious and questionable… It constitutes a blatant breach of the hallowed doctrine of “lispendes”. See Govt of Lagos state vs Ojukwu”.

    What is the hurry about it when the sitting governor has already appealed with a motion for stay of execution? The certificate is dead on arrival, as dead as dodo having regard to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and Electoral Act. As soon as INEC became aware of the appeal and motion for stay of execution, it should have been guided by discretion and waited. Ozekhome further postulated that Okezie Ikpeazu remains the governor until the appellate appeals are exhausted at the Supreme Court. This is the governor’s constitutional right.

     

    • Torti is a public policy analyst and management consultant.

  • From ruins of Brexit to consultative integration

    Britain’s vote to leave the European Union (EU) has understandably caused consternation worldwide, in Nigeria and Africa broadly. Questions are being asked regarding the likely impact of Brexit on Nigeria-UK relations and whether African states should curtail economic integration plans. The British vote exposed flaws in Europe’s integration, so these questions merit a dispassionate assessment with clear answers that can point the way forward for Nigeria and Africa.

    To assuage doubts over closer African integration post-Brexit, it is vital to reflect on the nuances of the EU project and how its downsides can be avoided. The real tragedy of the Brexit referendum is of relevance here: complex questions such as the EU’s contributions to the most peaceful phase of European history, and how well the EU has served British interests, were ultimately reduced to a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote.

    A more dispassionate analysis points to ample evidence of EU successes worthy of being emulated by Africa. Just as well, the EU’s more controversial aspects present lessons that can guide budding African initiatives, including the ambitious tripartite free trade area (FTA) planned to integrate eastern and southern African countries within the SADC, EAC and COMESA blocs. On opening borders, facilitating free movement of business people (not permanent immigration) and liberalizing trade across its 29 member states, the EU acquitted itself well. It helped Europe to expand prosperity in a way that Africa ought to replicate practically and more concertedly. Pursuing this as corrective to Africa’s largely haphazard borders will boost trade, cooperation and catalyse development.

    In terms of functional and supranational undertakings, Europe provides a credible template for policy alignment in health, the environment, hygiene and other areas such as efficient energy pools. These merit domestication into the African contextand present a forward-looking example for Africa. Similarly, closer engagement in science and technology has spurred successful European projects such as the Airbus, assembled with component manufactured in diverse countries from the UK, through France, to Spain, Germany and Italy.

    However, in terms of fiscal and monetary union, serious contemplation and caution may be in order. The euro currency, adopted by the Eurozone states since 1999, has proved to be a strait jacket for some of the adopting countries. Precisely when Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, Ireland and Cyprus needed monetary policy agility and other spaces to escape their debt-induced economic crisis, lack of autonomous control over the shared euro currency exposed serious design flaws in Europe’s monetary union. Notably, Africa has its own example of monetary union in francophone west and central Africa, which is arguably more successful and narrower in scope than the grand euro project.

    The one particularly controversial aspect of the Brexit debate focuses on immigration and labour mobility. This needs thoughtful regulation to avoid the backlash that may come from poor consultation and management of concern among ordinary citizens. Workers in Britain, Spain and elsewhere resented what appeared to be a runaway influx of migrant workers into their labour markets as the EU extended membership to a number of former Soviet-controlled eastern European states. Even as successful open economies like Britain’s celebrate the gains of globalization, loud grassroots protestation on migrant labour’s more adverse impacts on local communities was left to fester. The blame for this collision between local job security and EU-wide labour mobility partly lies at the doorsteps of EU leaders. With poorly managed immigration left to strain local communities and resources, a backlash like Brexit was long in the offing.

    Moreover, the top-down elitist approach that has characterized European integration will ill-serve Africa. Brexit presents an opportune moment for architects of Africa’s regional integration to reassess. Africa must avoid the EU’s missteps and build cooperation projects with not only people and social rights at its heart, but also prioritise substantive popular consultation whilst eschewing the temptation to impose on citizens. Failing this, Africa’s regionalization push will neither stand the test of time nor pass the test of popular legitimacy.

    Another dimension of the elitist tendency that hemorrhaged support for the EU is the disconnect between elite bureaucrats in Brussels and ordinary European citizens without jobs or hope in places like Greece and Spain. This Mediterranean fringe of the EU has borne the brunt of the EU’s collective economic failures, even as institutions like the European Parliament failed to respond decisively, whilst continually seeking more power and control against the will of national electorates. To be sure, the EU (and the West’s) mismanagement is widely blamed for transforming the US sub-prime mortgage crisis into the sovereign debt crises that severely undermined Club Med economies as privately held debt stocks were transferred to sovereigns.

    Closer to home, Africans worry about the likely impact of Brexit on African economies, and Nigerians also pose questions on how the referendum fallout may reshape Nigeria-UK relations. In truth, political relations will likely remain on an even keel, though more visible impact is to be expected in the UK’s diminished economic attractiveness both in the short term (owing to the expectation of prolonged negotiations to define the terms of the UK’s divorce from the EU) and the longer-term (as Britain’s resetting internal political relations and external economic agreements may take even longer to work out). Both will compound British and foreign business decisions. Britain itself potentially confronts the inconvenience of re-establishing UK diplomatic posts such as at the African Union headquarters and other locations where collective EU representation had been hitherto possible through the European External Action Services (the EU’s equivalent of a foreign ministry).

    For Nigerian investors and businesses, much like their peers from around the world, we may see a shift away from the view of London as gateway to the EU. With foreign businesses contemplating alternative locations for headquarters or hub operations, and the waning appetite among high net worth individuals (including Nigerians) who previously paid a premium for London real estates, UK property price growth is likely to slow. Broader economic uncertainty could also take hold. Paradoxically, this may attract less speculative, longer-term property investors attracted by lower prices. Put simply, London outside the EU is unlikely to be as attractive a gateway unless the UK magically manages to preserve much of the privileged access to the Common Market that its erstwhile EU membership conferred.

    Doubtless, the effect of Brexit will be felt at a personal level for many Britons and UK permanent residents. This author’s own story leads to the inexorable conclusion that Brexit represents a setback for Europe-wide cosmopolitanism.  The future mobility of British professional classes in Europe will be uncertain. After residing in the UK for nearly 15 years, acquiring British citizenship very early on his sojourn, this author went on to live in Madrid as part of the sizeable UK contingent resident in Spain. Many Nigerian-British professional and Nigerian permanent residents in the UK who have grown accustomed to crisscrossing European borders freely may confront a steep adjustment phase with respect to mobility. With the Brexit outcome heavily premised on the presumed out-of-control EU and non-EU immigration to the Britain, it is unlikely that a post-Brexit government will open the country to new workers from the EU. In return, EU states will likely reciprocate with their own restrictions on British expats. Nevertheless, the extent of such tit-for-tat restrictions remains unclear since the formal process of severing the UK from the EU will only commence after David Cameron, the British prime minister, relinquishes power in October.

    On a strategic level, there may well be opportunities for Nigeria and the UK to explore in terms of the latter’s expressed intention to upgrade commercial ties with other partners and blocs such as the Commonwealth, in which Nigeria is one of the bigger economies. Here the UK’s focus is undoubtedly on Australia, New Zealand, US, Canada and India. Nigeria, however, can explore potential trade niches. It is conceivable that Nigerian negotiators might succeed in persuading British counterparts to open up to Nigerian agricultural goods and processed foods, in the way they have not been able to convince EU interlocutors. This will be helped by the proposal of some Brexit supporters to immediately drop all tariffs on goods coming into the UK. This is premised on the unproven assumption that others are likely to reciprocate. Such uncertainties, if well exploited, could provide opportunities as Nigeria pushes to resuscitate its agricultural sector for local food supplies and export markets like Britain.

  • The beauty in Brexit

    ven with the seismic effects of the recent Brexit vote by Great Britain, the beauty of democracy glitters through. The crunch line is: voters made their choice. Only that the choice has left the Queen’s domain with such a nasty hangover that many now rue the decision and must be wondering if they sleepwalked through the referendum penultimate Thursday rather than make a reasoned and intelligent choice.

    Following a heated campaign by opposing camps in the course of which Labour Member of Parliament (MP) Jo Cox was murdered, voters in the June 23 referendum chose to pull the United Kingdom out of the European Union (EU), ending its 43-year membership of the bloc. But that decision was only by a slim margin of victory (52% to 48%) for Eurosceptics over those who preferred the status quo. It was also a neatly polarising decision among the four constituent states of the United Kingdom. Voting in support of Brexit were England (53.4% ‘Leave’ votes to 46.6% who chose ‘Remain’) and Wales (52.5% to 47.5%), while Scotland (62% ‘Remain’ to 38% ‘Leave’) and Northern Ireland (55.8% to 44.2%) strongly favoured remaining in EU. The poll’s aftermath has been like unleashing hell’s fury on the Queen’s country. But citizens made the choice. They must live with the consequences that choice and ride out the storm that has been ignited by it. That is what democracy is all about.

    The Brexit vote has left the country in leadership and economic disarray, and with resurgent threat to its national unity. As things stand, Britain looks effectively leaderless. For a country where power alternates strictly between two dominant parties, Prime Minister David Cameron of the ruling Conservative Party, who lost out in the referendum, has served notice of his resignation. Opposition Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is hanging in only by the teeth in defiance of a mass revolt by Labour MPs who voted 172 to 40 to pass a no-confidence vote on him. He looks formatted to loose in a leadership challenge by members of his party.

    Meanwhile the referendum’s outcome has once again stoked nationalist temperament in that country. The Brexit vote rankles with the Scots, who voted only in 2014 to remain a part of the United Kingdom.Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said it was “democratically unacceptable” that Scotland faced being taken out of the EU when it voted to remain in the bloc. She signalled that a second Independence referendum for the country was “highly likely.” Northern Ireland, for its part, was reported to be considering a reunion with kindred Republic of Ireland, which is a Euro-spending dyed-in-the-wool member of the EU.Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said the whole island of Ireland should now be able to vote on reunification.

    Beyond the political chaos, the shock Brexit vote impacted rudely on the economic front. The uncertainty stemming from the vote sent the British pound and stocks on London’s FTSE tumbling, though the stocks rallied again some days after. As Britain reeled from the fallouts of the Brexit vote and the international community watched fretfully, Prime Minister Cameron said he would leave invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which is a condition to begin divorce talks with the EU, to his successor expected to take office in October. But the country was pressed by the 27 remaining members of the EU to make haste in giving practical effect to voters’ choice to exit the bloc. In other words, Cameron and some other leaders of Britain may have desired otherwise,voters made their choice in the referendum, and that choice must be duly and speedily respected.

    I see a few morals in the British referendum for the practice of democracy, despite its cataclysmic side effects. The campaign leading up to the June 23 vote showed that politicians could rise above narrow partisan loyalties and self-serving considerations to canvass convictions on what they considered best, rightly or not, for their country. The Brexit campaign made emergency allies of historical foes, and fierceadversaries of party mates. Prime Minister Cameron wanted Britain in the EU and earlier on negotiated concessions from the bloc to strengthen his hand. He called the June 23 referendum primarily to stamp down Europhobes like former London Mayor Boris Johnson in the Conservative Party, which declined to adopt a collective position on the debate. But while Cameron contended with opposition from within his party, in addition to others without, he found an unusual ally in opposition Labour Party, among others, which adopted an official stance favouring Britain’s stay in the European bloc.

    On the other hand, nearly the fiercest advocate of Brexit was the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which won the last European elections and had held a seat in the European Parliament for some 16 years. When UKIP leader Nigel Farage returned to EU Parliament in Brussels in the wake of the Brexit vote, some parliamentarians could not help questioning him on why he returned, in view of his strong advocacy against Britain’s membership of the bloc.

    One lesson from the Brexit vote for Britain’s political elite, just as well as for politicians in all true democracies, is that voters’ darkest – perhaps irrational – fears must be reckoned with. You do not dismiss voters’ concerns as unfounded and hope to get their support in elections, unless by crooked means as is common in our own context here in Nigeria.

    With all the benefits of access to a single market that membership of the EU conferred on Britain, the average citizen seemed to detest the “free movement” principle of the bloc, wanted their county to take back full control of its borders and limit immigration. It didn’t seem to count thatthe open border principle also meant citizens of Britain could freely emigrate to, and pursue their enterprise in any country within the bloc. Following the Brexit vote, EU leaders have been warning that Britain would not be allowed to negotiate for the beneficial single market access while avoiding the allied responsibility of free movement.

    Under U. K. laws, the June 23 referendum is not legally binding and could in principle be blocked by the country’s parliament. Parliament yet has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28-nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.The withdrawal agreement also has to be ratified by Parliament. In principle, the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification. But that isn’t likely to happen in practice. In deference to voter’s choice, the government will move for Brexit in Parliament, and Conservative MPs who had voted ‘Remain’ will be ‘whipped’ to align with the government. Any MP that defies the whip must be ready to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.

    One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned is if MPs forced a general election and a party that promises to keep Britain in Europe gets elected. Such party could claimthat the election mandate supersedes the referendum mandate. But it requires the votes of two-thirds of British MPs to force a general election before the schedule date in 2020.

    The beauty in Brexit is that voters hold all the aces, and political leaders must simply submit to what they want. It will be the day here in Nigeria when politicians defer to voters and do not seek to circumvent them through electoral brigandage or judicial ambush. That will be the day!

  • When the messenger has the master’s ears

    True to his promise of reforming Nigeria’ oil and gas sector for optimum benefits to all stakeholders and the country, and encouraged by President Muhammadu Buhari, the country’s Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Dr. Ibe Emmanuel kachikwu has embarked on a series of initiatives that are turning things around. In this analysis, Emma Agu of NIGERIA INSIGNIA, a policy analysis group examines his effort against the background of the minister’s recent road show in China and concludes that sooner than later, the Niger Delta which is regarded as Nigeria’s developmental backwaters would become the latest frontiers of national renaissance.

    It is not every time that a messenger has the ears of the master. When the messenger does not have the ear of the master what you get is a level of dissonance that leads to systemic dysfunction. That, in itself, either results in frustration of the messenger or outright displacement of goals.

    In Nigeria, the muffled view, in some quarters, is that Minister of State for Petroleum and concurrently, group managing director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu, could be overreaching himself by his boldness and what I would describe, for lack of a better phrase, as ministerial activism. But why would anybody think that the minister is overreaching himself?

    I can hazard a few guesses. For one, there is the feeling that his utterances on a number of issues do not represent the position of President Muhammadu Buhari who doubles as minister of petroleum resources. Here are some examples: while Kachikwu favours dialogue as a means of resolving the of militancy in the Niger Delta, Buhari’s body language and actions appear to favour smoking the militants out by the armed forces. While Buhari’s initial disposition was towards reducing the price of fuel by fiat, Kachikwu was said to have actively promoted a market determined rate.

    The argument goes thus: Buhari, in keeping with his electoral promises was wary of anything that would compromise his integrity; Kachikwu, on the other hand, was keen to prove to investors, local and foreign, that government policy would be attractive enough to guarantee return on investments. The minister’s reasoning is simple: without an attractive policy environment, capital, the indispensable oxygen of industrial life will migrate to other lands, companies will shrink, employment opportunities will tumble and the change promised by the President could become a mirage.

    However, it appears that we have now gone beyond the realm of conjecture: the evidence on the ground shows that both Buhari and Kachikwu have struck a rhythm that has turned the oil sector into the most vibrant and result-oriented segment of the Nigerian economy in the past year or so. They have achieved what was considered impossible by pulling off the fuel price magic, something previous administrations labored unsuccessfully to accomplish. Today, the issue of fuel scarcity has been put behind us. Nigerians can now drive leisurely into the filling station and leave within minutes. The nightmare is over. All, because the messenger had his master’s ears!

    For those who were cynical about the ability of Kachikwu to drive the reform process to its logical conclusion and deliver on all key benchmarks especially the refineries, empirical evidence points to the man confounding his skeptics and moving at pace that could hardly have been predicted. The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation’s (NNPC) road show in China, within the week, marked a significant milestone in this effort. Undertaken with the aim of consolidation on the gains of President Buhari’s earlier visit to China, Kachikwu’s mission turned out to be an unqualified success, indeed unprecedented in the annals of road shows in Nigeria. His Chinese hosts were no doubt swept off their feet by the presentation by the Nigerian delegation, ably marshaled by NNPC chieftain Anibor Kragba, culminating in the signing of several deals with reputable Chinese firms. At the last count, as reported by the Nigerian Television Authority, NTA, Kachikwu had signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) in the neighbourhood of fifty billion US dollars, with the expectation that this would hit sixty billion US dollars soon.

    It is not surprising that Kachikwu’s delegation was able to pull off that feat. The main credit should go to President Buhari whose global stature and reputation are reminiscent of the high standing in which Nigeria was held when President Obasanjo returned to power in 1999. As a knowledgeable general, President Buhari leads from the front. Yet, his effort could simply go with the winds if he didn’t have an effective lieutenant in the oil industry. It is in this regard that Kachikwu and his NNPC teams share in the credit. It is axiomatic that one of the cardinal principles of national development is that no other person will develop your country for you. A consummate strategist himself, the minister is well aware that Chinese firms will not rush to invest in the country’s oil industry if high net worth Nigerian investors do not demonstrate enough passion for the country. It was the hallmark of strategic insight for Kachikwu to have embarked on the China road show with reputable Nigerian investors whose track record of performance and integrity lend credence to the Buhari Administration’s quest for global best practices.

    Who else could have played this ambassadorial role more convincingly than Dr. Bryant Orjiakor, chairman of Seplat Petroleum Development Company Plc? His company is one of the foremost indigenous players in the oil industry. For the records, Orjiakor stands out as a highly disciplined, focused and courageous entrepreneur who has seen the highs and lows of playing in the oil and gas sector. Through adroit business principles, with his compatriot Austen Avuru, an outstanding oil industry professional, Orjiakor made history when Seplat became the first Nigerian company to be listed on the London Stock Exchange. Orjiakor has always believed that Nigeria can play the field in the oil industry, that forming strong conglomerates and partnerships hold the key to unlocking the vast potentials in Nigeria.

    Kachikwu’s hosts would therefore have no difficulty believing Sir Bryant when he told them that the Buhari Administration was genuinely leveraging the oil sector to expand the economy and that investing in Nigeria was akin to tapping into a goldmine given that the large and growing population guaranteed a steady return on investment. It is noteworthy that he was on the China road show; it marks a significant endorsement of the Buhari oil industry reform program and gives Kachikwu the industry oxygen he requires to forge ahead in spite of the challenges that lay on the road.

    Luckily, these challenges are being confronted headlong through a combination of disarming flexibility on the part of President Buhari and the principled commitment of Kachikwu to his strategy for engaging the Niger Delta militants. That was why he had the courage to forecast improved production. That was the source of his confidence when he assured his Chinese audience that President Buhari had authorized dialogue with the Niger Delta militants. Something tells me that this messenger has the ears of his master! Is it therefore not appropriate that we commend the President for shifting, if only temporarily, from his legendary zero tolerance for militant agitation? Nigerians and foreign investors alike should be thrilled by Kachikwu’s disclosure that production had been raised to 1.9 million barrels per day because of the ongoing dialogue with the militants. Behoove

    It has become all too obvious that with peace in the country and focused leadership, Nigeria can and will surmount the present economic setback. But achieving peace is not a task for any one person, group or organisation. This is one challenge that all Nigerians must face and conquer. Therefore, it is incumbent on all well meaning Nigerians, including members of the opposition to plead with the militants to embrace the olive branch offered by the “born again” posture of President Buhari. More importantly, commonsense dictates that the militants and all indigenes of the Niger Delta take advantage of the favourable disposition of their kinsman, Ibe Kachikwu who has positioned his neck on the unsparing and treacherous guillotine of Nigerian politics even if that means that his political blood would be shed to catalyze the development of the Niger Delta in a strong, united and prosperous Nigeria under the leadership of President Buhari.

    For me, the stakes are high, the prospects are enormous and the deliverables promising. In my mind’s eye, I can picture Nigeria, two years from today, awash with 50 billion dollars of Chinese investment in the oil industry, much of it in the Niger Delta, complementing and competing with the mind-boggling Dangote refinery. Somebody should tell me why the pump head price of petrol will not tumble to less than one hundred naira per litre or why millions of jobs will not be created directly or indirectly in the Niger Delta region or why the despondent and restive youth of the region will not regain their dignity and self pride or why the hitherto backwaters of development will not turn into the new coastal frontlines of national renaissance; why, why, why, why, why…!

    Please let the Chinese come.

    • Emma Agu, a veteran journalist is promoter of the FEDERAL INSIGNIA, a policy analysis group. He can be reached on bobozest@gmail.com.

  • Open letter to Acting IG

    Permit me to start this short piece by felicitating with you on your choice as Acting Inspector-General of Police. Drawing fillip from your maiden media interview on the day of your announcement, I have a huge measure of confidence that your appointment into the highly exalted office that you currently occupy, albeit in acting capacity, is not misplaced.

    I am impelled to do this open letter by your, what I respectfully consider to be, hastily announced verdict in Osun State recently at the Police Mobile Force Training School that mobile policemen attached to VIPs had been recalled with immediacy.  According to you, the mobile policemen are not trained to be bodyguards and as such could not be allowed to be guarding some high profile individuals and even companies.  Let me mention post-haste that it is fit and proper that our policemen, and anyone for that matter, should not be exposed to any measure of indignity in the discharge of national service to our dear nation. However, I sincerely have my reservations as to whether indignity is at the centrepiece of the services rendered by the mobile policemen in guarding high profile individuals and companies in the society.  Speaking candidly, there is nothing wrong in allowing the mobile policemen to continue on their beats with individuals and companies concerned subject to condition(s) that would be beneficial to the generality of the people in the final analysis.

    A constant phenomenon in the appointment of a new Inspector-General of Police has, for some while now, been the threat of and or actual recall of policemen from “VIPs”.  Predictably enough, this has turned out to be your departure point and welcoming salvo as the newest entrant into that office.

    However, it is almost plain as a pikestaff and certain as night follows day that we are not set to witness the end of the spectacle of policemen guarding unofficial personalities. If your directive gets to be implemented at all, the most potent it can get to be is to stimulate, in the fold of the beneficiaries, another round of rat race for restoration of the personnel. In no distant time, we would be back to the same order.

    Against the backdrop of this startling reality, I dare say, with profound respect, that what you have indulged in by recalling policemen on attachment to VIPs and companies is tantamount to reinventing the wheel. Beyond rhetoric, and I say this with no attempt at denigration, there is nothing more to this development. The fact that such verdict of recall is nothing novel should, at any rate, have presaged to you that it would not make any impressionable effect on discerning minds on the standpoint that it has become a matter of sheer rite of passage.

    Now it is worthy of emphasis that by the provision of Section 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Taking a cue from this constitutional provision, the question must be asked, how does the directive for recall of police aides to individuals and companies enhance the security and welfare of the people over and above what the situation would have been if the status quo had been sustained? Of course, it is easily arguable that the idea is to allow the police personnel involved to be deployed to the protection of the general populace. Fair enough, that could be discerned from your speech as what motivated your decision.

    Be that as it may, there is an inevitable seamy side to that argument. The people and companies you are withdrawing the security personnel from are instantly exposed to untold insecurity. Except we want to engage in some illusion, the security situation in the country is too precarious to make anyone forbear from coming to that conclusion. By Jove, that is shudder-inducing. What with the fact that no specific remedial measure is indicated to have been put in place to otherwise give them succour? Rather, with the fact of your public announcement of that decision, the evil people that the security personnel are meant to keep at bay may likely get a nudge to go after the now hapless people and companies. This, doubtless, does not augur well for the polity.

    The query may be raised as to why some individuals and corporate concerns should be given priority over others in the provision of security. As disturbing and somewhat revolting as it may sound, the reality is that every life in this country, nay in any country, does not command the same value and premium. That must explain why variegated considerations are given on the welfare and security of the citizens in all facets. For instance, the President of the nation, even though just one person, is accorded the welfare and security attention that is not given probably to hundreds of thousands of other persons in the aggregate. The same scenario percolates down the ladder as far as government functionaries and officials are concerned.

    Interestingly enough, you are not likely to remain on the same pedestal, with respect to the number of security aides at your beck and call, as you had as Assistant Inspector-General of Police (AIG) now that you have risen to the position of Acting Inspector-General. Understandably so and no one would rightly begrudge you on that score. The situation here is reminiscent of the saying in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, expressed as far back as 1945 or thereabout, that all animals are equal but some are more equal than the other. C’est la vie!

    With the present spate of insecurity all around the nation, the need for increased measures of security across board cannot be overstressed. That notwithstanding, it is expedient to recognize the need to give adequate premium to some by reason of their higher risk value to the society. It is simply indubitable that the high profile persons in the society are more prone to kidnapping, robbery and kindred crimes than the lesser endowed in the society, for instance.  I am of the supreme conviction that a good number, if not all, of those who enjoy the privilege of security aides covet that privilege not as a status symbol but as a means of securing themselves from the vagaries of the society.  It is indisputably within the province of the purpose and responsibility of government, as signposted by the constitution, for the police to enhance rather than erode this legitimate desire of the people concerned.

    The heart-warming thing is that, given the right appraisal, the practice of providing security aides to deserving private persons and companies is not devoid of advantages to the society at large. For instance, I see in it a potential for reduction of unemployment in the society and promoting the security and welfare of the generality of the people if those who can afford it are given the opportunity to be paying the salaries and other emoluments of the personnel attached to them that would invariably give room for the employment of more people into the police by the government. With increased number of police personnel, the latitude otherwise available for felons to ply their evil and ungodly trade should be constricted and the society better for it. In compendium, the clarion dictate of reason is for the Acting IG to deeply introspect and come up with ways of leveraging on what has come to be part of our policing index to precipitate a better vista of security and welfare to the people of this nation. The time to think out of the box is here in my humble estimation.

     

    • Akinlaja, SAN, FCIArb is a former Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Ekiti State.

  • Our children and their enemies

    It was on June 16, that the world marked the 40th anniversary of the brutal killing of many schoolchildren at Soweto, South Africa, in 1976. The schoolchildren poured into the street to protest the use of Africaans as the language of instruction in schools and the miserably non-functional education they were given under the apartheid system. But rather than give ears to their complaints, the decidedly remorselessly violent authorities unleashed lethal, excessive force on them, killing a disproportionate number of the young protesters. More commonly known as ‘the Day of the African Child’ since 1991 when the Organisation of African Unity (now African Union) initiated it in honour of the exterminated pupils and other citizens in the Soweto uprising, the day raises awareness of the unending need for structured improvement of the education given to African children.

    In that connection, that anniversary gave governments, NGOs, and stakeholders on the continent and across the globe another opportunity to re-examine their commitments to the all-round well-being of the most vulnerable members of the human race – children. The day served to inspire adults everywhere to rededicate themselves to the protection, happiness, and wholesome development of children. That commemoration was signally remarkable for its lesson on the need for adults to devote themselves more heartily to working for a safe and positive present and future for children.

    Alas, for many adults in Nigeria, Oyo and Osun states particularly, that day in June was a day like any other. They neither bothered themselves with its significance, nor did they reflect on the roles they make children with or around them undertake. Rather, most of the adults in those states were (and are) busy misleading children and imbuing their minds with the most dangerous forms of indoctrinations, shaping them in their (adults’) own images and in the process making the children play roles that are totally unsuitable for their age.

    Specifically, I speak of the stories in the news about the last three weeks in regard to the decision of the Oyo State government to, in the words of Governor IsiakaAjimobi, ‘partner willing members of the society like alumni associations, mission bodies and corporate organisations to rejuvenate [the state public] education system’; and the Justice JideFalola June 3 judgement that affirmed the right of female Muslim students in Osun public schools to complement their school uniform with hijab without being humiliated, harassed, or punished.

    As reports had it, secondary school students in Oyo debouched into the streets and wrecked unimaginable destruction to public utilities as a way of protesting against the decision of the state government. In Osun State, what emerged as a form of protest by students against the hijab was no less a discomfortingly bizarre situation in which Christian students came to school in uniforms supplemented by varied religious garments like choir robes, cassocks, etc., creating in the process an offensive and reprehensible ecumenical gathering of schoolchildren. What cannot be gainsaid about the two perturbing cases is that adults were the inspiration behind them. In other words, while the fact subsists that children have their own agency, the motivation to destroy property and show up in school in unapproved apparels in the name of protesting certain decisions was largely engineered by some kidultswho delude themselves that they are adults. Whatever their justification for egging those children on, those adults are clearly the enemies of children.

    The enemies of children in Oyo and Osun are those who wickedly enlist children as soldiers in their crazy, superfluous religious wars. They are those who poison the minds of ‘God’s bits of wood’ (apologies to OsmaneSembene) with the toxic brew of myopia, hate, and intolerance. They are those who encourage children to express their displeasure through violence.

    Adults and parents need to understand that it is not in the place of children to teach. Theirs is to learn. Whether a school should be privatised or not does not concern children. It is sound, functional, all-round education that adults in their society owe them. It is the adults who must do all the talk and take decisions on how to ensure good education and proper upbringing for the children. To then ask children to go to town and fight a bad policy by destroying public property as was the case in Oyo (and Osun some months ago) was an indubitable anathema. It was the wrong way to teach children about resolving social problems.

    Likewise, it is not the duty of children to protect or defend any religious ideology. At their age, it is children that require protection. They are to go to school and learn and not to defend the cause of any religion. The minds of children should be cultivated to tolerate and respect the other and not to develop spiritual contempt for fellow beings. Those who inspired the Osun schoolchildren to go to school in church habiliments and protect Christianity, and the militant mullahs who are picketing schools and enforcing the hijab in the name of Islam are evilly religious soldiers whose minds are bereft of the grace of tolerance, egalitarian ethos, and the humanitarian imperative which enjoys every responsible adult to do no harm in their quest to resolve issues. Like some of their Muslim counterparts, these bigoted soldiers of the Lord Army in Osun are oddly dangerous to children and society as a whole.

    These graceless adults use children to accomplish their evil agenda by exploiting their manipulability, idealism, and narrow life experiences. If the energies and passions demonstrated in the matters of hijab and partnering private groups to run schools had been shown in complementing governments’ efforts in those two states, perhaps the public school systems there would be far better than they currently are. Ajimobi might have handled the partnership policy messily; the solution to it is not for some adults to destroy children by encouraging them to engage in acts of violence. And if a High Court judge in Osun says female students can complement their uniforms with hijab, the response from the Christian fold is not to arm Christian children with the message of hate and misplaced confrontation. If they consider Governor Aregbesola’s response to the judgement to be supportive of Muslims, the soldiers in Osun are still very wrong to think that encouraging children to do their battle is the appropriate response.

    Let parents and adults of our society note, as the child protection practitioner, Michael Wessells, argues, that any war that children are enlisted to fight will undergo ‘a multi-generational process that reproduces itself and visits untold suffering on following generations’. When adults mobilise children to fight their wars like it is in Oyo and Osun, such conflicts will be difficult to end and peace will become scarce in the society concerned.

    Religion warriors must understand, as a character in Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner exhorts, that ‘children aren’t colouring books. You don’t get to fill them with your favourite colours’. Adults everywhere owe children the duty of not allowing them to goose-step behind any evil that can poison their minds. Children must be exposed to the wholesome principle of resolving differences through peaceful means. They must be taught the virtues of tolerance through adults’ demonstration of it. They must be made to understand that matters revolving round school uniforms are neither more important than their education, nor are they determiners of who to relate with in school. The two religious groups in Osun must think more about solutions to problems without enlisting children to misbehave.

    If the enemies of children will not win in Oyo and Osun, and of course in the country as a whole, the governments in those states must avoid sloppy policies and get the people more involved in decision-making processes. In Osun, let the governor find a way to ensure that ‘uniforms’ do not become ‘duaforms’ in the public schools and learning takes centre stage than these noises about hijab and whatnot. The Oyo governor in his case must seek to involve all stakeholders in seeking to resolve the so-called problems of running the public schools. If leaders want progress and peace in their domains, they cannot afford to insult the people with horrible policies and the dowel of alienation. That way, the enemies of children will gain ascendancy and flourish.

     

    • Ademola writes from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.

  • NASS and constituency projects

    In its editorial of June 26, with the title Unholy Alliance, The Nation castigated the National Assembly over its insistence on the implementation of constituency projects in the 360 Federal Constituencies and 109 Senatorial Districts.

    On June 20, the House of Representatives in conjunction with the National Institute for Legislative Studies (NILS) organised a one-day summit on Political Representation and Constituency Relations and Intervention Services in Abuja.  In the course of proceedings, Vice President Professor Yemi Osinbajo and Minister of Works, Housing and PowerBabatundeFashola delivered speeches expressing their opposition to the inclusion of constituency projects in the federal budget.

    Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. YakubuDogara, in his own speech countered the arguments against constituency projects drawing examples from different jurisdictions similar to Nigeria’s presidential democracy.

    Historically, prior to 1999 and indeed until 2003, the phenomenon of constituency project was alien to Nigeria’s budgeting system. However, with return to democracy in 1999 and the chronic failure of the executive to ensure even distribution of projects across the 36 states, 774 local governments and indeed all the electoral wards and the resultant disquiet from aggrieved Nigerians in the rural areas, lawmakers were left with no option but to begin the agitation for equitable allocation and distribution of federal projects nationwide.

    The Nation’s editorial mischievously tried to connote that the doctrine of separation of power as espoused by Montesquieu was being compromised as a result of legislators’ involvement in the execution of constituency projects. This is far from the truth because members of the National Assembly are neither given money nor awarded contracts to execute any constituency project.

    As Speaker Dogara stated, all that each member or Senator does is to identify the peculiar needs of his/her people, select location and type of the project and strive to ensure that it is implemented. All monies budgeted for constituency projects are domiciled in respective ministries, departments and agencies. It is the executive that award the contracts and execute them in the same manner as all other projects.

    Now, one major reason why lawmakers would always insist on having projects in the budget is that the executive hasn’t come clean on the issue of lopsided allocation of projects. The practice has consistently been that if the minister or permanent secretary or even directors in a given ministry or parastatal is from a particular part of the country, they would normally allocate a substantial percent of the projects or capital votes to their states or geo-political zones while leaving out the rest of the country to grapple with the remaining negligible percentage.

    Year-in-year-out, this has been both the practice and the norm. How do you expect a lawmaker to vote and approve an over 1000 page budget document running into trillions of Naira that has no single project for his constituents? What do you expect such a member or senator to tell their constituents?

    For the benefit of those who are either ignorant or doubtful, the philosophy of constituency projects is well embedded and encapsulated in the 1999 constitution in the federal character principle. More specifically, the constitution in section 14(3) states,  “The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few States or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or in any of its agencies.” This also extends to allocation and implementation of budget and projects which is well covered by the provisions of section 16 (1): “The State shall…harness the resources of the nation and promote national prosperity and an efficient, dynamic and self-reliant economy and control the national economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality…..”.

    AsDogara noted, Lagos State stands out as the first state to enact the law legitimising constituency projects just one year into the Fourth Republic in 2000. In fact, other states soon emulated Lagos and to some extent the federal legislature.

    Fashola implemented constituency projects for members of the Lagos State House of Assembly for the eight years he was the governor. The Vice President was Attorney General of Lagos State also and at no point in time did any of them contend that the Lagos law is unconstitutional. As Senior Advocates, why didn’t any of them challenge the Lagos law in court? Are they saying constituency project is only good and constitutional for Lagos State only? What else might have informed their sudden change of perception?

    The capital budget as proposed by Fashola’s ministry was N334.3 billion out of which he allocated N89 billion to his home region while the North-east, the most devastated and neglected region got a paltry N10b. How can anyone justify this and then turn around to oppose a token allocation of say N30 million for rural projects in the federal constituencies including the ones in the geopolitical zone that was allocated N89 billion of the ministry’s capital budget? A minister takes N89b to his region and turns around to attack N100b meant for Constituencies nationwide. Sadly, this is what The Nation sought to defend in its editorial.

    The argument has always been that the job of lawmakers is to make laws and no more, even then it is usually conveniently disregarded, the fact that annual budget or appropriation is one of the most important laws by the legislature.  We should be reminded that making laws is just one function while there are other more critical aspects of the work of MPs. The job of a lawmaker also includes representation which entails protection of the interests of their constituents by ensuring that they get fair treatment from government including a fair share of the national budget.

    But for constituency projects, many rural communities would never have known about the existence of the federal government let alone benefitting from budgets. Thanks to the mechanism of the projects which ensures that every year projects such as solar powered bores, hand pumps, school infrastructure, dispensaries, skills acquisition centres, poverty alleviation, etc are implemented, however poorly the implementation . Infact, it is on record that over the years, the executive deliberately frustrates the implementation of constituency projects to the point that not up to 40 percent has ever been implemented in any given budget year. Already unfortunately, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation Babachir David Lawal, has stated that the government may not be able to implement constituency projects in the 2016 budget. May be he doesn’t know that the Appropriation Act is a law that must be implemented unless of course if it is amended which can only be done if the government fails to meet its revenue targets.

    Needless to say that it is the monumental failure of the executive of successive administrations to implement budgets and ensure national spread of projects through even and equitable allocation of capital votes that compelled lawmakers to insist that a meagre or paltry sum be allocated for projects in constituencies nationwide. It is strange for a top functionary of an APC government to oppose a policy aimed at fairness and transparency such as constituency projects. For the avoidance of doubt, skewed development is corruption and it’s propagation in an APC government will be puzzling paradox.

    The editorial also carefully but deliberately ignored the many examples mentioned by the Speaker as obtainable in other jurisdictions that practice presidential democracy like ours, notably, close home here, Kenya which has even set up a fund called the Constituency Development Fund and so many countries that have followed or are in the process of enacting similar laws.

    The 1999 Constitution is loosely modelled after the American Constitution with the same system of presidential democracy. Their system fully and duly recognises constituency projects which in the USA is called “Pork Barrels”. Congressmen and women always ensure that they get a piece of the pork barrel for their constituencies in every federal budget. The Speaker cited specific examples of pork barrels attracted by some members of congress including but not limited to the ones attracted by Paul Ryan the current speaker of US House of Representatives. If those pork barrels are not unconstitutional in the US, how are they unconstitutional under the Nigerian constitution which is patterned after the US constitution? We are not oblivious of the concept of adaptation but the object of adaptation has never been retrogression.

    .

    • Hon. Namdas is chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Media & Publicity.

  • Tambuwal: Making education priority

    In recent years, education in northern Nigeria reached a point of collapse. Sokoto, my home state, is one of the states most affected. To lend some perspective: In 2015, the National Universities Commission (NUC) ranked Usmanu Dan Fodiyo University Sokoto (UDUS) and Sokoto State University (SSU) 82nd and 104th in Nigeria respectively. Encouraging however is the 2016 ranking of 37th for UDUS. SSU couldn’t make top 100. Based on a 2010 report by Sokoto State Ministry of Education on the State Strategic Education Sector Plan (SESP) 2011-2020, the gross and net enrolment rates were 71 percent and 55.5 percent respectively for the primary school-aged population. While the net attendance rate for the 2009-2010 academic years was 68 percent, completion and gender gap rates were at 40 percent. Thus, 44.5 percent of school-aged children were not enrolled in school in 2010. The report puts the enrolment rate for boys at 69.8 percent and 30.2 percent for girls, as compared to the national average of 86 percent and 75 percent respectively. Recent outrage, expressed largely through impassioned internet debate, has ignited an awakening to the present dire state of affairs.

    Last year, we began a social media campaign (#TransformArewa), which brought to the fore some of the most notable educational deficiencies and vulnerabilities of our present educational system, as well as the consequences. My research discovered the colossal disparity between the standard and quality of education in the North compared to the South. A significant difference exists between the performances of northern students compared to our southern counterparts. This can most likely be attributed to a lack of structure and attention given to education in the North. In addition to low quality of education, our school infrastructures are dilapidated and often poorly equipped.

    The National Common Entrance Examination cut-off marks released by Federal Ministry of Education shows that while the highest cut-off marks in the country were 139 in 2013 and 66 in 2014, particularly alarming were cut-off marks in some Northern states for males and females respectively. In 2013: Zamfara (4 and 2), Taraba (3 and 11), Yobe (2 and 27), Sokoto (9 and 13) and Kebbi (9 and 20). In 2014: Sokoto (15 and 7), Zamfara (14 and 12), Bauchi (both 18), Taraba (both 19) and Yobe (both 20).

    According to statistics of results released by WAEC in 2014, eight of 36 bottom-ranked states recorded worse than a 10 percent score (five credits or more including English and Mathematics). These include: Adamawa (8.75 percent), Jigawa (7.4 percent), Sokoto (7.12 percent), Zamfara (6.65 percent), Kebbi (6.3 percent), Gombe (5.68 percent), Bauchi (5.28 percent) and Yobe (4.85 percent). These are all northern states, and in fact the bottom 13 states were all from the North. WAEC results released in 2015 were also not heartening. The following eight northern states were ranked at the bottom: Yobe (37th), Zamfara (36th), Jigawa (35th), Gombe (34th), Katsina (33rd), Bauchi (31st) and Sokoto (30th).

    For several years, the North has been at a great educational disadvantage, a condition which will continue once there’s no drastic measure or robust intervention to halt it. This obvious trend should appal our leaders, who witness this persistent plague upon our region, but do nothing but fold their arms and watch. A temporary lapse in judgment can be forgiven, but a myopic leader who is immune to these issues should be questioned, both as to his moral conscience and to his qualifications to engage in governance. We need visionary transformational leaders who will employ experts that possess both technical merit and knowledge of the nuances of these educational problems. We may not see the scale of destruction this has caused our region now, but we will soon see how collectively impacted we all are in terms of economic and industrial growth, employment and security if nothing is done.

    One such leader is Governor Aminu Waziri Tambuwal. Once Governor Tambuwal was inaugurated, I paid close attention to the state’s activities. I was initially critical of what I perceived to be a slow start, but quickly learned that Tambuwal and his team were in fact crafting a plan to solve the education crisis, an issue whose urgency has no equal.

    Tambuwal introduced a bill which will make obtaining education compulsory and punishes non-compliant parents. The bill, which is currently at the public hearing stage, will ensure that education is not just a privilege, but a right of every child which must not be denied. Governor Tambuwal then began to address Girl-Child education by introducing monetary incentives for rural mothers who allow their daughters to attend school instead of street hawking. In the same vein, Alhaji SaniYakubu, a member of the state House of Assembly, has introduced a bursary scheme for girls in his constituency. The scheme will provide the girls with ¦ 2,000 monthly allowance, school uniforms and exercise book for every school term. Such laudable initiatives should be both welcomed and expanded throughout the state, especially in the rural areas where most cannot afford sending their children to school. Based upon the measly proportion of girls who attend school compared to boys, it is safe to assume that the most untapped human resource in the North is the female workforce.

    Tambuwal’s greatest strides were made when he declared a state of emergency in education. This effectively signalled that the government understood what it takes to remedy a catastrophic problem and that it would no longer turn a blind eye. Our once-archaic education system will now be overhauled and upgraded, putting us back on the academic map. Every bureaucratic process that could impede the implementation of reform will be circumvented.

    Sokoto now has a clear plan, and Tambuwal didn’t stop there. He allocated ¦ 34.5b – the highest of any sector – to education in the 2016 budget. This represents a staggering 29 percent of the budget (UNESCO had recommended 26 percent).

    According to the 2010 SESP, the primary school teacher-to-pupil ratio in Sokoto was 1:47, which is better than the current 1:66 teacher-to-pupil ratio. Even more disturbing is the “qualified teacher”-to-pupil ratio which was an outrageous 1:144. Governor Tambuwal’s response was to recruit 500 teachers trained by UNICEF to boost manpower in secondary schools. Furthermore, Tambuwal recently announced he will be employing 10,000 qualified teachers, the exact number which was recommended to bridge the gap by the technical committee he established to advise him on these issues. Earlier this year, Tambuwal began construction of special estates (teachers’ villages) across different districts as part of an incentive package for teachers posted to teach in the rural areas. This was his effort to further extend access to education in the rural areas. Governor Tambuwal then signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the National Teachers institute (NTI) in an effort to improve the quality of education and maintain the gains already recorded.

    Throughout his first year, billions of Naira have been earmarked or expended by the governor for renovations of schools, intervention programmes, or support in the payment of school and exam fees (8000 students for JAMB alone) for students studying abroad or locally. He recently earmarked another ¦ 1 billion to establish a senior secondary school in Gudu local government to increase access to education. Until now, Gudu was the only local government in Nigeria without one. In order to sustain his effort, a one percent levy of all contracts awarded will be set aside for the sole purpose of funding education in Sokoto State.   We have already started to realize the dividends of this investment as almost 1.2m students have enrolled in the basic education schools for the 2015 – 2016 academic year, a huge increase from recent years.

    It is no secret that the North is being left behind in education. We live in a society where some parents have become obstacles to their children’s education through begging (Almajiranci) and hawking (Talla); while some teachers have become an impediment to the academic development of their students’ education through substandard teaching techniques. Some youths are therefore being denied the opportunity to realize their talents and a viable path to a rewarding career. They need a voice, and we should give it to them, because collectively, we can steer this sinking ship around to safety.

     

    • Shehu, a Structural Engineer, lives in Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

  • Agenda to restructure Nigeria

    The call to restructure Nigerian polity is not new. But the loudest decibels of the currently intensified calls to restructure the nation come mostly from those whose preferred candidate lost in the March 28, 2015 presidential election. President Muhammadu Buhari in his presidential campaign before being voted into power never once promised to initiate the restructuring of the polity.  His three key campaign promises centered on fighting corruption, insecurity and economy.

    After his inauguration as President, Buhari spent about four months doing a systematic study of the key governance institutions (Ministries, Departments and Agencies) before appointing ministers and kick-starting his anti-corruption agenda which started netting some previously untouchable elites, investigating and prosecuting them in law courts. Once the anti-corruption agenda commenced, the decibel of calls to restructure the country intensified.

    It is quite curious why those whose preferred candidate clearly lost in the last presidential election would insist that the new President should drop his key campaign promises and implement their own agenda of ill-defined restructuring of the polity, otherwise they make the nation ungovernable for the new President. But that is not the ethos of democratic political system. Some other opportunistic elites have quickly keyed into the current calls to restructure for various personal motives. The cacophony of voices calling for immediate restructuring comes with variety of suggested models. While some want the President to immediately articulate a bill in tune with their preferred models, some others want, first, to convene a “sovereign” national conference (with an unclear modality for selecting participants), whose recommendations will be subjected to referendum.

    This writer is not opposed to restructuring, and is rather inclined to the model that would apply the existing six geopolitical zones of the country as the main administrative regions, with more devolution of power to the regions. My reasons for supporting restructuring do not however align with the commonly-bandied talks of how it would serve as magic bullet to kill all festering national problems. Nor do I hold the over-blown nostalgia that the defunct regional structure at Independence in 1960 was so glorious; I rather think that the fractious and nepotic politics of the leaders of that time, within and between the regions, laid the foundation for crises that subsequently followed and progressed to our present level of degeneration, with the younger generations outplaying the earlier ones in the macabre game. And the tradition had remained to always point accusing fingers outwards, and hardly ever inwards in seeking the root of the problems.

    I subscribe to restructuring the polity out of the believe that no existing structure is sacrosanct, and that in a situation where we (Nigerians) have collectively proven incapable of managing our affairs and abundant resources to improve the living condition of the masses of the society, we could yet try another model, even when we may not yet be able to predict the outcome. But most importantly, I am strongly convinced that, first, we need to fight and contain the outlandish pattern of corruption as a way to sanitize the society to an appreciable level, before other key issues could be genuinely addressed. The dumbfounding revelations of mind-boggling looting of our commonwealth by a handful of political, bureaucratic and business elites are more than an eye-opener to even the blind. Nigerian masses now see what had perpetually kept them impoverished and the nation poorly-developed, all in the midst of abundant endowment of resources.

    It is quite obvious to any averagely enlightened mind that the road to restructuring, as being canvassed, is littered with mines and obstacles that have to be navigated, and no one can yet predict how it may turn out. Many issues are involved. The previous presidents were well aware of it, and that is why President Jonathan tactfully avoided initiating any action, even after the report of the National Conference he belatedly set up in 2014 was submitted to him six months before the presidential election which he lost.

    Some well-acclaimed grandmasters of Nigerian politics who have lately been lending their suave voices to the call for immediate restructuring know more than most of us that President Buhari cannot restructure Nigeria as they want. The executive cannot do that. Only the legislature is invested with the power to make such law that would alter the extant constitution.

    The President is being much harried to prepare a bill to that effect and forward to the National Assembly. It is well known that bills to the legislature must not always come from the executive. Our legislature actually initiates far more number of bills than the executive and the general citizenry put together. And yet there has been no visible action by the arch-proponents of immediate restructuring to get their elected representatives in the National Assembly to initiate such a bill, process it, and send to the President for assent. And if the President refuses to assent, there is a procedure to over-ride his veto and pass the bill into law. And Nigeria will get restructured as ‘desired’, if really the loud clamour for immediate restructuring is very popular among Nigerian masses, as the arch-proponents make it look.

    It is important to note that in this orchestrated loud clamour for immediate restructuring, the two arms of National Assembly have maintained relative quietude.Ditto for the 36 states Houses of Assembly. And yet these are the institutions with the power to make constitution-altering laws. The 36 elected governors play studious observers to the debate, not revealing their position or possible game plan to any attempt to challenge or collapse their hard-won executive authorities into wider geopolitical units. Even as the call for creation of more states has not yet stopped. The 2014 National Conference recommended the creation of more than 15 new states from the existing 36 states.

    It is no secret that a good number of the prominent voices calling for restructuring have been longstanding beneficiaries of Nigerian decadent and corrupt system. They made their vast wealth and influence that way. And with the ongoing loot-recovery drive of Buhari administration, with its widening scope of investigation and prosecution of suspects, this group of elites are scared that some of their past dirty deals could be unearthed, and that could ‘strip them naked’ before the public. In addition, they have lost their longstanding patronage as godfathers who must be indulged and patronized by any government in making choice/juicy political appointments and contracts. They no longer receive accustomed privileges of their front companies cornering major government contracts.

    So the orchestrated calls for immediate restructuring of the polity being directed at President Buhari alone are attempts to compel him to decelerate his key campaign promises, particularly the anti-corruption agenda, and to drag him into a scheme littered with mines and obstacles, and that would provide a new talking point for criticisms and attacks that would distract from his set programme. As much as this group of elites applies their vast wealth and extensive media coverage to propagate their position as being of popular appeal, the truth is that to overwhelming majority of Nigerian masses, restructuring is not their top priority at moment.

    Samples: In the past 15 years, billions of dollars (trillions of naira) had been spent in the power (electricity) sector by the government. There is little or no improvement to show for it. The funds were simply looted and shared the Nigerian way. Privatization and sales of government assets where avenues through which a few well-placed fellows swindled the nation. The key beneficiaries of all these looting of our common patrimony are still around and enjoying their loot and influence in the same society. These are the people well-determined to do anything that can scuttle the ongoing loot-recovery drive which is an aspect of Buhari administration’s anti-corruption agenda. The cheated and impoverished Nigerian masses should put on their thinking cap and shine their eyes against being perpetually enslaved by some elders and grandmasters of Nigerian politics who equate their personal comfort interests with the interest of the nation.

     

    • Col. Nass (rtd), writes from Enugu.
  • Eric Lubbock Avebury (1928 – 2016) – a tribute

    Eric Lubbock Avebury (1928 – 2016) – a tribute

    As the United Kingdom grapples with the full implication of her recent decision to leave the European Union, it is most appropriate to celebrate the life of one of Britain’s most distinguished international human rights campaigners, the longest serving Liberal Democrat peer in the British House of Lords – Eric Lubbock, Fourth Baron Avebury, whose thanksgiving memorial takes place today at the Royal Institution in London.

    I first met Lord Avebury in 1992 in the company of my colleagues, the late Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem and OluOguibe – of the New Nigeria Forum and our Ghanaian comrades in exile – at a time that the storm was feverishlygathering pace against the Babangida led military junta in Nigeria. That initial meeting in 1992 found us the most reliable supporter of our work in the hallowed halls of the British parliament. Lord Avebury was quite a phenomenon in British politics since he entered with a bang in 1962 when he pulled the most remarkable swing of 22 percent in British elections, taking over the Orpington seat in Kentfromthe Conservatives in that historic bye-election. His election signaled the revival of the Liberals in the British Parliament and became the bye-word for remarkable swings in bye-elections.He soon distinguished himself in parliament and barely one year into his membership of the House of Commons, hebecamethe Chief Whip of the Liberals. In 1964, he became a member of the Speaker’s Commission on Electoral Law.  He also served on the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life (1974 – 76). He left the House of Commons in 1970 after eight meritorious years and gained hereditary peerage as the Fourth Baron Avebury in 1971, a position he held until death came calling this year. In the Lords, he was the Liberals’ Spokesman on Immigration and Race Relations (1971 – 83) and later one of Liberal Democrat’s spokespersons on Foreign Affairs, speaking on conflict and human rights.

    Although a brilliant constituency MP and a passionate liberal peer, what set him apart from other parliamentarians was his unrelenting commitment to human rights, first as Chairman of the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group which subsequently transformed to the All Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group, which Lord Avebury chaired for 21 years (1976 – 1997), during which he chalked up a legendary reputation for self-sacrifice in the pursuit and protection of human rights across the world.  Lord Avebury’s efforts in this regard opened up possibilities for many in distress through the opportunities for redress provided by him and a growing international coalition against tyranny.  Lord Avebury raised the human rights thrust of his parliamentary advocacy above and beyond mere moralism, visiting no fewer than 35 countries (including Nigeria) for human rights and conflict resolution purposes. From Aceh in Indonesia to Kurdistan in Turkey,Ogoniland in Nigeria to the ethnic minorities seeking British nationality in Hong Kong, Lord Avebury’s Flodden Road’s home in Camberwell became a compulsory port of call for many human rights defenders, liberation fighters and political leaders from around the world.

    In the period that I developed a close friendship with Lord Avebury, he met many of our own leaders – rights activists including Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka, late Alao Aka Bashorun, BekoRansomeKuti, Ken SaroWiwa, Femi Falana, Ayo Obe, OlisaAgbakoba, ChidiOdinkalu and several others and politicians including the late Chief MKO Abiola, NADECO leaders in exile such as the late Chief Antony Enahoro, late Senator Abraham Adesanya, Air Cdre Dan Suleiman (rtd), General Alani Akinrinade, Professor BolajiAkinyemi, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Chief John Oyegun, Chief RaphUwechue, DrAkingba, Honourable Wale Oshun to name a few. Others like the late Chief EmekaOjukwu also came calling and he offered his listening ear to all.Even Nigerian government, represented in the UK then by AlhajiAbubakarAlhaji and later Ambassador UcheOkeke equally had access to him.

    Born on 29th September 1928, Eric Lubbock was educated at Upper Canada College in Toronto, Canada, Harrow School in London before studying Engineering at Balliol College, Oxford University. He served as a Lieutenant in the Welsh Guards upon leaving Oxford and subsequently worked at Rolls Royce as Production Engineer and Manager between 1951 and 1960.  Clearly a product of privilege, his father was the First Baron Avebury and his mother was the daughter of the Fifth Baron Sheffield, he downplayed this illustrious background to advocate the cause of the oppressed and marginalized around the world. His remarkable public profile as a moral force shone more glaringly once governments anywhere in the world repressed the desire of their citizens to live in a society governed by constitutional rule of law and devoid of fear or coercion. With a life premised on the tenet of justice as the first condition of humanity, it is no exaggeration to describe him as one of the most dogged fighters for rights in the globe. Working as his Africa adviser in the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, one could not but notice his quiet but steely resolve, his admirable work ethic, punctuality, frugal life and conduct, personal discipline and diligence with records, all of which make him a model worthy of emulation.

    His human rights activism was clearly values driven yet devoid of ideological grand standing. His methods were self-effacing, information technology savvy, clinically detailed and informed by comprehensive research perhaps due to his engineering background and extremely efficient. He spoke truth to power, no matter the cost but I found his ability to relate across spectra without compromising his principles truly remarkable. He was very much at home with the rich and the poor, the young and the old, the intellectual and the common man. A humanist to the core, he abhorred religiousity but was committed to secular Buddhism. To those who were familiar with Lord Avebury, we all know he must be turning in his grave as current events unfold in the United Kingdom. As a renowned promoter of multi-culturalism and positive race relations, he would have been unequivocal in his criticism of the dastardly race baiting that has accompanied the Leave campaign of the Brexit movement. Little wonder then that he was the first recipient of the Ahmaddiya International Moslems Peace Prize in 2009 even though he was not a Moslem.

    Although Eric Avebury lived till the ripe old age of 87, one cannot but feel a deep sense of personal loss at his demise. As a beneficiary of his work and as his mentee, I cannot thank him enough on behalf of myself and my family, the democracy movement in Nigeria in particular and the global human rights movement. It was a delight that Lord Avebury took time out to visit Nigeria after democracy returned. In the year 2005, he delivered an inspiring lecture at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs in Lagos on the occasion of my fortieth birthday and also took the opportunity to reconnect with his old friends in the Nigerian human rights and democracy movement, particularly the late DrBekoRansomeKuti and the then Governor of Lagos State, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Even when his health started to fail, he still managed to keep in touch by email monitoring my own political journey, asking about the state of the Nigerian nation and the human rights situation in Nigeria.

    Lord Avebury is gone but he cannot be forgotten – which is what inspires our present gathering today.  He lived in a manner that was unique and transparently self-less. It is our duty to continue to celebrate his life and times while advancing the cause of justice and global human rights. Our hearts go to Lindsay – his widow and the entire Lubbock family.

    Good bye my Lord. We shall miss you greatly.

    • Tribute given at the Memorial Thanksgiving of Lord Eric Avebury at the Royal Institution in London, United Kingdom on Thursday, June 30, 2016.DrFayemi is Nigeria’s Minister of Solid Minerals Development.