The Nation Newspaper

Category: Comments

  • Awo, Jan 15 and the phantom of an Igbo coup

    Awo, Jan 15 and the phantom of an Igbo coup

    “In most of the Tiv Division, people had to carry green leaves to be left unmolested. There was the pathetic story of a peasant who forgot  to do so. Some rioters reminded him of this by carving a leaf with a knife on the skin of his hand.”
    Headlines, August 17, 2003, Vol. 435 page 7

    The young captain who was the Chief Detail escorting the Supreme Commander to Ibadan had  made up his  mind. Brandishing  a hand grenade, Theophlous Danjuma, commanding a mutinous detachment from the Nigerian 2nd  Battalion  had caged in the Government House before moving in to confront  his unsuspecting quarries, the Supreme Commander, General Aguiyi Ironsi, and his host, Col. Francis Adekunle Fajuyi. Fajuyi  was the celebrated hero of the UN operations  and the  first Nigerian officer to be awarded the British Victory Cross. The Supreme Commander and his Governor host did not get it until the captain  still caressing his grenade, with all audacity, accosted them and violently stripped them of their  epaulets. In the military tradition, such brazen truculence by a very junior officer is more than mutiny.  In the military eye, that brazen indiscipline is tantamount to instant execution of the hapless senior officers. With those officers condemned, this unprecedented effrontery by Theopholous Danjuma ensured the bloody change of the Ironsi Government.   Unlike Nzeogwu and the Jan. 15 boys, the young captain, took no prisoners. Indeed, Major Kaduna Nzeogwu had prophesied that any coup operations without the demobilisation of the Supreme Commander was a  suicide enterprise and therefore, had preferred to personally head the Lagos operations. His colleagues were rather impressed by the myth built around the Sarduana, Premier of the North, another main target who indeed was the orchestra that was playing the scotch earth policy against the so-called “Tiv Rioters.” Kaduna Nzeogwu, describing the  Premier as a “bloody  Civilian,” warned his colleagues that the Jan.  15 operations would derail if the General was not demobilised.

    After all, Aguiyi was the first black man to command a United Nations contingent in the Congo. Before the Revolutionaries Ironside, was doing the impossible as long as the Crocodile  was flagging in the field in place of his official pistol. (please see Chris Okigbo, NZEOGWU: THE UNFINISHED  REVOLUTION, Snaap Press, Enugu, 20012] Col. Martin Adamu,  Danjuma, Col Muritala Mohammed, arrowheads of the Araba coup, July 29th , 1966 wanted the  Supreme Commander dead, primarily  for their coup to succeed. To be cut down also was  Col. Adekunle Fajuyi, for the historical fact that the former Governor was in the know about the Jan. 15 uprising and actively supported the Revolutionaries. Chris Okigbo in his soon to be released account, revealed that in the operation ‘Charming  Girl,’  Col. Adekunle Fajuyi was the Commander at Lanlate, Abeokuta, of the mock battle, preparing the Jan. 15 boys ahead of their strike on the D. Day. Also,  Adekunle Fajuyi, in drawing up the aims of that January 15 revolution, insisted that the release from  Calabar Prison of Chief Obafemi Awolowo would proceed his eventual announcement as the  Prime Minister of Nigeria.

    An officer and a gentlemen, when eventually the coup failed, it was he and his colleague, Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu, who resisted the “northern officers’ demand to the Supreme Military Council, asking for the hanging of the young Revolutionaries.

    The  account,  which gave the death choice to Fajuyi in solidarity with his cornered Supreme Commander is, therefore, without collaboration as  the mutineers had deliberately gone for the senior officers, epaulets, sentencing  those fine officers to a slow and gory end.

    Furthermore, the infantile impression that Col Unegbe, the  Quarter Master General, was  shot because he would not hand over the keys to the mutineers is a marine story.

    Why would a planned coup and its operatives depend on a locked armoury to procure their fire arms in a night every second counted. And when they shot the Igbo Colonel without retrieving the keys from him, how come they continued with the operations and almost succeeded but for the betrayal of another Igbo officer, Major Obienu, who did not show up with his Reece  platoon from Abeokuta?.

    All said and done, the January 15 Revolution stopped the genocide against the Tiv freedom fighters. The early ‘60s blizzard against the people at Gboko, Tombul, Adikpo,  Lafia and Daudu was commanded by Col. Pam, who later was promoted Adjutant General. His unprofessional use of the military against the people affronted Major Chris Anuforo, the Commander of the Reece unit at Gboko. Chris was so agitated with the treatment meted out to the Tivs that on the night he had the gun, he personally went for Col Pam.

    The Second Battalion at Ibadan was commanded by Lt. Col Largema and he was the officer who moved the soldiers into the streets to cause mayhem in support of the marooned Premier, Chief S.L.A. Akintola. He also tutored him on how to use fire arms and the Premier on that night opened fire  against the soldiers who came to arrest him. Unlike his Deputy, Fani Kayode, who cried like a woman, on sighting the soldiers, Akintola fought and died like a man.

    Jan 15 restored normalcy, brought to an end the bleeding in the streets of Yorubaland. Contrary to Danjuma’s  persiflage and propaganda  to respected Guardian Columnist, Dr Edwin Madunagu, falsely demonstrating that the Jan 15 Revolutionaries  targeted  ‘our Brother Officers.’ The boys did not ‘murder Danjuma’s brother officers’ to install an Igbo hegemony.

    Rather, our over twenty years of research is reading a shocking result. The January15 Revolution, in the perspective of the African political development, was a move from Nigeria with the destination of engaging in the final liberation of South Africa from Apartheid. In his last statement to his mother, Nzeogwu was fatalistic, “Nnee, that’s why you cannot count on me. I’m not going to be married, because I am going to die in the battle field,” Nzeogwu consoled his mother who was worried that her son was not planning like the other officer friends of his to get married.

    A putshe that was motivated by the horrendous death of Patrice Lumumba plus the unacceptable antics of the ten percenters, sacrificed the cream of the first generation of the Igbo fine officer corp. Danjuma’s  hallucination and the false perspective of chroniclers of the Nigerian Civil War history aided the waste of the Igbos, climaxing in the 1967 recorded first Black aon Black genocide in Asaba 1967.

    As we celebrate another January 15 anniversary and miss Nzeogwu and his patriotic prophesies, why did we not hear from Awo or his school on Jan 15 until the sage passed on? And why have the Tiv nation maintained over 50 years of ungrateful silence?  Whatever, was  Col. Atom Kpera and Lt. Katsina part of the January 15 strike force?

  • Azazi: Tribute to a noble man

    Azazi: Tribute to a noble man

    Life is good but death is inevitable. Opulence is desirable but good health and longevity are divine gifts. That is why the Holy Bible states in Psalm 39: 5, 6 & 11 that: “Indeed You have made my days as handbreadths, and my age is as nothing before You; certainly every man at his best state is but a vapour. Surely every man walks about like a shadow; surely they busy themselves in vain; he heaps up riches, and does not know who will gather them. …You make his beauty melt away like a moth; surely every man is vapour.” (NKJV).

    It is in confirmation and conformity with this truth that many people die in fearsome and tragic circumstances that reflect quick disappearance of vapour into the air. Hence, death is an irretrievable loss of human life just like vapour cannot be retrieved from the air. The fact remains that no tragic event is ever anticipated or welcomed; but one of the most shocking of such bad occurrences in 2012 was the air mishap that claimed the lives of General Andrew Owoye Azazi, the immediate past National Security Adviser, NSA, the amiable Governor of Kaduna State, Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa and four others on Saturday, December 22, 2012 in the home state of Azazi, Bayelsa.

    Azazi’s death, like that of Yakowa or any other tragic incident, still remains a nightmare especially to those who were close to him through official and personal relationships. He was a complete gentleman. He related very warmly with people not on account of their status or the level of intimacy with him but as a lifestyle; he treated and addressed people with humility, respect and candour.

    He was a congenial person to work with. Azazi never for once made his staff or subordinates feel that he was the boss but a team leader. Even as Chief of Army Staff, those who knew him intimately maintained that he was “very civil and fair minded in all his dealings…too gentlemanly that some people could not believe that we still had his ilk in the military.”

    Azazi’s disposition to issues had never been hinged on any other factor than merits and facts; unlike some other ‘big bosses’ whose mood often dictate their reactions. He was a good listener and a meticulous decision maker. Regardless of who was offering an idea, the late Army General usually respected, accepted and applied superior views, arguments and ideas. He enjoyed engaging his aides in sound intellectual debate as a norm towards taking feasible and defensible decisions.

    Azazi was very desirous of good governance, peace and credible public administration while in office as the NSA that he willingly offered help and co-operation to a few MDAs not only in the area of security but in some ways of enhancing their operations. Labaran Maku, Information Minister, had in a live telecast in January 2012 acknowledged this co-operation offered to his ministry by the office of the NSA.

    Poor information management is a major but often ignored problem of government. Azazi believed that if your employers (Nigerian people) are not getting correct assessment of your performance, it would give them the reason to give your tenure a poor rating. This, he believed had been the major channel often appropriated for misinforming the public and blackmailing the government. Hence, Azazi nurtured a robust relationship with the media through which occasional interactive sessions were held with media executives.

    Azazi changed the cult-like administration of national security. He believed that Nigerians should be adequately and regularly informed about their security situation; whereas withholding information for too long often encouraged foreign media to inundate Nigerians with distorted facts.

    He was a patriot of the highest order. He would stop at nothing to defend the corporate interest and integrity of Nigeria whenever the need arose. One of such instances was when the United States alerted its citizens, nay, Nigerians that some designated spots and hotels had been marked for attack by a terrorist group. Hours after the announcement, Abuja, indeed, most parts of Nigeria were struck with fear as vocal Nigerians asked what our security chiefs were doing if information like this could elude their notice.

    Azazi was miffed not at the piece of information but at the needless sensation and panic the announcement generated. Explaining to a select media executives at an interactive session barely a week after, he said the information was not new. “We had been on top this situation since we got wind of this plot. In fact, we alerted our security collaborators and the management of the facilities concerned to step up security checks and surveillance. Thus we moved security personnel into the marked areas to void the plot.

    “But when we asked the US officials (after the announcement) if there was any development on this information other than what we already know, they said none. But in the US, security alerts flow in torrents per minutes yet they won’t send such panicky alerts to their public. All you will notice is the swarming presence of security agents, gadgets and dogs within the affected areas. They won’t throw their people into needless panic or fear like they often do to us.” The beauty of it was that the US officials did not only apologise but also reversed the statement less than 48 hours later.

    The perennial bombing of public and worship edifices and killing of innocent people by an extremist Islamic terror group, Boko Haram, characterised most of Azazi’s tenure as NSA. In fact, the dare-devil activities of the ruthless sect eventually led to his removal and a few others from office. Explaining the reason for his abrupt sack, President Goodluck Jonathan said Azazi and others had been quite efficient at fighting the terror upsurge, but their removal was a way of responding to the security challenge as a change of government’s tactics.

    While maintaining the norm of working behind the scene to ensure adequate security, his prognostic approach to information flow with astute military intelligence had been the pivot upon which the national security network had been sustained. He supported the idea of dialogue with the sect leaders. He strongly believed that government could use the ‘carrot and stick’ method. While dialoguing with the terror group, military force would be used to counter its insurgency. “We will not fold our arms because we are discussing with Boko Haram and allow them to keep killing people. We will of course repel and foil their planned onslaught, burst their hideouts and arrest their members while still appealing to them to embrace dialogue,” Azazi had said at another parley.

    In proffering solution to the security challenge, Azazi was a proponent of state police option. I’m not sure if he ever made this public but he believed the tendency for abuse of the process by state chief executives could be taken care of in the provisions of the law. He also had a feasible idea on how to achieve effective policing. Meanwhile, Azazi had embarked on a strategic overhauling of national security network through which enhanced security system would be put in place. This project, for which he desired to be remembered as NSA, could not be nurtured to fruition unfortunately because he didn’t stay long enough in office.

    His Asaba (Delta State) statement which traced the unabated upsurge of terror attacks in the country to the conflict of political interests in the ruling People’s Democratic Party, PDP, was typical of Azazi’s candour. Even when I told him that President Jonathan seemed not to be on the same page with him over his statement, he said: “I can’t join issues with Mr. President. He’s my Commander-in-Chief. I have simply expressed my mind and those concerned know very well what I’m talking about.”

    Azazi’s life after his tenure of office was that of rest; this was evident in his fresh look. Also, he had more time for his family and private business. On August 30, 2012, he celebrated the wedding of one of his children in Lagos. The joyful event took place a few days after an on-line publication alleged that he bought a choice property in Abuja at a very costly amount. He wasn’t perturbed as he asked the authors to forward the details of their findings to any anti-graft agency. Unknown to many people, Azazi went into real estate business immediately after his retirement as Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) in August 2008. In fact, he was on his way to the airport on a business trip to the United States in October 2010 when President Jonathan invited him for the NSA job. He usually reacted to such spurious allegations with witty anecdotes believing that cheap blackmail was a burden of leadership or success in our nebulous society.

    As NSA, his duty primarily was to advise the President on security matters based on of information and intelligence reports at his disposal. While his office co-operated with that of the Inspector General of Police and other service chiefs, NSA’s office directly supervises the State Security Service, SSS, and the National Intelligence Agency, NIA.

    A brilliant and consummate intelligence officer Azazi had one of the fastest growing military careers in the present day democratic Nigeria. Between May, 2006 and June, 2007 the late General was decorated with the ranks of Major General, Lieutenant General and General.

    Many who called or sent sms to express grief at his sudden exit described him as a “great man.” His ilk are few among the top echelon of the society. He had seen it all but not blinded by the spoils of office. He was philosophical about life; hence he said to me: “Whenever I was in a convoy with siren blaring ahead of us, I often asked myself ‘is this what life’s all about?’ of course not. I see opulence and power as ephemeral and I was never excited about them. Though it was a privilege for me to experience this for a little while, making the best of every opportunity for humanity is enough satisfaction for me because I know there is more to life than all these.” This was the personal creed of General Azazi and he lived a noble life spurred by contentment, service to humanity and fear of God. Good night Azazi the Great.

     

    Awe is a Lagos-based media

    consultant

  • Obama inspires brother to run for office in Kenya elections

    Obama inspires brother to run for office in Kenya elections

    KOGELO, Kenya – U.S. President Barack Obama’s message of hope and change has inspired his half-brother Malik to launch a political career of his own, with his eye on elections in Kenya in March.

    “If my brother is doing great things for people in the United States, why can’t I do great things for Kenyans here?” Malik Obama said in an interview in the village of Kogelo, President Obama’s ancestral homeland.

    Malik, 54, is running for governorship of the rural Siaya county as an independent candidate.

    His sibling’s message resonates with a Kenyan electorate angry over a political class widely regarded as greedy and corrupt.

    However, the odds are stacked against lone candidates in a country where ideology is trumped by tribe or clan ties. This is the first time independents have been permitted to run in an election after a constitutional change in 2010.

    For Obama, the inspiration comes from elsewhere.

    “He is an inspiration to me and I feel that he is an embodiment of my father’s dream,” he said of the U.S. leader.

    “All he told me is ‘brother, it is not an easy thing to get into public office. Just have a thick skin because people will be targeting you. The media will be saying this and that. There will be people who love you and people who won’t love you’.”

    He said his younger brother has flourished by following the footsteps of their father, Barack Obama Snr – the first African to attend the University of Hawaii before returning home to work in the senior echelons of the Kenyan civil service.

    “The old and tested way has not really worked for us. Right now we need a bold, radical and fresh approach,” he said.

    To capture the governorship, Obama will face a bruising battle from the likes of Oburu Odinga, brother to Prime Minister Raila Odinga, and a new and popular entrant to the political scene, William Oduol.

    Oburu Odinga is a long-serving member of parliament in the area, while Oduol, 35, has won favor with the youth.

    “As much as the brother has done well in the U.S., the truth of the matter is that he (Malik) is not very close to the people here on the ground,” Amos Owino, a 29-year old clinician, said.

    Malik Obama, a resident of the United States, has lived in Washington DC since 1985 where he worked with various firms before becoming an independent financial consultant.

    In his office are framed photographs of himself with President Obama in the Oval office and another at the president’s wedding, where he was the best man.

    He lives partly in the United States where he takes up work contracts from time to time and Kenya.

    “We are very proud of him (Malik), but Oduol has better policies especially on education improvement and roads construction,” said Irene Sindih, a 24-year old businesswoman.

    Obama said he is running as an independent to avoid being beholden to party grandees whom he blames for what he says is the failed leadership in the country of 40 million.

    Obama said the U.S. president also urged him to be honest with the electorate and to be true to himself.

    His campaign slogan is “Just as it is in United States, I want it here”, he said in his office in a recreation centre he set up with the Barack H. Foundation, a charitable organization he founded to build houses for women and orphans.

    With a population of 832,000 people, the main economic activities in Siaya county are subsistence farming and small trading. Many residents live in mud huts with thatched roofs.

    Obama wants to help build new roads, water and electricity supply, hospitals and small-scale industries once he is elected governor. After conquering this, he has eyes for an even bigger prize, the Kenyan presidency at the next elections in 2017.

     

    …begins second term with 51 per cent approval rating

    President Barack Obama embarks on his second term in office on Monday with half the nation giving him a good performance review, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released yesterday.

    Fifty-one percent of Americans surveyed Jan. 11-15 approve of how Obama is handling his job, the poll said. Forty-one percent disapprove.

    The Times’ Marjorie Connelly notes in her analysis that Obama’s approval rating is similar to the one held by former President George W. Bush at the start of his second term, but far below ratings garnered by former President Bill Clinton (60 percent) and former President Ronald Reagan (62 per cent) at the beginning of their second terms.

    The “fiscal cliff” negotiations didn’t alter public opinion of the president’s ability to handle the economy, the poll said.

    Forty-six percent of adults surveyed said they approve of the president’s ability to handle the economy and 49 per cent disapprove. The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 3 per centage points.

     

  • It is time to talk

    Lee Kuan Yew, the architect of the modern day Singapore visited Nigeria A few days before the Military struck on January 15, 1966.

    His visit was in connection with the Commonwealth conference held in Lagos on Rhodesia now Zimbabwe. His conclusion about Nigeria in 1966 is contained in a book he wrote in 2000 titled From Third World To First. On page 327 of the 729-page book, he concluded that “I think their tribal loyalties were stronger that their sense of common nation hood”.

    By January 1, next year the merger or amalgamation between the protectorate of Northern Nigeria with the colony and protectorate of Southern Nigeria to form the colony of modern day Nigeria will be 100 years old.

    I do not know whether there are plans drawn up already for the centenary celebrations of the merger.

    In 2006, there were no centenary celebrations for the merger of Lagos colony with that of the colony and protectorate of Southern Nigeria with headquarters in Calabar and with Sir Walter Egerton as first Governor.

    On December 31, 1899 the British government revoked the charter of the Royal Niger Company (RNC). On January 1, 1900 the British government took over the administration of the Niger Coast Protectorate, merged it with the area south of Idah, controlled by the RNC, and proclaimed the new entity the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria; the other areas controlled by the RNC north of Idah were proclaimed the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria. Frederick Lugard was appointed High Commissioner for the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, with his headquarters at Jebba, until 1902 when it was moved to Zungeru, and later, in 1917, to Kaduna. Sir Ralph Moore was High Commissioner for the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, with his headquarters in Calabar.

    Since the amalgamation was imposed with a military fiat by a British officer, Captain Frederick Lugard, the High Commissioner of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria who later became the first Governor General of Nigeria without any plebiscite or referendum,the amalgamation has been dogged with suspicion, scepticism,dubiety and mistrust by the various tribes.

    This dubiety has led some to conclude that there is clearly no true Nigeria nation hood.

    It is therefore left for the various tribes in Nigeria to interpret in their own way, the objectives of a true Nigeria nation hood.

    The unchecked sweeping looting of the nation’s wealth now going on at a high speed, favouritism, marginalisation, religious rivalry, irregularities, iniquity, lawlessness and degenerations that we are now experiencing are natural fall-outs in the absence of true nationhood.

    Whether we like it or not all these flaws and foibles are crippling the corporate existence of Nigeria today.

    So there is an urgent need for us to sit down and talk on which direction we are to go and whether it is desirous for us to amend the charter of the amalgamation.

    It will be precocious for us to feign that all is well.

    May be this was what President Olusegun Obasanjo had in mind when, upon being sworn-in in 1999, he set up a committee under the chairmanship of Ambassador Yusuf Mamman to review the 1999 constitution.

    The committee was inaugurated on October 19, 1999 by the then Attorney General and Minister of Justice Kanu Agabi (SAN). Others members of the committee were:

    Chief Clement Ebri (Deputy Chairman), Chief Edwin Ume-Ezeoke , Alhaji Iro Abubakar Dan-Musa, Dr.Shettima Mustafa, Chief Yohanna Madaki, Chief Alani Bankole, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Barrister (Mrs.) Iyabode Pam, Air Commodore Bernard Banfa (rtd), Mrs Ayoka Lawani, Hajiya Basirat A. Nahibi, Alhaji Isiaku Mohammed, Chief A.K. Horsfall, Chief Ayo Opadokun, Dr. J.C. Odunna, Barrister Mika Anache, Dr. Amos Adepoju, Dr. Siva Opusunju, Chief Barnabas Gemade, Alhaji Umaru Ahmed, Chief Solomon Asemota (SAN), Alhaji Gambo Saleh, Dr. Arthur Nwankwo, Dr. Maxwell M. Gidado as the Secretary while Mrs. M.V.I. Mbu served as the assistant Secretary.

    Later, an adjustment to the committee’s composition was made when Ambassador Yusuf Mamman, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Chief A.K. Horsfall, Mr. Ayo Opadokun, Mrs. Ayoka Lawani, Dr. Arthur Nwakwo and Chief Solomon Asemota, SAN were replaced by Dr. Stella O. Dorgu, Prince Valentine Ahams, Barrister Mohammed Babangida Umar, Alhaji Abdulhamid Hassan, Barrister Adeniyi Akintola, Barrister Sunday Kuku Iyakwo, and Dr.Olu Agunloye.

    The chairmanship had earlier changed when Chief Clement Ebri took over from Ambassador Yusuf Mamma following his resignation as Chairman and Dr.Shettima Mustafa was elected Deputy Chairman.

    On February 28, 2001, Chief Ebri submitted the final report of his committee’s work to President Obasanjo, the recommendations of which today have not been implemented.

    The committee recommended “that emerging from prolonged Military Rule which suppressed free speech, Nigerians once again had the opportunity to voice out their deepest concerns about a country which they cherished so much and in several voices, wished for its rapid growth and maturity into an economically viable, politically stable and socially robust nation in the great African continent. In this sea of discordant voices, one could clearly discern criticisms of the 1999 Constitution as a military enactment with unitary command features. Nigerians who spoke or wrote on the Constitution were unequivocal in their condemnation of the constitution which they believed had sounded the death knell on our cherished federal system. For most Nigerians in a deeply traumatised setting, only a Sovereign National Conference, where Nigerians could freely assemble and renegotiate the basis on which they will be willing to continue to live together would adequately address the contending national issues”.

    I think it is high time we hold a Sovereign National Conference.

    • Teniola, a retired Director at the Presidency writes from Lagos

  • Remembering ‘Desert Storm’ Commander Norman Schwarzkopf

    Remembering ‘Desert Storm’ Commander Norman Schwarzkopf

    Truth is, retired Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf didn’t care much for his popular “Stormin’ Norman” nickname.

    The seemingly no-nonsense Desert Storm commander’s reputed temper with aides and subordinates supposedly earned him that rough-and-ready moniker. But others around the general, who died Thursday in Tampa, Fla., at age 78 from complications from pneumonia, knew him as a friendly, talkative and even jovial figure who preferred the somewhat milder sobriquet given by his troops: “The Bear.”

    That one perhaps suited him better later in his life, when he supported various national causes and children’s charities while eschewing the spotlight and resisting efforts to draft him to run for political office.

    He lived out a quiet retirement in Tampa, where he’d served his last military assignment and where an elementary school bearing his name is testament to his standing in the community.

    Schwarzkopf capped an illustrious military career by commanding the U.S.-led international coalition that drove Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait in 1991 — but he’d managed to keep a low profile in the public debate over the second Gulf War against Iraq, saying at one point that he doubted victory would be as easy as the White House and the Pentagon predicted.

    Schwarzkopf was named commander in chief of U.S. Central Command at Tampa’s MacDill Air Force Base in 1988, overseeing the headquarters for U.S. military and security concerns in nearly two dozen countries stretching across the Middle East to Afghanistan and the rest of central Asia, plus Pakistan.

    When Saddam invaded Kuwait two years later to punish it for allegedly stealing Iraqi oil reserves, Schwarzkopf commanded Operation Desert Storm, the coalition of some 30 countries organized by President George H.W. Bush that succeeded in driving the Iraqis out.

    At the peak of his postwar national celebrity, Schwarzkopf — a self-proclaimed political independent — rejected suggestions that he run for office, and remained far more private than other generals, although he did serve briefly as a military commentator for NBC.

    While focused primarily on charitable enterprises in his later years, he campaigned for President George W. Bush in 2000, but was ambivalent about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In early 2003 he told The Washington Post that the outcome was an unknown: “What is postwar Iraq going to look like, with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites? That’s a huge question, to my mind. It really should be part of the overall campaign plan.”

    Initially Schwarzkopf had endorsed the invasion, saying he was convinced that Secretary of State Colin Powell had given the United Nations powerful evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. After that proved false, he said decisions to go to war should depend on what U.N. weapons inspectors found.

    He seldom spoke up during the conflict, but in late 2004 he sharply criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon for mistakes that included erroneous judgments about Iraq and inadequate training for Army reservists sent there.

    “In the final analysis I think we are behind schedule. … I don’t think we counted on it turning into jihad (holy war),” he said in an NBC interview.

    Schwarzkopf was born Aug. 24, 1934, in Trenton, N.J., where his father, Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., founder and commander of the New Jersey State Police, was then leading the investigation of the Lindbergh kidnap case. That investigation ended with the arrest and 1936 execution of German-born carpenter Richard Hauptmann for murdering famed aviator Charles Lindbergh’s infant son.

    The elder Schwarzkopf was named Herbert, but when the son was asked what his “H” stood for, he would reply, “H.”

    As a teenager Norman accompanied his father to Iran, where the elder Schwarzkopf trained the Iran’s national police force and was an adviser to Reza Pahlavi, the young Shah of Iran.

    Young Norman studied there and in Switzerland, Germany and Italy, then followed in his father’s footsteps to West Point, graduating in 1956 with an engineering degree. After stints in the U.S. and abroad, he earned a master’s degree in engineering at the University of Southern California and later taught missile engineering at West Point.

    In 1966 he volunteered for Vietnam and served two tours, first as a U.S. adviser to South Vietnamese paratroops and later as a battalion commander in the U.S. Army’s Americal Division. He earned three Silver Stars for valor — including one for saving troops from a minefield — plus a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart and three Distinguished Service Medals.

    While many career officers left military service embittered by Vietnam, Schwarzkopf was among those who opted to stay and help rebuild the tattered Army into a potent, modernized all-volunteer force.

    After Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Schwarzkopf played a key diplomatic role by helping persuade Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd to allow U.S. and other foreign troops to deploy on Saudi territory as a staging area for the war to come.

    On Jan. 17, 1991, a five-month buildup called Desert Shield became Operation Desert Storm as allied aircraft attacked Iraqi bases and Baghdad government facilities. The six-week aerial campaign climaxed with a massive ground offensive on Feb. 24-28, routing the Iraqis from Kuwait in 100 hours before U.S. officials called a halt.

    Schwarzkopf said afterward he agreed with Bush’s decision to stop the war rather than drive to Baghdad to capture Saddam, as his mission had been only to oust the Iraqis from Kuwait.

    But in a desert tent meeting with vanquished Iraqi generals, he allowed a key concession on Iraq’s use of helicopters, which later backfired by enabling Saddam to crack down more easily on rebellious Shiites and Kurds.

    While he later avoided the public second-guessing by academics and think tank experts over the ambiguous outcome of the first Gulf War and its impact on the second Gulf War, he told The Washington Post in 2003, “You can’t help but … with 20/20 hindsight, go back and say, ‘Look, had we done something different, we probably wouldn’t be facing what we are facing today.’”

    After retiring from the Army in 1992, Schwarzkopf wrote a best-selling autobiography, “It Doesn’t Take A Hero.” Of his Gulf War role, he said: “I like to say I’m not a hero. I was lucky enough to lead a very successful war.” He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II and honored with decorations from France, Britain, Belgium, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain.

    Schwarzkopf was a national spokesman for prostate cancer awareness and for Recovery of the Grizzly Bear, served on the Nature Conservancy board of governors and was active in various charities for chronically ill children.

    “I may have made my reputation as a general in the Army and I’m very proud of that,” he once told The Associated Press. “But I’ve always felt that I was more than one-dimensional. I’d like to think I’m a caring human being. … It’s nice to feel that you have a purpose.”

    Schwarzkopf and his wife, Brenda, had three children: Cynthia, Jessica and Christian.

    Source: AP

  • Politicians, bank executives, church leaders and private jets

    Politicians, bank executives, church leaders and private jets

    I personally struggled very much before putting pen to paper in writing this piece. Silence sometimes is golden, so goes the saying. But oftentimes, our silence in Nigeria ends up killing us. The recent Arab Spring re-grouping in Cairo’s Tahrir Square when Egypt’s President Morsi acquired sweeping powers some weeks back is a simple pointer to the need to speak up. It is sometimes dangerous to keep quiet. Silence can feed the ego of the oppressor and provide a false sense of ‘all is well,’ when in fact it is not. Similarly, the current debate on owning private Jets cannot be ignored in the larger interest of the nation and not just the church.

    Is this really the time to buy private jets in Nigeria? Is Nigeria suffering from private jets syndrome? The November 2012 issue of African Business Magazine stated that Mo Ibrahim’s governance index 2012 indicates the top 10 countries showing improvement in governance to be: 1. Mauritius 2. Cape Verde 3. Botswana 4. Seychelles 5. South Africa 6. Namibia 7. Ghana 8. Tunisia 9. Lesotho, and 10. Tanzania – who made it to the top for the first time. Guinea Bissau, the small Portuguese speaking country in West Africa, and Nigeria were classified as the worst performers. Nigeria was also listed among the three worst countries where there is decline in safety, rule of law, and human rights abuses.

    With respect to air transportation, not tied to Mo Ibrahim’s governance rating, African Business also indicated that Ethiopia Airline has introduced aircraft fleets cargo upgrades with new 777 Freighter – the world’s longest range twin-engine freighter. Tanzania and later Kenya, both in East Africa, will establish new bases for FastJet’s Airbus passenger jets. Business aircraft buying enjoys booms in South Africa, which also seeks a regional hub in Ghana. In Ghana the Africa World Airline (AWA), a new Ghana Airline, takes off designed to service domestic and regional air travel.

    But what do we see happening on the Nigerian economic front? The same business magazine reported that: ‘Nigerians splurge on private jets’: It went on to report that in the last five years, Nigeria’s wealthy spent $6.5bn (USD) on private jets, making it Africa’s biggest market for private planes.

    Between March 2010 and March 2011, Nigerian’s spent $225m on private jets. The number of privately-owned aircraft rose by 650 percent between 2007 and 2012 from 20 to 150, at an average cost of $50m. Is this trend worth celebrating as a sign of national prosperity or to be lamented as an epitome of greed, corruption and misplaced priorities? The question as to whether certain categories of church leaders should own private jets or not does not arise, the real questions should be: Do they really need to have private jets at their personal disposal to do the Lord’s work?

    Is this justified as a testament to what Christ stands for in our present country context in which almost 70 percent of Nigerians live below the poverty line in the midst of public squander mania? I am reminded of a sad commentary which characterises most of Africa: individuals who live in private splendour while the majority wallows in public squalour. Coming directly to CAN President, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor’s recent acquisition of a private jet, is deeply troubling. With the sustained frontal attacks on the church in Nigeria, is this the right time to acquire a private jet whether or not it was a “gift”? Or is one to second guess that the jet is for quick access to visit the needy victims of persecution in northern Nigeria? The hidden question, which no one seems to be asking, is who is (are) the giver (s) and where is the source of the money? History has it that the church in North Africa was literally wiped away when the Bishops were busy arguing about church titles and very non-essential things, ignoring the real task of propagating the gospel.

    The current spate of acquiring new jets by church leaders and seeking its justification should never be equated with what the early missionaries used in reaching the most remote parts of Africa and the world at the time with the primary aim of sharing Christ with people largely in unreached terrains. By the way, what ‘Lord’s work’ are we referring to as a justification for the acquisition of private jets? Some argue that if Jesus used a donkey in the 1st Century, then jets can be used in the 21st Century, being a jet-age, for ministry work. This line of argument denies the context within which Jesus used a donkey in Mark 11:1-11. Jesus’ focus was on using resources for a targeted specific ministry focus rather than private ownership. This is not to deny any one from owning property but people should be honest enough to state their real intentions instead of finding justification for extravagant lifestyles in the name of ministry exigencies. Some Nigerian church pastors’ penchant for owning private jets represents another minus to Christianity in a country riddled with much corruption.

    What we have today is comfort-seeking prosperity preaching premised on self aggrandisement with ‘the Lord’s work’ as a veneer to justify the unjustifiable material appetite of those who as followers of Jesus Christ ought to know better and set a nobler example. What role modeling is there to pass on by those scrambling to acquire private jets in Nigeria?

    First, it was bank executives with very questionable source of wealth and later politicians, now it is church leaders. Take it or leave it, we are simply displaying the rottenness of what has become of Nigeria and it is so sad. Certain elements of the church have joined in the melee of shameless display of questionable wealth.

    How can the political leaders transform the nation with such a notion? How can church leaders model genuine societal transformation with such craze for wealth display? How does the new trend of acquiring private jets demonstrate simplicity and Christ-likeness? Can we be more Christian than Christ himself our chief shepherd? To be transformational in Nigeria, the Church needs to be counter-cultural.

    The most singled traveled gospel itinerant preacher in the 20th Century is American Rev. Billy Graham. It is on record that he has led the largest number of people to Christ in this century. Has anybody ever cared to find out why he never acquired a private Jet? Pastor Rick Warren, a leading American Pastor, who gave the inaugural prayers at President Barrack Obama’s swearing-in as President in January 2009, and author of the Purpose Driven Life and Purpose Driven Church, is one of the richest pastors in the world today – 90 percent of his income is given out to the less-privileged in society. Yet he does not own a private jet! Is he communicating something that speaks to modeling simplicity which some Nigerian pastors have chosen to ignore? At the onset of the present global financial meltdown when several company chief executives in the US were looking for bailout funding from the American Federal government, it was reported that they flew or were planning to fly in their private jets to meet with then President George Bush, and this was heavily criticized as being insensitive due to the prevailing economic mood of the nation. They apologised. Does this say anything to the present debate about church leaders acquiring private jets? The bank chief executives in Nigeria tried to acquire private jets in some ways. The link of such with the collapse of some banks is anybody’s guess.

    Can we truly say the church is immune to economic realities in the name of faith and preaching of the prosperity gospel? Christianity should never be seen or used as means of personal accumulation of wealth for personal gain. Legitimate wealth generation for the purposes of the gospel, YES! Illegitimate wealth generation under the guise of church work but a design for personal gain or the comfort of the Pastor, NO!

    Revd Gideon Para-Mallam wrote from Jos

  • Fayemi the challenge of change

    Fayemi the challenge of change

    Recently, while on an official visit to the United Kingdom, the Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi delivered a lecture at the Royal Institute of International Affairs popularly known as ‘Chatham House’ London.

    Governor Fayemi, a globally recognised leading resource on matters relating to governance, democratisation, security and economic development had in recent times honoured a number of speaking engagements focusing on socio- political developments in Nigeria and internationally.

    At the Chatham House, he spoke on the topic ‘The Challenge of Change: Democracy and Development in Ekiti State, Nigeria’. He started his lecture by relating a striking personal experience. He narrated that the elders of his “small but scenic hometown, Isan-Ekiti,” had come to see him to express certain displeasure with him shortly after he was sworn-in as the Governor of Ekiti State in late 2010.

    “At this point,” he recounted further, “while the Government House in the state capital was being renovated, I was driving to the Governor’s office from my hometown daily. The elders told me that they found it disappointing and sorely disconcerting that the people in the town were hardly aware of when I drove out of, and back into town every day.”

    Why was this a problem, Fayemi said he was forced to ask them?

    Reporting their response, the governor said: “Well, they understood my credentials as a scholar, they were also aware that I had been an activist for many years. But now I was the Governor of the Ekiti State, and this would be the first and, perhaps, the only time in a long while, that the Governor would come from their hometown.

    “Why then was I denying them the opportunity of enjoying the pomp and circumstance of power by driving in and out of town without using the siren – if only to remind the people of the adjoining towns that their own son is the Governor of the state?”

    Fayemi said he gave the narration to illustrate both the challenges and the opportunities for change in the ethos and practices of power and governance in Nigeria.

    He then proceeded to lay out the key issues, including the fundaments, the ethos and the practices which he believed were significant in examining the challenges facing state, governance, democratisation and development in Nigeria.

    He avowed that “change is central in all these, because social transformation is an indispensable factor in any society – even in the most developed ones. Because society is a permanent work-in- progress, continuity and change must be in a constant struggle so as to find the best direction and methods of social progress. However, no lasting social change starts outside the minds of human beings.”

    To buttress his argument, he cited Albert Einstein’s statement that “The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”

    Based on his narrated personal experience, Fayemi observed: “If a political culture encourages people to think that a state governor is not “governor enough” if he does not announce his going and coming with blaring sirens, even when there is no obstructing traffic, then we have to realise that the challenges of change is multi-dimensional.

    Expatiating more on ‘The Fundaments of the African State’, he looked back at the last two decades of democratisation in Africa, which he declared, has brought to bear significant social, economic and political changes on the African continent. He said with several years he had spent in the civil society, working with social forces in Africa and development agencies across the world to encourage change in the continent, he could confirm that Africa is changing for the better.

    He, however, made an allusion to “a lot” of that had been “written by Western scholars on the African predicament which oscillates between hope and despair and described in various dark grammars – failed states, collapsed states, incapable states, proforma democracies to mention but a few of such epithets.”

    He added that some African scholars have equally responded to many of the dark prognoses on the African State by describing them as “collapse thesis.” Some Western scholars, he said, have even gone further, adept at what they consider to be the most sinister manifestations of the State in Africa since it fits a convenient and popular narrative, to announce that, despite all its “illogicality,” “Africa [actually] Works” – because as they conclude, “Disorder [acts] as Political Instrument” in the continent.

    While avoiding, as he said, to indulge in philosophical and/or theoretical postulations about the continent, Fayemi turned to a Marxian dictum to react to what he termed “the (prevailing) restrictive and (popular) constraining attitude both in the academy and the international development community toward the African State.”

    Karl Mark, in The German Ideology, had said: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it.” Governor Fayemi argued that the same view can be extended to the African situation.

    Not many, I believe, will contend with Fayemi’s argument, as he put it, that: “The philosophers have only interpreted Africa, the point, however, is to change it.”

    As Fayemi has constantly postulated in many of his talks, we all need a typology of Africa’s democratization that further interrogates the broad categories away from the Manichean divide – of success and failure, pessimism and optimism, sub-optimal performance and unprecedented progress – which is possible and indeed, necessary because of its practical implications for policy choices by African citizens, their governments and development partners.

    As accurate as this typology is, it remains incomplete in its inadequate analyses of the process and dynamics of change and in its focus on outcomes. As Fayemi would always argue: “Both optimists and pessimists of the African condition focus on outcomes, linking these outcomes in a linear relationship with particular reforms and assuming static environments.”

    I agree with him that what is needed – is an understanding of the relationship between evolving economic and political contexts of reform – of how and why reforms proceed. I equally believe with him, as he argued further, that we must move away from a focus on judgments pegged on macro- reforms, that is country level analyses and big ticket issues – democratisation, privatisation, anti-corruption, insecurity – that are often measured by large, dramatic shifts – technically appropriate but often lacking in political fit.

    Opportunities to accelerate change and strengthen governance structures, as he said, are often missed in the context of this exclusive focus, or worse they may accelerate the challenges, inherent in the process of change, by withdrawing, for example, in the wake of partial reform. Rather than focus on short term gains, it is important to understand social change in Africa in a longer term perspective rather than through the typical binaries of success and failure.

    It is in this way, along the line of Fayemi’s postulation, that it would become clear that societal transformation in Africa in the past two decades of democratisation has led to the emergence of new social forces, changed the importance of others and consequently altered the relationships among various social and political actors whilst fostering new coalitions between the state and society.

    • Omobude wrote from Ibadan, Oyo State.

     

  • Kayode Eso: A colossus departs

    In Nasir Bello v. Government of Oyo State, [1986] 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828, the Oyo State Government executed a convicted prisoner, whilst his appeal was still being heard. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal agreed that Bello’s Family’s Counsel had failed to claim the appropriate remedy for the injury. Rather, he appeared to be hoping that the Courts would identify and apply a remedy. That was not the duty of the Courts. But the Supreme Court held that ubi jus, ibi remedium, i.e., where there is a right, here must be a remedy.

    The Court then made this fundamental pronouncement about its world view and guiding philosophy.

    “I think the Court has attained a stature in the pursuit of justice that a claimant who has established a recognized injury cannot be turned back on the ground that he has not stated the head of law under which he was seeking a remedy” (Karibi-Whyte, JSC)

    On the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, Oputa, JSC, declared that it was so fundamental to the administration of justice that “where there is no remedy provided either by the common law or by statute, the Courts have been urged to create one. The Courts cannot therefore be deterred by the novelty of an action.”

    For his part, a visibly enraged Aniagolu, JSC, declared as follows:

    “This is the first time in this country of which I am aware, in which a legitimate Government of this country – past and present: colonial or indigenous – hastily and illegally snuffed of the life and liberty of the subject and the principles of the rule of law. The brutal incident has bespattered the face of the Oyo State Government with the paint brush of shame.”

    In Fawehinmi v. Akilu (ii) Togun, [1987] 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 797, in which the late great Icon of the Rule of Law and Human Rights sought to prosecute two security officials for the murder of Dele Giwa, the two lower Courts, (the High Court and the Court of Appeal) refused the application on the ground that not being a blood relation of Dele Giwa, Fawehinmi had no locus standi (legal right) to prosecute the case. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions, for according to Eso, JSC, speaking for his Brethren sitting on that case, in Nigerian Criminal Law, every Nigerian is a brother to another Nigerian. He continued thus:

    “It is the view of my learned brother Obaseki, which I fully share with respect, that “it is the universal concept that all human beings are brothers and assets to one another.” He applies this to ground locus standi. That we are all brothers is more so in this country where the socio-cultural concept of “family” and “extended family” transcend all barriers. Is it not right then for the court to take note of the concept of the loose use of the word “brother” in this country? “Brother” in the Nigerian context is completely different from the blood brother of the English language.

    Though Cain challenged the locus standi of his being questioned as to the whereabouts of his brother, Abel, it was his reason that he was not his brother’s keeper. That might have been in the outskirts of the garden of Eden. In Nigeria, it would be an unacceptable phenomenon. And when it comes to the law of crime, everyone is certainly his brother’s keeper.”

    In Saidu Garba v. Federal Civil Service Commission [1988] 1 NWLR (Pt. 71) Saidu Garba, head of the Fire Fighting Service, at Onikan in Lagos, was first arrested for the 1983 inferno of the NITEL TOWER Marina, which was bizarre enough; he was then dismissed from the Civil Service. He challenged this in Court. The Government defence was based on Decree 17 of the Buhari Military Government which came into power on 31st December 1983. The fire incident occurred on 31st January 1983, 11 months before the Buhari Government came into existence. Decree 17 prohibited the judicial challenge of any removal from the Public Service. The two lower Courts held that in the circumstances, their hands were tied. They were helpless. The Supreme Court rejected the cloak of helplessness and declared that Garba’s suit was valid. Decree 17 could not apply to an incident that occurred in January 1983 when the Regime that promulgated it was not even in existence.

    In Olaniyan v. University of Lagos, [1985] 2 NWLR of (Pt. 9) p. 599, the appointments of Professor Olaniyan and his colleagues in the University of Lagos, were terminated without due process, on the basis of the common law principle of master and servant. A master in common law, can sack a servant at will, wrongfully or not. The servant can only seek a remedy in damages, not re-instatement. Both the lower Courts accepted this argument. But the Supreme Court rejecting it created a new concept in labour law – “a contract with a statutory flavor”. According to them, the appointments of the appellants were based on statutory law and regulations. This was not the typical common law master and servant relationship. Any termination of appointment which did not strictly follow the laid down statutory terms and conditions of appointment, discipline and termination was illegal, null and void.

    But the greatest judgment of all is the locus classicus called Government of Lagos State v. Ojukwu, [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) p. 621. This is the Nigerian Magna Carta.

    A mansion known as No. 29 Queens Drive Ikoyi, was built by the Father of Chief Emeka Ojukwu, but was seized by the Lagos State Government as an abandoned property during the Nigeria Civil war. Sometime in 1985, when the building was empty, Ojukwu moved in, and brought an application claiming ownership of the property. Whilst the matter was still in the High Court, the Military Governor of Lagos State without a Court Order, sent in soldiers to eject Ojukwu violently. Ojukwu appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking an order of re-statement into the house pending the hearing of the substantive matter. The Court of Appeal granted the Order, and without obeying that order, the Governor of Lagos State appealed to the Supreme Court against it. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Military Governor of Lagos State, as long as he was in disobedience of the order of the Court of Appeal. The Statements made by the Judges of the Supreme Court in that case, have become legendary in legal circles, and they constitute the backbone of the Rule of Law in Nigeria today.

    According to Eso, JSC, who gave the leading judgment:

    “I think it is very serious matter for anyone to flout a positive order of a court and proceed to taunt the Court further by seeking a remedy in a higher court while still in contempt of the lower court. It is more serious when the act of flouting the order of the court, the contempt of the court, is by the Executive. Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, the Executive, the Legislative (while it lasts) and the Judiciary are equal partners in the running of a successful government. The powers granted by the Constitution to these organs by S. 4 (Legislative powers) S. 5 (Executive powers) and S. 6 (Judiciary powers) are classified under an omnibus umbrella known under Part II to the Constitution as “Powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. The organs wield those powers and one must never exist in sabotage of the other or else there is chaos. Indeed, there will be no federal government. I think, for one organ, and more especially the Executive, which holds all the physical powers, to put up itself in sabotage or deliberate contempt of the other is to stage an executive subversion of the Constitution it is to uphold. Executive lawlessness is tantamount to a deliberate violation of the Constitution. When the Executive is the Military Government which blends both the Executive and the Legislative together and which permits the Judiciary to co-exist with it in the administration of the country, then it is more serious than imagined.

    On his own part, Oputa, JSC, ended his judgment by saying “I can safely say that here in Nigeria, even under a Military Government, the law is no respecter of persons, principalities or powers and the Courts stand between the citizens and the governments alert to see that the state or government is bound by the law and respects the law.”

    The above constitute a small sample of the pure and clear stream of immortal proclamations emanating from the golden Court of the golden age of the Judiciary of which Eso was a major player. The judgments of that outstanding Court exhibited courage, creativity, originality of the thought process and exceptional scholarship.

    The poignancy and painfulness of the departure of Eso and his ilk like Idigbe, Mohammed Bello, Aniagolu and Nnamani, is that Nigeria of today is in the hands of mostly men without character. Integrity, honour, uprightness, discipline, transparency, for which Eso and his colleagues stood, no longer exists. A major tragedy is unfolding before our very eyes. There is an accelerated depletion of this breed of noble Nigerians, whilst we are witnessing an exploding population of the biblical human thorns or tares in public office.

    As if I had a prescience of the sad decline of our Judiciary, I made the following comments in 1988, in the concluding chapter of my book: A Legacy for Posterity – The Work of the Supreme Court, 1980 – 1988.

    “One other point that must give cause for concern, is whether these developments are just a flash in the pan which will disappear into distant obscurity, once the present crop of Supreme Court Judges are gone. Has the Court established a permanent legal culture; an institution of ideas and principles which will remain solid to be built upon by succeeding generations of Judges? Or do we merely have an ephemeral, spirit, which like a comet, will disappear into oblivion as the present great actors of the Supreme Court go one after the other into retirement? After all, Aniagolu is 65 and has now retired. So too have Kazeem and Coker. Eso is 63, Oputa is 64, Kawu is 62, Obaseki is 62. These men will retire in a few years. So of the 11 Justices who with about 4 others have brought about the legal and I believe social, revolution we have been discussing, 7 have left or are virtually on their way out. Will their good works outlive them? I dare say yes. I believe they with their colleagues who will be left behind, have laid down the strongest foundations for a legal system that will make the welfare and freedom of Nigerians and all those resident in Nigeria its cardinal principles. We can also take comfort in the fact that one of the architects of these phenomenal developments has now taken over as Chief Justice and will carry on and build on the great traditions he is inheriting from his predecessors.”

    My optimism turned out to be sadly misplaced. The golden age culture and achievements were not sustained by the succeeding generations of Justices.

    With this latest devastating loss to this Country, I am compelled to lament with Shakespear’s Mark Anthony in Julius Caeser:

    “Here was a Kayode Eso. Whence comes another”?

  • Ensuring transparency and accountability education

    Transparency and accountability remain critical to the development of any sector of the nation’s economy. This forms the premise of several actions taken by the President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration to ensure that Nigerians get the value for money invested in different critical sectors of the transformation agenda. Under the present administration, there is no room for wastage of public resources.

    For the nation’s basic education sub-sector, transparency and accountability are the corner-stone of project execution, award of contracts and supervision across the board. The principal objective driving this sub-sector has been the desire to ensure quality human capital development.

    The central belief being that if wastages are controlled within and outside the implementation framework of the nation’s basic education sector, the country stands to benefit more in terms of quality projects that would stand the test of time and attract millions of Nigerian children, youths and uneducated adults to basic education institutions across the country.

    This is what the Minister of State for Education, Ezenwo Nyesom Wike, has brought to the table as regards making transparency and accountability part of the implementation process of the all-important basic education sector of the nation. Since he assumed the reins of administration, officials of the ministry and agencies under his supervision have been compelled to bid farewell to under-the-table negotiations, meetings and decisions on the implementation and evaluation of projects.

    Wike believes that the decay that attended the nation’s basic education sector before President Goodluck Jonathan took over leadership has been such that all Nigerians must be carried along on the steps being taken by government to address these fundamental challenges. To him, closed door meetings have no place in the administration of the nation’s basic education recovery process.

    This position has paid off. Officials who approached their functions lackadaisically have faced stiff sanctions as they have been exposed in the public glare of journalists and members of the civil society. The outcome of the bold style of leadership is that several officials saddled with the responsibility of implementing projects and programmes have become alive to their roles in the transformation and the fact that sanctions await them if they neglect these roles.

    In the last four months, the minister introduced the novel idea of meeting with contractors, publishers, principals of Federal Unity Colleges and top ministerial and agencies’ officials handling key projects in the nation’s basic education sector. These meetings were initiated after the minister personally led monitoring teams to project sites. The meetings also took into consideration the inputs of several independent monitoring teams that assessed the extent and quality of work at all the sites where basic education projects were being executed by the Federal Government and her agencies.

    The projects include the phased rehabilitation of 18 selected Federal Unity Colleges, construction of libraries in some Federal Unity Colleges by the Universal Basic Education Commission and the Federal Ministry of Education, almajiri school projects, special girl child education and distribution of free textbooks and library resource materials to public basic education institutions.

    Armed with the different independent monitoring reports and his personal observations, he subjected all projects to rigorous public examinations in the full glare of the media and members of the civil society. In all instances, the contract sums, actual releases and level of project implementation were publicly x-ray to decipher the steps that must be taken for government objectives to be realised with minimum delay. It was a common site to see officials and project contractors jittery whenever he fall short of ministerial expectations. A handful of contracts been terminated and some contractors referred to anti corruption agencies in the process.

    When the Minister of State for Education met with principals of Federal Unity Colleges on the implementation of projects in their respective schools, it was in the presence of journalists and other government officials. Every facet of the implementation of the phased rehabilitation of the selected schools was clinically x-rayed. Whilst some principals were publicly commended, others were admonished to adhere strictly to the guidelines released by the Federal Ministry of Education regarding the use of the special rehabilitation funds sent to them. One after the other, the principals were called to make their presentations which were cross-checked by the Minister and other supervising officials. That public meeting lasted several hours.

    It was the same process that adopted by Minister when he met with contractors handling Almajiri schools, special girl-child schools and library projects in Federal Unity Colleges not part of this year’s phased rehabilitation. With pictorial evidence of work done as provided by ministerial independent monitoring teams, the minister examined the claims of different contractors. These meetings led to the realisation that some projects were delayed due to challenges from banks engaged by the contractors. The minister enlarged the scope of the meetings at a point, inviting the bank executives who agreed to change the funding patterns to improve implementation levels.

    The quest to ensure that the 2012/2013 academic session free textbooks and library resource materials get to children in public schools in good time, Wike engaged the publishers every step of the way. These public meetings covered by the media culminated in the imposition of sanctions on all publishers due to their inability to distribute the books across the 36 states of the Federation. To ensure that the unfortunate diversion of books by some criminal elements in the states is nipped in the bud, the minister involved the State Security Service and the Nigerian Police Force in the 2012/2013 free text books distribution.

    -Simeon Nwakaudu is the Special Assistant (Media) to Minister of State for Education.

  • The role of opposition parties in nation building: 13 years of democratic experience

    Introduction:

    The title of this lecture could not have been more apt, and the timing could not have been better.

    The relevance of the title derives especially from the fact that Nigerians are increasingly debating how well the past 13 years of democracy has served our country, in the face of worsening living conditions; while at the same time exploring other democratic alternatives to a ruling party that has reveled more in power for the sake of power, or power-for-power sake if you like, than actually using the power they have acquired, whether through fair or foul means, to strengthen our democracy and make life more abundant for our long suffering people.

    On the issue of timing, this lecture comes at a time those in power have shown that they are either ignorant of the role which the opposition is expected to play in a democracy, or they are deliberately seeking to cast the opposition in bad light in order to silence it.

    I will say it is the second reason – that is the central government and the ruling party are deliberately seeking to silence the opposition as part of their long stated objective to emasculate it – that is the opposition – to pave the way for them to rule unchallenged for the next 100 years. By the way, this is a pipe dream!

    In recent times, the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan has been quick to tag the regular intervention of the opposition on the burning issues of the day as insulting the President or disrespecting his office.

    Let me seize this opportunity to say that we at the ACN, by the Grace of God the leading opposition party in the Federal Republic of Nigeria today, have nothing but total respect for the office of the President.

    However, we will not be intimidated into shirking our responsibilities as the leading opposition party. Cheap tricks, like labelling any criticism of the government as an insult to the President, will not deter us from speaking for the millions of our citizens who have been shortchanged by the party that has been at the helm of affairs of our dear nation since the current democratic dispensation started in 1999.

    This takes me to what I consider the core element of this lecture: Just what exactly is the role of the opposition in a democracy?

    I ask this rhetorical question because one needs to understand what the opposition is expected to do in a democracy such as ours before venturing into whether or not it has any role to play in nation building.

    Prof. Alfred C. Stephan, a professor of government at Columbia University in the United States, considers the role of the democratic opposition in societies – such as Nigeria – where authoritarianism had survived for long before the democratic transition – as not only essential, but also key in deepening democracy.

    Prof. Stephan says by “turning vital ‘non-issues’ into issues”, and also by “creating new structures of participation, transparency and ultimately accountability’’, the opposition is indeed helping to deepen democracy.

    He then went ahead to list the five key functions for the democratic opposition.

    They are:

    (I) Resisting integration into the ruling regime

    (2) Guarding zones of autonomy against the ruling regime

    (3) Disputing the legitimacy of the ruling regime

    (4) Raising the cost of authoritarian rule

    And (5) Creating credible democratic alternative.

    The functions listed above are by no means exhaustive.

    The democratic opposition is also expected to offer political alternatives; to articulate and promote the interest of the voters; to offer alternatives to the decisions proposed by the government and the major representatives (in the National Assembly); to improve parliamentary decision-making procedures by ensuring debate, reflection and contradiction; to scrutinise the legislative and budgetary proposals of the government; and, to ensure stability, legitimacy, accountability and transparency in the political process.

    Other public commentators have identified the functions of the opposition in similar or different languages. These include holding the government accountable through the promotion of responsible and reasoned debate so as to provoke national conversation and push democratic discussion to a higher level, and working with media and civil society organisations to monitor and improve public governance.

    The Acn as the voice of opposition

    Although our party, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), only emerged as the country’s leading opposition party after the last general elections in 2011, we have been playing this role much earlier than that (albeit under a different name), after the then leading opposition party, the ANPP, was virtually emasculated by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which co-opted it into governance with some thin carrots and effectively silenced it.

    Therefore, at a time our party could boast of only one state (Lagos State), we were the undisputed voice of the Nigerian opposition, putting the government of the day on its toes and resisting every attempt to turn Nigeria into a one-party state – which the PDP has stated, time and again, as its objective.

    Therefore, by the time our party emerged as the leading opposition party after last year’s general elections, that role had become a part of us and performing it therefore came naturally.

    Let me say categorically here that in performing this role, our party, the ACN, has been guided by the highest principles, based on our recognition of the centrality of the opposition not only in ensuring the survival, deepening and expansion of democracy, but also in preserving human liberty and guaranteeing justice, particularly in a plural state and society such as Nigeria.

    As the 19th Century two-time British Prime Minister – who was the leader of opposition in the British parliament in the intervening period – Benjamin Disraeli, stated, “No government can long be secure without a formidable opposition.”

    While we will leave the effectiveness or otherwise of our role as the voice of opposition for historians and political scientists to judge, I can say here, without equivocating, that we have tried as much as humanly possible to function within the ambit of the roles I enunciated above.

    In other words, while we cannot claim that our role as an opposition political party in the last 13 years has led to the achievement of these targets, I can confidently state that our releases, interviews and interventions have sought to speak to all these functions of a democratic opposition – as enunciated by Professor Stephan.

    In speaking truth to power in Nigeria, on many occasions, we have turned non-issues which are critical for democracy, liberty and justice, into issues. We have, through our media interventions, created the possibilities of greater participation by Nigerians in the governance of the country, while at the same time canvassing for greater transparency and accountability in the affairs of government and public institutions.

    Let us remind Nigerians that since 1999, our country has functioned under semi-authoritarian presidents and a semi-oppressive PDP-led Federal Government.

    During this period, our public interventions have achieved the following:

    (I) Ensured that the opposition party is not eclipsed or incorporated by the ruling regime and ruling party.

    You will recall the attempt by the Jonathan Administration to form the so-called ‘Unity Government’ after the election, and the principled stand taken by our party not to have anything to do with it!

    (2) Despite the dominance of the ruling party, we have created and fortified areas of autonomy both for our party and for other forces and formations in the country

    (3) Despite direct and indirect threats, we have disputed the legitimacy of the ruling party in its violations of the public trust and subversion of the commonwealth

    (4) By constantly exposing, and alerting Nigerians to the excesses, incompetence, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, wastage and abuses of the ruling party and its government(s), particularly at the centre, we have made them much more uncomfortable in their violations of the public trust

    And (5) Through our exposition and publicity of the activities and views of the opposition, we have been able to help in the creation of a credible alternative to the ruling party and regime at the centre and in most of the states.

    We have done these and many more in different ways. We have also acted in ways that confirm the fundamental functions of the democratic opposition in the 21st Century, as identified by the European Commission for Democracy Through Law (otherwise called Venice Commission). These functions include: to offer political alternatives; to articulate and promote the interest of the voters; to offer alternatives to the decisions proposed by the government and the major representatives (in the National Assembly); to improve parliamentary decision-making procedures by ensuring debate, reflection and contradiction; to scrutinise the legislative and budgetary proposals of the government; and, to ensure stability, legitimacy, accountability and transparency in the political process.

    Let me put this on record: In our position as the leading political party in Nigeria today we have been guided by the highest ideals of democratic opposition in the world.

    Conclusion:

    On a personal note, I will say here, very humbly, that acting as the voice and face of the opposition – in my capacity as the National Publicity Secretary of the Action Congress of Nigeria – has been as demanding as it has been exciting.

    While many Nigerians have shown appreciation, one way or the other, for this onerous task, some others have sought to depict one as being perpetually against the government of the day. This cannot be further from the truth.

    When the occasion demands it, we commend the government of the day. Let me cite the most recent example.

    You will recollect that the Ministry of Aviation had a running battle with some foreign airlines over the discriminatory fares they charge Nigerians, compared to Ghanaians, for example, along the same route, e.g Lagos-London.

    While the controversy was raging, we issued a statement commending the ministry’s effort to ensure that Nigerians are treated with respect and dignity, rather than being fleeced by greedy foreign airlines. It is very easy to forget this. Well, I must also say that such commendations are quite few because this PDP-federal government gives little or nothing to cheer!

    Let me also use this opportunity to say that whatever we have achieved as the voice of the opposition could not have been possible without the support of all Nigerians.

    They have constantly kept us on our toes as we seek to perform this role creditably. Ordinary Nigerians have called our attention to issues over which they believe we must take up the government of the day, either it is the issue of fuel subsidy, insecurity of lives and property, poor management of the economy or worsening state of infrastructure. They have given us leads, facts and figures. To us, there can be no better indication of the people’s vote of confidence in us!

    Finally, no opposition party can perform its role creditably without the media. They have been our partners, standing shoulder to shoulder with us all the way. They have not only supported us, they have criticised us, when necessary, and engaged us in robust debates on key issues. We are very grateful for this, which goes a long way to confirm what we have always believed, that you stand to get more from the media when you take them as a critical partner in the task of nation building, rather than merely as an instrument for the dissemination of news.

    •Being speech delivered by Alhaji Lai Mohammed, National Publicity Secretary, Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) at the Press Week of Lagos State Governor’s Office Correspondents 2012 Press Week Lecture and Award Ceremony on November 9, 2012