The Nation Newspaper

Category: Dele Agekameh

  • Fire on the mountain

    Fire on the mountain

    Fire on the mountain!”  This may look like a familiar lyric from a popular song. It is not. But if the drama that is currently unfolding in the north-east of Nigeria is anything to go by, then, it is crystal clear that, indeed, there is fire on the mountain. In the last few weeks, the Boko Haram terrorists have intensified their attacks and open confrontation with Nigeria’s security forces. They have been moving from their base in Sambisa fortress to some parts of Borno and Adamawa States, seizing towns and villages along their route. At the last count, the terrorists have taken over at least nine out of the 27 Local Government Areas in Borno, representing one-third of the entire state.  Recently, they proclaimed the town of Gwoza, a “caliphate under Islamic law.” Michika, Uba and some parts of Adamawa, have also tasted Boko Haram’s bitter pill.

    Following the terrorists’ recent incursion into Bama town, about 72 kilometers from Maiduguri, the Borno State capital, fears were heightened that the next port of call may be Maiduguri itself. Speaking in Abuja last Thursday, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, United States Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, said the frequency and scope of terror attacks had grown more acute, adding that this had constituted a serious threat to the overall security of Nigeria. According to her, “Boko Haram has shown that it can operate not only in the North-east, but in Kano, Abuja and elsewhere. We are very troubled by the prospects of an attack on and in Maiduguri, which would impose a tremendous toll on the civilian population. This is a sober reality check for all of us”.

    It is, indeed, time to engage in a sober reality check. This is because at no time since the end of the country’s civil war in 1970, has the territorial integrity of this country been so threatened than what is currently playing out today. In spite of all the havoc the terrorists have wreaked on innocent people all over the place, they had the audacity to distribute leaflets in Maiduguri, the state capital, warning the residents of an impending attack. For one, the major weapon of terrorists is fear. Those leaflets must have been circulated to create fear in the minds of the people. If that is the aim, the terrorists may have largely succeeded in view of the mass exodus of residents in Maiduguri.

    For whatever it takes, the military and the federal government should do everything possible to safeguard Maiduguri. The city is too populated to allow these vagabonds to truncate its tranquillity. It is exigent that the temerity of the rampaging terrorists should be halted without further prevarication. By now, it must be clear to our policy makers that we have an emergency at hand. There is no doubt that the army is short of manpower, having been overstretched because of its involvements in internal security duties in the country. Be that as it may, we may not have any other option than to resort to what happened during the civil war by recruiting those who are ready to do the job. Care must; however, be taken not to recruit Boko Haram agents or sympathisers.

    In that case, rather than the usual one year training, the new recruits can be trained for two weeks and deployed in large numbers to crush the terrorists. The thing is to get the whole place flooded with troops. If the enemy out-flanks you, pull back, regroup and re-think your strategy. It is good that the terrorists have now come out of Sambissa Forest due to the rains and the subsequent marshy terrain. The security forces should launch a massive and sustained attack on them in the towns and villages they now occupy as well as lead an assault on Sambissa itself. The terrorists must have left some line guards behind to take care of the place for them. All the security forces need do is to muster enough manpower and fire power to do this. Obviously, the terrorists cannot cope if many fronts are opened.

    The terrorists are known to move swiftly just like the ISIS is doing presently in Iraq and Syria. The so-called Islamists, though calling themselves different names, share a common doctrine of destruction. They seek to impose their will through propaganda, forced conversion, kidnapping, beheading, slaughtering, forced marriage, rape and other unspeakable horrors. Obviously, Boko Haram exists for the same genocidal mission as ISIS. It has its own contribution to this hateful movement. The plan by Al-Queda to acquire territories after territories until it enthrones its own Islamic doctrines was hatched many years back with defined roadmap and timelines. This was expected to have been crystallised in 2013. And Nigeria falls within the countries whose territories it wanted (and still wants) to acquire for this indoctrination. What this means is that Nigeria is fighting a formidable enemy.

    The truth is that 16 months after a state of emergency was declared in the north-east states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe, it appears that the country has not got an effective strategy to deal with Boko Haram and its avowed commitment to wage war against the country and its people. Much like the man who has a hammer and, therefore, assumes that every problem is a nail, our policy makers have tried these past 16 months, to define the Boko Haram problem as something that they are comfortable to deal with. Now, it is apparent that they are failing or they have failed, and woefully too. Not with the terrorists who seem to be riding roughshod over everybody and traversing state borders, thereby killing and maiming several innocent citizens as well as displacing people and destroying hundreds of schools in a wave of terror aimed at establishing a utopian Islamic state in Nigeria.

    Recently, the international community was jolted with the abduction of more than 250 schoolgirls from Chibok community in Borno State. In the wake of the uproar, some foreign countries sent specialists with medical, intelligence, counterterrorism and communications skills to advise Nigerian officials. In addition, manned and unmanned surveillance aircrafthave been flying over the heavily forested north-eastern region of the country where intelligence officials believe the girls are held. Some 80 armed American troops have also been sent to Chad, one of Nigeria’s next door neighbours, where predator surveillance drones are being operated from a large air base near N’Djamena, the Chadian capital. All these seem to have yielded nothing as the Chibok girls are still marooned in the woods.

    Viewed from the prism of the seeming bureaucratic lethargy with which the ongoing war against terrorism is being prosecuted, it is as if Nigerian leaders are bidding their time and waiting for a miracle from nowhere to happen and put an end to this ugly episode. It is rather senseless to expect outsiders to come to our rescue every time there is a problem. Every nation is and should be responsible for its own citizens’ safety except that, on this score, Nigeria’s record is abysmal. Corruption has become a hydra-headed monster that has eaten deep into the fabric of the nation. The nation’s considerable oil wealth has been cornered by a few smart alecs. The result is that the citizens have not been provided with adequate security, water, health, reliable power supply, good and motorable roads, as well as, quality education.

    Now, the army, the last bastion of hope, is starved of essential resources and completely demoralised.  This, in itself, is a bigger threat to stability. Yet, a military response is not a viable option to end the growing disenchantment in the country. It is, therefore, expedient on our grandstanding political leaders to urgently tackle the root causes of disaffection in the country by reducing corruption, and providing jobs and other lifelines to the growing army of hungry and angry Nigerians. As a people, we need a new, honest conversation on how we are going to defeat the multifarious forces of evil that have held the country by its jugular. Perhaps, we would be better off with leaders who do not have good strategies and know they do not, than with leaders who get stuck to bad strategies.

  • Lynching by impeachment

    Lynching by impeachment

    When the whole drama started, it looked more like one of those beer parlour jokes. Expectedly, people, especially the media, quickly dubbed it, rather derisively, “Chicken Impeachment”. That underscores the degree of scorn and bewilderment with which the entire comedy of the absurd was held. But those who were hell-bent on turning logic on its head were not prepared to blink at all. After all, there was a supreme agenda that must be executed at all cost without paying the least attention to whatever the ‘uninitiated’ might think about. The uninitiated, this time, are the majority of Nigerians who are still astonished by the tragi-comedy that played out in Enugu State, a place regarded as the political capital of South-east Nigeria. Remember, Enugu was the capital of the old Eastern Region from whence all other states in the South-east zone of the country today, were born.

    Anyway, the agenda was simply just to lynch a political foe of an imperial governor, using the instrumentality of the impeachment clause as enshrined in Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. That section lays down procedures for the appointment and removal of governors of every state in the country. This provision of the constitution is sacrosanct and provides the only acceptable procedures for removal, or more commonly termed “impeachment”, of a sitting governor or in some instances, the deputy governor, as we have witnessed in the country. Section 188 lays down procedure for possible removal on grounds of “Gross Misconduct”.

    The truth is that, on Tuesday, August 26, Sunday Onyebuchi, the deputy governor of Enugu State, was impeached by the Enugu State House of Assembly. This latest development orchestrated by the members of the assembly, who merely pandered to the whim and caprice of the governor, presented a new plot in the recent wave of impeachments and “attempted impeachments” in the country. This ‘novel’ case of impeachment, as the deputy governor himself would later attest, was unique because of the puerile charges on which it was anchored. Controversial as it was, with obvious legal issues raised, the episode has now been safely etched into the dark recesses of our history books. Whatever anybody might say now falls in the realm of conjectures as the deed has been done.

    Now, let us examine the legal points of this impeachment. Section 188 (1) – (11) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates the provisions which we must assume were followed by the Enugu House of Assembly in carrying out the impeachment of Onyebuchi. According to sub-section (2) (b) of that section, the process is begun as in this case when the Speaker of the House of Assembly is presented with charges “stating that the holder of such office is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be specified”.

    The charges drawn up against Onyebuchi include his continuous operation of a poultry farm within his official quarters even though “by a resolution of the Enugu State House of Assembly at its plenary on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, the House of Assembly prohibited the maintenance and operation of commercial livestock and poultry farms within residential neighbourhoods in Enugu metropolis in promotion of public health standards; which resolution was further accepted by the government for implementation”. Added to the charge was his refusal to perform state duties assigned to him by the governor pursuant to section 193 (1) of the Constitution which gives the governor authority to do so.

    In the somewhat comical episode, the only real legal issue is whether the conduct of the deputy governor, as alleged in the charges, constitutes “gross misconduct” envisaged by the Constitution in section 188 (2) (b). This question could have simply been addressed by the provisions of section 188 (11), which defined the meaning of “gross misconduct” in that section as “a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion in the House of Assembly to gross misconduct”. That particular provision has been widely held to be ambiguous, but the fact that cannot be denied is that the provision has left the determination of what constitutes “gross misconduct” under that section largely in the hands of a House of Assembly. This means simply that “gross misconduct” in that section is what the state legislators in their discretion say it is. That is where the problem is, both for the constitution in this regard and in Onyebuchi’s case presently.

    On the poultry-rearing charge, the Enugu State House of Assembly stated that it was continued even after a resolution of the House against it, “which was further accepted by the government for implementation”.  If the intendment of those who drafted the charges was to prove that the deputy governor broke a law, then from an objective point of view, the attempt has failed. Section 100 (1) of the Constitution states that the power of a State House of Assembly to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by the House of Assembly, which may then be passed into law by assent by the governor or two-thirds majority of the House. A mere resolution of the House, as indicated in the charges against Onyebuchi, is not law and does not have the legal force that the legislators suggest it has. This weakens the case of “gross misconduct” against Onyebuchi to a large extent.

    For argument sake, and this is a genuine argument, one can say that Onyebuchi’s refusal to perform state functions as directed by the governor, if it can be proved, is in violation of section 193 (1) of the constitution. Whether it constitutes a “grave violation” is another matter entirely, which brings back the issues of ambiguity. The legislators may also have included this in the charge to boost the weight of the charges and create an increased notion of legality. Whether it succeeds in pushing the scales is left to anyone’s imagination as, according to that section, the legislators have the final say.

    While we may continue to debate the legal issues from the impeachment and highlight the ambiguity of the constitutional provisions, one should also remember that the contemplation of the drafters of the constitution and the very spirit of the constitution in this matter, hinges on the expectation that elected legislators will be objective and upright members of the society capable of making sound and fair judgments. The constitution cannot be expected to contain or envisage all possible scenarios or definitions known to man, but the human mind, which is responsible for its propagation and implementation, also needs to be trusted to do so diligently without fear or favour and in line with the spirit of the law contained in the constitution.

    It is perhaps no news to the Enugu people and others beyond the borders of Enugu that the relationship between the governor and his deputy was declining before the impeachment saga. The way it played out also left little doubt that the governor’s loyalists, yes-men or surrogates, who form the bulk of the House of Assembly, including the Chief Judge of the state, whose appointment is largely based on the governor’s discretion, have played out a well-written script to get rid of the errant deputy. We can blame the constitution, its draftsmen or the legislators. The blame in a democracy must, however, always falls back on the people who elect their representatives. This is because our choice of leaders is always a reflection of our character as a people.

    What the Enugu State legislators have done is tantamount to lynching a man at the market square on mere suspicion that he may have committed an offence. Well, Onyebuchi has resolved to head to the courts. But one thing is that the courts cannot directly contravene the constitution. If the constitution says the House of Assembly has the discretion to determine what constitutes “gross misconduct”, then the courts cannot fetter this discretion except the legislators’ interpretation is so biased, and against logic and common sense, that it will be clear to a common man that it is absurd and against the spirit of the constitution.

     

  • Nasarawa’s ‘cash and carry’ politics

    Nasarawa’s ‘cash and carry’ politics

    Three weeks ago, this column pointed out the brazen act of illegality which the Nasarawa State House of Assembly, particularly the 20 members from the opposition party, is trying to foist on the people of the state. It is very clear that their satanic plot is to remove Tanko Al-Makura, the legitimate governor of the state, by illegitimate means. Though impeachment is a legitimate weapon enshrined in the constitution to check executive recklessness in the polity, many right-thinking Nigerians are amazed and dazed by the easy recourse of some lawmakers (or lawbreakers) in some Houses of Assembly to invoke this section of the constitution at will to settle personal scores or political differences.

    Now that the Nasarawa State House of Assembly has been beaten to their game, the 20 opposition legislators are not taking their defeat lightly. They have vowed to continue with the impeachment moves against their governor in spite of the fact that the panel constituted to investigate allegations against him, has returned a not-guilty verdict. There is no other way to describe this desperation than to call it legislative rascality. This is because if, indeed, the legislators were genuinely representing the people who voted them into the House, the whole impeachment brouhaha should have ended at the point the panel dismissed the 16 counts of gross abuse of office levelled against the governor.

    It is quite unfortunate that all the legal questions raised by the entire impeachment saga have not been addressed, yet more are being created as the episode continues. The key issues raised by the impeachment drama as stated in the column before this, are, first, whether the Nassarawa State House of Assembly had conformed with the provisions of Section 188 of the Constitution that demands that notice of the impeachment be served on the governor within seven days of its presentation to the Speaker of the House; second, whether the Chief Judge of the state has complied with Section 188 (5) of the Constitution in setting up the panel charged with investigating the allegations against the governor; and third and last, whether the House of Assembly can direct the Chief Judge to disband and reconstitute the panel on its own authority as opposed to calling a court of competent jurisdiction to determine whether the panel was indeed duly constituted or not, and making consequential orders based on its determination.

    None of these issues has yet been conclusively addressed by the Nasarawa State House of Assembly or the Chief Judge of the state. Still, the whole episode keeps unfolding in a direction so far removed from legality that one must wonder whether the law or any perceived breach of the law means anything to these institutions that are responsible for its formulation and interpretation. Meanwhile, in one breath, the House of Assembly stands by its ‘order’ to the Chief Judge to disband the panel amidst vows to continue the impeachment process irrespective of the report of the panel. In another breath, it promises to institute an action in court to determine the legality of the panel. The absurd reality of this legislative double-speak in Nasarawa  and the seeming lack of any statement by the Chief Judge on the legality of the constituted panel in line with Section 188 (5) of the Constitution, bears a remarkable resemblance to the politics of impunity practised in Nigeria which pervades all arms and levels of government. An otherwise straight-forward procedure laid down by the laws of the land has resulted in legal and legislative circus show to the surprise of no one in the country.

    If the Nasarawa State House of Assembly does go ahead with its threat of continuing the impeachment process in the light of recent developments without recourse to the law courts, then we may be headed to yet another instance of blatant disregard for our constituted laws in the country. This has disturbingly become more of a trend than otherwise as one would expect of an organized society. From all indications, the circumstances of this present case cannot be left to or resolved in the “court of public opinion” as the APC National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, had suggested in earlier comments to the press. The situation calls for a lawful order, one way or another, to put an end to this public show of shame by all parties who are rumoured to be acting on absurd pecuniary motivations, unsurprisingly.

    The resolution to this debacle, whatever the motivation, appears to lie more on the issue of the legality of the constituted panel than on any other issue. If we were to be realistic on the issue of service or non-service of impeachment notice on the governor, one may point out that while it is always in the interest of the law to insist on adherence to procedures laid down therein, it is also on record that, sometimes, the courts have taken a tough stance on cases hinged on service or non-service of legally required notices by looking at the essence of such notice to begin with. The essence of a ‘notice’ is to bring to a party’s knowledge the existence of certain facts or circumstances to accord that party the privilege of knowing about them, such as a suit or allegations for instance, and create an opportunity for a reply or defence to those allegations. If even after the omission of this notice by the accusing party (or parties), the indicted party has in one way or the other got wind of the allegations and has, in some cases, even proffered or prepared his defence, then the insistence on the actual service of the notice and any issue arising from it becomes superfluous or a technicality and not a necessity. However, the law is the law and must be followed, especially by elected officials who should know better.

    This brings us to the issue of the composition of the panel by the Chief Judge, which is at the centre of the matter. The legality of the panel is not only justiciable but, surprisingly, it can be determined in a competent court at the instance of any of the affected parties. It will be a suit purely calling the court to decide if the panel was validly constituted. If the House of Assembly is not willing to call the court to decide on the legality, any other affected party can equally do so. It can be a matter decided solely based on affidavits as clearly provided for by the Originating Summons procedure of the High Courts and Federal High Courts.

    For sure, the constitution leaves no room for the legislature to determine the composition of the panel, or decide the mode of sitting or the outcome of the deliberation. And just as what constitutes gross misconduct is left entirely to the discretion of the legislators, the composition of the panel is the prerogative of the Chief Judge of the state as well. Therefore, the legislators’ refusal to accept the panel’s verdict amounts to legislative recklessness, and any attempt to force out the governor through extra-constitutional means is an open invitation to chaos and anarchy.

    With the knowledge that there are top legal practitioners involved on all sides, one can only wonder why there are so many legal missteps and disregard for legal procedure from the onset of the Al-Makura’s impeachment saga. It calls the integrity of lawyers involved to question and puts the sincerity of their legal advice and ethics in bad light, depending on the level and the time of their involvements. With the foregoing, let me state what we all know clearly. There is all probability that this whole mess has nothing to do with gross misconduct, or the desire of a House of Assembly to act in the interest of the people or even the law at all. This may just be politics as usual, fuelled by cash. No wonder, the players are picking and choosing from laws that suit their interest and playing it all out in the public gallery, like true Nigerian politicians that they all are. God help us all!

  • Ebola: Let us pray

    Ebola: Let us pray

    The topical issue that has continued to dominate world headlines is Ebola. The killer instinct of the virus is no longer news; what is news, however, are the various preventive measures now being put in place everywhere to prevent the spread of the highly contagious virus. These preventive measures, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous, are as many as they vary from country to country. In Nigeria, the government has been battling to persuade the people from adopting an unorthodox approach that claims that adding salt to warm water to bathe, and drinking warm water salt therapy can prevent Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). That message had gone viral in the social media and through unsolicited text messages before the government sprung into action. Even at that, several people who had taken that route landed in the hospital while a few others were not so lucky. They met their untimely death in the process. Talk of dying before the arrival of death itself.

    Last week, this column wrote on Africa’s destiny with pandemics. The column stated that the current Ebola’s spread in four West African countries – Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria – “is a reminder of the vast development needs that persist in some of the world’s poorest countries”. It is, therefore, not too funny to read what Decontee Sawyer, wife of the late Patrick Sawyer, the man who brought EVD into Nigeria, recently told a magazine in Liberia. Decontee said her husband’s decision to travel from Liberia to Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, was a desperate search for a better health-care system. She said that Sawyer had no trust in the health-care system in Liberia and had possibly headed to Nigeria with the hope of receiving better treatment for his ailment. Many Nigerians, and even Liberians, had condemned Sawyer for travelling to Nigeria despite knowing that he was infected with the Ebola virus before embarking on the trip. Some Nigerians on social media even went as far as describing him as a “biological terrorist” who came into the country deliberately to spread the disease.

    Decontee’s defence of her husband notwithstanding, what is clear is that at the time he made the journey to Nigeria, Sawyer knew his health status quite well before he sneaked into Nigeria through Lome, the Togolese capital. Had he done his homework well, the late Sawyer would have known that escaping from Liberia to Nigeria was like jumping from frying pan to fire. The fire finally consumed him when he was eventually cremated after he died of the Ebola disease. His cremation was done in line with the prescription of the World Health Organisation, WHO, for the safe disposal of victims of Ebola disease to forestall further spread of the disease by the corpses of the victims. WHO had said that 60 percent or more of those affected by the disease contracted it from the corpses of the victims before or during burial rites.

    If we are all now blaming Sawyer for importing the disease to Nigeria willingly or unwillingly, what can we say about the nurse who had primary contact with the late Sawyer and was placed under observation but who equally sneaked out from Lagos and headed for Enugu where a few people have now been placed under observation? What this means is that Lagos is not the only state in Nigeria that has so far been hit by the deadly EVD; Enugu has joined the fray. After the Federal Executive Council meeting in Abuja last Wednesday, Labaran Maku, the Minister of Information, told State House correspondents that Enugu came into the picture because one of the nurses that treated the American-Liberian, Patrick Sawyer, shunned medical advice and travelled to the city.

    Thank God that the medical team has been able to trace all those who came into contact with the nurse, including her husband, and they are now being quarantined in Enugu. The nurse has done to Enugu what Patrick Sawyer did to Lagos that has now put Nigeria in the infamous map of Ebola-ravaged countries. One would have expected those keeping vigil on all these contacts to put a water-tight cordon on such people, but Nigerians or Africans, being what we are, we have high proclivity to disobey orders. If the nurse who has transported this virus to Enugu survives, what will the system do to her even if one or two others who contracted the virus from her throw in the towel tomorrow?

    The lacklustre manner in which the case of the nurse has been handled is a signpost of the unserious manner we handle sensitive issues in this country and in Africa. The other day a national newspaper displayed the photograph of medical personnel who look more like nurses wearing protective health gears at the National Hospital in Abuja on its front page. The picture was, perhaps, to illustrate that the country was ready to combat the Ebola virus headlong. Ironically, that message was lost when I discovered that one of the ladies was full of laughter as if she was modelling for a Nollywood extravaganza as the photographer clicked away. That is the way we are. Now, tell me, what was funny to the nurse that she so much got captivated with laughter in a situation that she could have complimented with a sober look?

    More disturbing, is the recent report that no fewer than 17 patients infected with Ebola were unaccounted for after they fled an armed raid on a quarantine centre on the outskirts of Monrovia, the Liberian capital, by men who claimed the epidemic was a fiction. Reports say, the attackers, mostly young men armed with clubs, shouted that President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf “is broke” and “there’s no Ebola” in Liberia as they broke into the facility. The facility was believed to be housing 29 patients who “had all tested positive for Ebola” and were receiving preliminary treatment before being taken to hospital. Out of the 29 patients, 17 reportedly fled in the aftermath of the assault. Another nine died a few days after, while three others were allegedly taken away by force by their relatives from the centre. Residents had opposed the creation of the centre, set up by health authorities in part of the city considered an epicentre of the Ebola outbreak in the Liberian capital. Again, that is the way we are in Africa. It is a shame.

    The Ebola outbreak, the worst since the virus first appeared in 1976, has claimed 1,145 lives in five months, according to the United Nations World Health Organisation’s latest figures as of August 13: 413 in Liberia, 380 in Guinea, 348 in Sierra Leone and four in Nigeria. With the appalling health care delivery system in this country and Africa as a whole, I believe we should all go down on our knees to pray fervently to God to save us from this killer virus. This is because in the event of a severe outbreak of the disease, (God forbid), many heads will roll especially now that they are saying that the trial vaccine is out of stock.

    Mind you, this virus has been ravaging some parts of Africa since 1976 – 38 years ago – and it never occurred to anybody to find a lasting cure for the terrible disease. Recall that this current one broke out more than six months ago and it was only last week that WHO deemed it fit to hold an emergency session after more than a thousand souls had been lost. Call it different strokes for different folks. If it had happened in any of the developed countries, would the world have waited this long? The same thing happened many years ago during the Rwanda genocide. The world stood akimbo as two brothers, the Hutus and Tutsis, engaged one another in a bloody fratricidal war that claimed thousands of lives.

    Anyway, this Ebola thing is a wake-up call on Africans and the Blacks in the Diaspora to wake up from self-induced stupor, gird their loins and get their bearings right. If not, we will continue to be a laughing stock in the world arena. May God help us!

  • Africa as Ebola’s Paradise

    Africa as Ebola’s Paradise

    Its recent outbreak in some West African countries may not have initially been accorded much attention, but today, as a result of the havoc it has so far created and the ease as well as the rapidity of infection, everybody is now on his toes across the globe. Now, Ebola has suddenly assumed the status of the fastest-growing killer virus in the world. And to affirm this horrible and disturbing status, last Friday, health experts declared the Ebola epidemic an international health emergency that requires a coordinated global approach.

    At the moment, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and lately, Nigeria are battling the deadly virus, which has defied any known cure. So far, the virus is believed to have infected at least 1,779 people, killing 961 or more, thereby making it the worst outbreak in the four-decade history of tracking the disease. According to the World Health Organisation, WHO, “the possible consequences of further international spread are particularly serious in view of the virulence of the virus, the intensive community and health facility transmission patterns, and the weak health systems in the currently affected and most at-risk countries”.

    The history of the disease is well known. Unfortunately, since it was first recognized in 1976, all the 18 outbreaks so far recorded occurred in Africa alone. Ebola may be a native of Africa but now the virus is threatening to go global and, by declaring it an international public health emergency, it shows how seriously WHO is taking the current outbreak. But tough statements, definitely, won’t save lives. Perhaps, what should really worry all of us now as the battle against the virus rages, are the words of Peter Piot, the scientific adventurer who discovered the virus: “We shouldn’t forget that this is a disease of poverty, of dysfunctional health systems and of distrust”.

    In 1976, Piot, a 27-year-old medical school graduate training as a clinical microbiologist, undertook a voyage of discovery to the then Zaire, where, out of sheer determination, he ventured into the thick forest in one of the remotest areas of the country and unearthed the disease. Piot is now 65 years old. It’s been 38 years since the first outbreak and the world is now experiencing its worst Ebola epidemic ever. At the last count, the disease has reared its ugly head in four West African countries of Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Out of these, Nigeria has been least affected, recording fewer deaths. Unlike in the past when the outbreak is confined to only one country, the current situation is unprecedented as the spread of the disease across four countries is making it more complicated to deal with than ever before.

    As Piot rightly observed and I agree with him, “this is a disease of poverty, of dysfunctional health systems and of distrust”. The current Ebola’s spread in West Africa is a reminder of the vast development needs that persist in some of the region’s poorest countries despite claim to rapid economic growth and investment. The vast majority of Africans live miserably in slums and squalor. Africa faces endemic poverty, food insecurity and pervasive underdevelopment, with almost all the countries lacking the human, economic and institutional capacities to effectively develop and manage their water resources sustainably. As a result of this, a large number of countries on the continent still face huge challenge in attempting to achieve the United Nations water-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Although the crucial role of water in accomplishing the continent’s development goals is widely recognized, various governments on the African continent seem not to be moved by the appalling living standard of their people both in the urban and rural areas. Thus, clean water becomes a scarce commodity.

    Besides, Sub-Saharan Africa is the world’s poorest and least developed region, with half its population living on less than a dollar a day. About two-thirds of its countries rank among the lowest in the Human Development Index. A recent report by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UNDESA, gave an analysis of data from 35 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, representing 84% of the region’s population, showing significant differences between the poorest and richest fifths of the population in both rural and urban areas. According to the report, “over 90% of the richest quintile in urban areas use improved water sources, and over 60% have piped water on premises. In rural areas, piped-in water is non-existent in the poorest 40% of households, and less than half of the population use any form of improved source of water”.

    The report stated that despite efforts and approaches to extend and sustain water, sanitation and hygiene systems and services continue to suffer leading to different health complications in Africa as a whole, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, thereby causing avoidable deaths. “The water and sanitation position in West/Central Africa is of particular urgency, as the region has the highest under-five mortality rate of all developing regions: 191 child deaths per 1,000 live births”. This is underscored by recurrent outbreaks of cholera in both urban and rural areas, a situation that equally underlines the poor state of this region’s basic living conditions. This is a serious concern because of the associated massive health burden, as many people who lack basic sanitation engage in unsanitary activities like poor solid waste and waste water disposal, open defecation and other dirty habits. The practice of open defecation that is rampant in Africa is widely believed to be the primary cause of faecal oral transmission of disease with children being the most vulnerable.

    As if all these are not enough, there is also rapid and almost uncontrollable population growth and rural-urban migration. Despite the efforts of some Sub-Saharan African countries and cities to expand basic services and improve urban housing conditions, rapid and unplanned urban growth has increased the number of settlements on unstable, disaster-prone and high-risk land where diseases and other phenomena disasters with devastating consequences are prevalent. Among developing regions, Sub-Saharan Africa is estimated to have the highest prevalence of urban slums and it is expected to double to around 400 million by 2020. Again, this rising population is driving demand for water and accelerating the degradation of water resources in many countries on the continent.

    Africa has joined India and China as the third region of the world to reach a population of one billion people, and it is expected to double this by 2050, the UN says. By then, there will be three times as many people living in Africa’s cities, and the continent that had fewer than 500,000 urban dwellers in 1950 may have 1.3 billion. The breakneck transformation of a rural population into a predominantly urban one is neither good nor bad on its own, but the issue is that African countries should plan their cities better, to avoid mega-slums and vast areas of deprivation developing across the continent. This is because, in most slums in Africa, basic amenities like potable water, quick disposal of garbage, sanitation facilities and toilets are not available. People in slums face many battles. Besides poverty, the health situation is very bad. Since slums are considered illegal, the government feels no obligation to provide water and proper sanitation to slum dwellers. This high density and over-population means viruses and diseases can spread easily and cause epidemics. And when people are ill, there are not enough health services, doctors, nurses and medicines available for them, or even if these are available, people often lack the money to pay.

    The sickening living conditions in many African countries may not have attracted much attention from the global community all this while. However, the ravaging Ebola virus that is currently knocking at the doorstep of everybody has, once more, forced global attention on Africa. With the experience of Nigeria, where a Patrick Sawyer, an American-Liberian diplomat, imported Ebola into the country from Liberia, the whole world has suddenly woken up from slumber to the stark reality that the entire global community is at the risk of contacting the deadly virus. What this calls for is the need for global cooperation and strategy to combat the recalcitrant disease. Not rhetoric. Not empty promises!

  • Al-Makura’s Impeachment Debacle

    Al-Makura’s Impeachment Debacle

    Everywhere across the political landscape, the impeachment stuff has become a sort of epidemic or another version of Ebola virus that has so far defied any known cure. One of the governors now in the throes of impeachment is Umar Tanko Al-Makura of Nasarawa State. But a theatre of the absurd is now playing out there. The 20 PDP members in the state House of Assembly, who are the brains behind the impeachment drive, are not comfortable with the composition of the seven-man panel set-up by the Chief Judge of the state to investigate the governor. They are, therefore, calling for a recomposition of the panel. In the alternative, they have warned that the report of the panel as presently constituted will only be good for the dustbin. If that happens, a new dimension would have been introduced into the roiling impeachment saga now blowing across the country.

    The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria has laid down procedures for appointment and removal of governors of every state in the country. These provisions of the Constitution are sacrosanct and must be followed strictly. Sections 188 and 189 of the 1999 Constitution provide the only acceptable procedures for removal, or more commonly termed “impeachment”, of a sitting Governor. Section 188 lays down procedure for possible removal of a governor on grounds of “Gross Misconduct” while Section 189 gives the procedure for possible removal where a governor is alleged to be permanently incapable of holding office on health grounds – mental or physical health. However, the case in issue here is bordered on Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution.

    Now, the Nasarawa State House of Assembly recently set in motion the procedure in Section 188. So far, the procedure has been caught up in legal and political controversy. In a strictly legal sense, there are genuine points for debate which may have no easy answers as the matter stands. First, there are allegations that the State House of Assembly did not serve the notice of impeachment on the governor as provided in Sub-section 2 of Section 188. The legal implication of this is difficult to ascertain as Sub-section 10 of Section 188 seems to preclude contesting any matter relating to impeachment proceedings of the House of Assembly before any court, even though non service of the impeachment notice would be a violation of the constitutional provisions of section 188, if indeed no notice was served on the Governor.

    Secondly, there is the question of whether the State House of Assembly can direct the Chief Judge of the state to disband the panel constituted to investigate the allegations. That only the Chief Judge has the power to set up the panel is without doubt. The immediate question here is, did the Chief Judge adhere to the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 188 in appointing members of the panel, particularly the requirement that they must not be “members of any public service, legislative house or political party”? If any of them indeed falls in any of these categories, then the panel is illegally constituted; but can the House of Assembly direct the Chief Judge to disband the panel? Certainly not. This particular point, of the legality or otherwise of the constituted panel is justiciable and can only be determined in a court of law and not by the decision of the State House of Assembly. Added to this, the holding of a session out of the chambers and out of the state by the lawmakers is an absurdity unknown to Nigerian laws.  Although the constitution contains no express provisions for venue of a state House of Assembly session, it is ludicrous to assume that such can be held in the private house of a member, outside the state or even in a beer parlour as some of these reckless assemblymen might want to do.

    In the midst of the brewing accusations and counter-accusations, we should not forget what the intention of the draftsmen of the 1999 Constitution was in apportioning a critical role for the Chief Judge of the state in the middle of an otherwise fully legislative procedure. That particular provision was inserted purely following the principle of checks and balances, a practice that ensures that no arm of government has a free reign or monopoly of power in performing its functions. This is why certain executive decisions are subject to the confirmation of the Senate for instance (and vice-versa) and why the Judicial Review and the likes of the writ of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus, amongst others, are available to the judiciary to curb excesses by officials in other arms of government.

    The principle of checks and balances is a complement to the principle of separation of powers which ensures that division of powers is no licence for one arm to use its powers arbitrarily. The Chief Judge whose role in the impeachment process is to check and balance the powers of the legislature must, in turn, ensure that his function is performed judicially and judiciously in line with constitutional procedures. It is no surprise that the Nigerian Government in successive administrations has rubbished these sacred principles expounded by renowned scholar, Baron De Montesquieu, in the Eighteenth Century.

    It is obvious from the surrounding circumstances that the constitutional procedure laid down in Section 188 and sacred constitutional principles are being overshadowed by cheap politicking and selfish interests from all quarters. If, indeed, the impeachment notice was not served, despite coming after the Nyako saga, then the proceedings have been tainted from the very beginning by disregard for legal procedure. That means that something dangerous is pervading the entire gamut of our polity as the rule of law is continually shoved aside to make way for political agendas. And everybody is a victim of the disrespect for the law, including the probably “unsuspecting perpetrators” themselves. The spine of the law is not just in sanctions but in people’s adherence to it and the impulse of everyone at all levels to obey. A lawless state is a throwback to the dark days of the human race, and selective application of the law is a worse evil to an organised society. The House of Assembly and the Chief Judge cannot feign ignorance of laws that are so directly applicable to their normal course of duties. Their non-adherence, if true, can only be considered an affront to the law and against the people.

    The drama that is currently playing out in Nasarawa State is a pointer to the fact that most of this impeachment nonsense all over the place is designed to get rid of political opponents at all costs. In the past, we had witnessed a situation where a handful of legislators who are not even up to one-third of the House of Assembly have ganged up to remove their governors. In many cases, this is done for pecuniary gains. And now it is as if history is repeating itself. I am sure a lot of right-thinking Nigerians, irrespective of ethnic, tribal or political differences, are amazed by this sad development in the polity. The truth is that this thing is predominant in opposition-controlled houses of assembly all over the place.

    What this current gale of impeachment signposts is that our dubious politicians, ever so cunning and diabolical in political permutations, have discovered new tricks to wrestle political power from their opponents without necessarily going through the ballot box. As it is, impeachment is now a shortcut to power. It is in this vein that our politicians, especially at the legislative arm of government, have introduced new dimensions into the exercise of the power of impeachment. This power is being grossly abused as it is now being exercised, not necessarily as a panacea for gross misconduct, but simply to settle political scores. The opposition of the House members to the composition of the investigative panel and their threat to dump the report has exposed the shenanigan and hitherto hidden agenda of the legislators and their paymasters. That agenda is to nail Al-Makura at all costs. If this unwholesome practice is allowed to fester, it is our democracy that will suffer, albeit, irreparable damage.

  • Nigeria: Terrorism without end

    Nigeria: Terrorism without end

    In January 27, 2000, that is, in the early days of the current democratic dispensation, a sitting state governor, now a Senator of the Federal Republic, introduced the Islamic Sharia law in the governance of his state. Of course that singular event set the ball rolling in the northern part of the country where the people are predominantly Muslims, as state governors fell over one another to establish Sharia law in their states to secure their ‘imperial thrones’.

    This brought all manners of religious preachers to the scene. Even if they were there before, the new regime of Sharia law was like a catalyst that invigorated them to go all out to win followers. As a bait to win more disciples, they introduced what is now derisively known as “stomach infrastructure”. This means attending to the needy constituted by the poor and those in the lower rung of the social ladder who were in need of the basic necessities of life – food, clothing and shelter. And because of the pervasive poverty in this part of the country, people came flocking in, in their hundreds and thousands. A time bomb was gathering.

    The time bomb exploded in July 2009, five years ago, when Mohammed Yusuf, who  founded the Islamist group, now popularly known and called Boko Haram, meaning “Western education is a sin”, in 2002 and his group of disciples engaged the Nigeria security forces in a bloody confrontation in Maiduguri, capital of Borno State, North-east Nigeria. The group’s official name is “Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad”, which in Arabic means “People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad”. Yusuf was killed on July 30, 2009, exactly five years ago today, in that sectarian violence. Since then, thousands of lives and property running into billions of Naira have been consumed by the orgy of killings and arson which has virtually enveloped the three states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe in the north-east of the country. Also, the violence has led to collateral damages in human and material resources in the contiguous states of Bauchi, Gombe, Kaduna and Kano as well as Abuja, the seat of government, and other places.

    A recent report released by Bath, a United Kingdom, UK- based group said, while the global average in terrorists’ attacks is two deaths per attack, Nigeria, Africa’s biggest economy, suffers from the world’s deadliest terror attacks, with an average of 24 deaths per incident out of 146 recorded between January and June. During this period, it said, Nigeria recorded 3,477 deaths as violence by Boko Haram grew in scale and sophistication. According to the report, the latest figures represent a doubling of the 1,735 deaths recorded in the previous year through June 2013.

    In spite of promises by the federal government that the Boko Haram’s mindless killings and large-scale destruction of properties in the country will soon be a thing of the past, recent happenings indicate that the menace is far from being over. Perhaps, a better way to put it is that it is waxing stronger. While the whole world agonises over the forced abduction and continued incarceration of more than 200 innocent schoolgirls since April 15, by the Boko Haram terrorists, villages in the North-east are still daily being overrun and pillaged by the bandits. Their activities are not limited to the North-east alone as they make regular incursions to other northern states like Bauchi, Kaduna, Kano and others. Even Abuja is not immune from their rapacious killings and destructions.

    Only last week, the terrorists hit both Kaduna and Kano causing panic all over the place. There were twin explosions in Kaduna. The first explosion was targeted at Dahiru Bauchi, a popular Islamic cleric, while the second was targeted at Maj. Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, a former Head of State and leader of the opposition political party, the All Peoples Congress, APC. Bauchi had just delivered a Ramadan lecture (tafsir) at the Murtala Square, Kaduna and was driving through the busy Alkali Road in the city centre when his attacker struck. Similarly, a suicide bomber hauled explosives at the convoy of the former Head of State near the 1 Mechanised Division of the Nigerian Army in the Kawo area of Kaduna. The Toyota Prado conveying him and one of the cars in the convoy were hit. Though scores of people were injured and several cars were damaged in the two incidents, both Buhari and Bauchi escaped unhurt.

    On the same day, Buhari and Bauchi convoys were attacked; a refrigerator that was being loaded into the luggage compartment of a luxury bus in Kano exploded killing no fewer than five people. The refrigerator was suspected to be bearing a time bomb. Again, last Sunday in the ancient city, five persons died when terrorists hurled explosives from the window of a school at church building as worshippers were leaving after a mass. Elsewhere in the city on that same day, a female bomber who had concealed explosives under her hijab was blown to shreds when the bomb suddenly exploded.

    By far, the Kaduna explosions have generated a lot of debate because of the personalities involved. Bauchi might have been targeted by the terrorists for speaking out against their satanic exploits in many of his preaching lately. Buhari too has spoken vehemently against the activities of Boko Haram at many fora and also recently criticised the government for not doing enough while the nation burns. But some people are saying that the attempt on Buhari was the handiwork of government agents. This may be due to some unsavory experiences we have had in this country. Nigerians have witnessed government-sponsored assassinations in the past in this country, especially in the dark days of military dictatorship, and will not wish for a reoccurrence of such barbaric and animalistic behaviour in a democratic setting like ours. The truth is that no Nigerian, whether prominent or poor, deserves to be killed for any reason by anybody, except if the law approves such. Life is precious and it must be treated as such. Let us eschew bitterness from our politics.

    Personally, I believe Buhari could have been a target of the terrorists because he spoke against them. This culture of silencing anybody that stands in their way has been an operational strategy employed by these hoodlums to drive fears into the people. On Friday, November 2, 2012, Muhammed Shuwa, a general and civil war veteran was murdered in his house in Gwange 1 area of Maiduguri metropolis. Less than three months after, an attempt was made on the life of Ado Bayero, the late Emir of Kano, who narrowly escaped being killed on the street of Kano by the whiskers on Saturday, January 19, 2013. Since then, many more prominent people, including Emirs, have been targeted and or killed by the terrorists simply because they regard them as standing in their way.

    However, we should not lose sight of the fact that these terrorists are criminally intelligent people whose ploy could have been to get Buhari out of the way and thereby precipitate widespread unrest in the polity. Naturally, the death of such a man under an unclear circumstance as that of last week cannot go without causing maximum commotion, especially given his role in the present political dispensation. We thank God that he is alive, hale and healthy. My only worry now is the obvious delay by the security agents in urgently addressing this new form of crime. This delay will further embolden these agents of lawlessness and messengers of death to inflict more harm on defenceless citizens.

    And so, the ominous wave of apprehension now hovering in the air will continue unabated as the dreaded merchants of death remain forever on the prowl, skillfully plucking their targets, waiting, watching and perfecting new strategies in the now thriving and grueling enterprise of systematic elimination of fellow men. But can the security agents ever rise up to the challenge? Time, certainly, is not on their side!

  • FRSC: Who succeeds Chidoka?

    FRSC: Who succeeds Chidoka?

    The race to succeed Osita Chidoka, the outgoing Corps Marshal and Chief Executive, (COMACE), of the Federal Road Safety Commission, FRSC, is on. Chidoka was recently nominated as a minister representing Anambra State in the Federal Cabinet. His nomination was ratified by the Senate last week and he may be sworn in today as the country’s Minister of Aviation. In that case, he will be replacing Stella Oduah, the former minister, who was relieved of her appointment a few months ago in controversial circumstances.

    Recent newspapers’ speculations say several people both within and outside the commission have thrown their hats into the ring to succeed Chidoka. Good. But my concern here is that the government should be mindful of whoever is chosen to step in as the new COMACE. The reason is that every programme of the FRSC since inception in 1988 has been on the recycling mode: drivers license, number plate etc without any new or significant idea being brought on the table. This may probably be one of the reasons why people are rooting for outsiders as those inside had not been able to guide outsiders that were brought in with new ideas or, perhaps, those inside too have no new ideas about how to remove deaths from our roads. This is why it has become exigent for the government to make a good choice of a new COMACE, somebody who will fit in perfectly well and be able to enhance the operational capabilities of the commission. This will leave a level of confidence in the minds of road safety professionals.

    I learnt that the government is actually under intense political pressure to outsource the next Corps Marshal. In this regard, the name of a retired general has continuously been bandied about. The truth is that the task of enforcing sanity on our roads is not a job for a military man either serving or retired. Not even for any other person outside the road safety professionals who are not in short supply in the country. That is why the government must consider merit to pick a suitable candidate for the job. It will be a great disservice to the current crop of tested, dedicated, hardworking and highly skilful road safety professionals in the country if the government succumbs to the frenetic pressure being mounted on it by fortune seekers to take over the operation of the FRSC. In the quest for merit, the government should also consider some of the pioneering officers who may have left the organisation but are still in the profession and have garnered more experience that could move the organisation to a higher level.

    For many years, the FRSC has been quite unfortunate in the choice of chief executives which seems to have been permanently brought under the vagaries of politics and politicians. If this trend is allowed to continue, it would be tantamount to the Biblical saying that “it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”. The interpretation of this is that it will be easier for a politician who has nothing particular to offer to head the commission, than for a thoroughbred professional in the road safety sector, to aspire to lead the FRSC. In other words, it would be professionally diminishing, suffocating and even suicidal for the FRSC to be constantly brought under the leadership of neophytes and non-starters in road safety matters. I believe the time has come for the government to insulate the commission from politics and political fortune seekers who have nothing tangible to offer than the quest for filthy lucre in the guise of political patronage.

    In my recent discussion with someone who is well groomed in road safety matters, he told me that there seems to be a dearth in the development of new ideas in FRSC. According to him, “FRSC has a purposeless leadership with a spineless and clueless followership”. If this is true, now is the time to reorder the operation of the commission. With a politician in charge, there is no way the activities of the FRSC would not be politicised one way or the other. If this happens, professionalism will become endangered, morale will be at the lowest ebb, while accountability will take flight. Yet a Corps Marshal is expected to lead a commission that is so richly endowed with a crop of dedicated, well-trained and hi-tech generation of young officers who are very prepared to give their outmost best in the discharge of their duties to their fatherland. It is, therefore, pertinent to allow merit to guide the choice of a new helmsman for the commission from the existing road safety professionals in the country rather than bringing just anybody out of mere political patronage.

    The first COMACE of the commission at inception in 1988 was Olu Agunloye, who held sway from 1988 to 1995. He laid the building blocks of the commission under a Governing Board headed by Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, as chairman. It was under their stringent watch that the commission took off, and rapidly became a household name within a few years of its existence. In fact, some of the present crops of senior officers were the first set of officers in the commission at its establishment in 1988. There are also some of them who have left with good records but are still very active in the propagation of road safety ideas and ideals. All of them have gone through the evolution and metamorphosis which have seen the FRSC transform to a formidable government parastatal that it is today. These officers are well-trained and properly immersed in the rudiments and complexities of road safety so much that they can stand their own in the comity of road safety practitioners anywhere in the globe.

    Agunloye was succeeded by Gen. Haladu Hananiya, whose appointment was a form of political rehabilitation. It was under his watch that the commission was almost polarized along North-South divide, a situation that left a deep scar on the integrity of the commission. Perhaps, this is one of the reasons why people are so worried and concerned about who takes over from Chidoka. It is true that Chidoka himself was an outsider when he was brought in as COMACE about seven years ago, but because of his enthusiasm coupled with his previous experience in government’s bureaucracy, he was able to learn the ropes fast. He may not have been perfect in the discharge of his duties as COMACE during his tenure, but by and large, he demonstrated an uncommon zeal and desire to excel.

    Those who are rooting for an outsider to be appointed as COMACE are drawing inspiration from a section in the existing FRSC’s Act.  Section 7(1) of the Federal Road Safety Commission (Establishment Act) 2007 says: “There shall be a Corps Marshal who shall be appointed by the President and who shall be a person possessing sound knowledge or ability in the organisation and administration of road traffic and road safety measures”. Though this may appear to make the choice of a new COMACE flexible, fluid and at the discretion of the President, nonetheless, emphasis should be on continuity and competence if the commission is not to be turned into a dumping ground for politicians and professional misfits. Such politicians will only come to sow the seed of acrimony, witch hunt and destabilise an otherwise well-focused, well-positioned and progressive government establishment that has so far made appreciable impact on safety on our roads.

    After more than 26 years of operation, during which time both the officers and men of the commission have acquainted themselves creditably well in the discharge of the onerous responsibility of keeping our roads safe or, at least, minimising carnage on our roads, it will be most appropriate for the government to appoint a professional as the next COMACE, of the commission. By doing this, the government would have done so well to sustain the gains of the commission over the years.

  • Reminiscing about Odukomaiya @ 80

    Reminiscing about Odukomaiya @ 80

    It was Arthur Gordon, famously known as “Art” Linkletter, a Canadian-born American radio and television personality (July 17, 1912 – May 26, 2010), who said: “There are four stages of man: infancy, childhood, adolescence…and obsolescence”. In all through these stages, the first two – infancy and childhood- though form the building blocks of a man’s life, are hardly well documented like the events of the other stages of his life. That is why it is safe to conclude that growing old, gracefully, is something to cherish, especially when you have played your part so well in life. For Prince Henry Olukayode Odukomaiya, who clocked 80 last Thursday, July 10, he has played his part well. If you had come across him during his busy days as a journalist, of course, I have no apology for not saying his active days in Nigeria journalism, because the man is damn still active. Not ‘obsolete’. Not expired either. The story of his meteoric rise in his chosen profession has been properly placed in the public domain by the man himself in series of interviews in the newspapers.

    Odukomaiya is a product of the late Babatunde Jose’s hard-nosed journalism school. After his stint with the Daily Times, where he rose to be the Editor, he was invited by the late business mogul, Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, otherwise known as M.K.O. Abiola, to pioneer his Concord group of newspapers as the first Editor-in-Chief. A few years after his exit from Concord, he was again invited by multi-millionaire businessman, Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, to set up and become the first Editor-in-Chief of Champion newspapers. You may wonder why Odukomaiya was such a hot cake that was sought after by every investor that wanted to put his money in the newspaper business. The reason is simple. Odukomaiya is a thoroughbred journalist of the highest professional hue who handles news publishing with a fiendish fervor that would make investors and practising journalists anywhere in the world green with envy.

    Myfirstencounter with Baba, as Odukomaiya was then called, was in 1988. On the day I met him, I had gone to the corporate headquarters of the Champion newspapers in Lagos, armed with a letter from the late Frank Russel, and addressed to the late Alhaji Jamiu Fola Ashiru, who was then an Executive Director with Champion newspapers. As soon as Alhaji Ashiru opened the letter, he asked me a few questions which I promptly answered.  There and then, he led me out of his office to Baba’s office. We met Baba who was busy working on some materials on his table. Nevertheless, he took time off to listen to Alhaji Ashiru who introduced me to him and showed him the letter from Russel. Baba asked me a few questions too after which he invited Emma Agu, the editor. I was later told to report for work within a few days.

    I had a challenging but highly rewarding engagement in the almost three years I spent in Champion newspapers from December 1988 to June 1991. Baba was a no-nonsense administrator, thoroughly professional and very strict on matters relating to the ethics of the journalism profession. He led by example. He was always the last to leave office and often returned early every day. On a normal day, Baba resumed at work at about 8 a.m and remained permanently in the office, except there were official engagements to be attended to outside the office, till about 8:30 pm, Monday to Friday. On Saturdays, he came in around noon and stayed till about 8:30pm. On Sundays, he came in immediately after Sunday service at about 1 to 2pm and remained till around 8:30pm. During his days at the helm of affairs, the rule was that whoever was driving out of the compound should open his car booth to enable the security men to undertake a check before driving out. Most evenings, Baba drove himself. As soon as he got to the gate in his lemon-coloured Peugeot 505 saloon car, Baba would stop and personally come down to open his booth for the security men to do their job. He never missed it.

    There was no lazing around whenever Baba was in the office and everybody knew this. Whenever he was coming in, his presence was always heralded by commotion, particularly among those who would have gathered at the reception area doing nothing. As soon as his car was sighted, you would find people falling over one another to escape to their various offices. For the members of the editorial department, each day was like writing examination. Usually, Baba held a copy of the first edition of the newspaper and went through from the front page to the back page as a routine every day. In the process, he did a lot of markings with either green or red biro to point out errors which might either be in the casting of the headlines, typographical or punctuation errors, transposition, wrong bylines, wrong photo illustrations, bad captions, wrong application of in-house styles and many others.

    So, naturally, even if you call yourself an editor, there was another superior editor somewhere in the person of Baba who was ever willing and ready to summon you at the sight of the slightest mistake or error in the newspaper. Depending on how grievous the error or mistake was, you could either earn a verbal warning, especially for a first offender or a suspension or even a sack or dismissal, whatever the case may be. If you are in the production department, if the error or mistake warranted using additional materials like films, plates and others, you were instantly surcharged. That strictness kept everybody on his toes as long as you wanted to remain a staff of Champion newspapers. Here was a man who took active interest in whatever went on in the company from the highest quarters to the bottom of the company’s organogram.

    However, Baba’s work does not terminate in the office or during official hours alone. He carries his work to his house where he maintains an office complete with all gadgets. This was the area I had the greatest of my challenges. Every evening, on his way out of the compound, Baba stopped by in my office located on the ground floor to oversee what was going on at the proof–reading section and also to find out how quick production was going. As he made to leave, the usual refrain was: “Dele, give me the first call at 2:30 am. I have a lot to clear on my table”. What this means is that though he had closed for the day in the office, he would want to be woken up from sleep at 2:30 am in other to do some work. This could either be some office work, simply reading or putting things together for another hectic day in office.

    Baba is a workaholic. From morning till night, when he closed, he was always working on his desk. He ate right there in his office. Some afternoons, when he felt like relaxing, especially on Sundays, you could enter his office and see some fried, peppered ‘goat meat’ on a saucer on his table with a bottle of ice-cold, chilled beer, usually Harp, waiting to be gulped down. He is kind, humane with a listening ear. At the same time, Baba does not brook any nonsense as he is quick to temper but his anger subsides as quickly as it rises. That is Baba’s nature and I am told he is still like that. Just don’t play any pranks with him and you will be the best of friends.

    Mary Kathleen Turner, popularly known as Kathleen Turner, 60-year-old (born on June 19, 1954), American actress, singer and stage director, once shrugged off an inquisitive reporter who was all over her determined to know her age, by saying: “Professionally, I have no age”. Odukomaiya’s exceptional contributions to Nigerian journalism practice must have attracted eminent Nigerians who gathered in Lagos last Thursday to celebrate with him as he joined the Octogenarian club.  Though, now an Octogenarian, professionally, Baba is ageless!

     

  • Wild, wild soldiers

    Wild, wild soldiers

    It has become a recurring decimal in our national life. I mean the satanic practice of armed security agents unleashing terror on the populace and destroying public properties at the slightest provocation. And there is no security agency – be it the military, police, civil defence or what have you – that is left out in this perennial ‘madness’. But the worst culprits are military men. Last Friday, they were at it again as Ikorodu Road, Lagos was turned into a ‘theatre of war’ by soldiers who were said to be protesting the death of one of them, a lance corporal, who allegedly died in an accident involving his power bike and a commuter bus belonging to the state government.

    According to reports, the soldiers went on the rampage in the early morning of that day around Palmgrove and Onipanu areas of the ever-busy Ikorodu Road. They were said to have destroyed buses belonging to the Bus Rapid Transit, otherwise known as BRT, owned by the Lagos State government and brutalised residents. At the end of the melee, several buses were allegedly set ablaze. Apart from the burnt buses, many others were said to have been vandalised with their windows smashed and tyres punctured. That was not all. Journalists and curious residents who attempted to take photographs or make recordings at the scene of the mayhem were not spared as phones, cameras, tablets and iPads were confiscated and smashed by the rampaging soldiers. The soldiers also ordered the people passing along the route to raise their two hands in the air, as if they were in Sambissa.

    But trust our security agents and their inexorable capacity to concoct and manufacture lies. Pronto Rightman Ogeh, spokesman for the Army formation in Yaba, Lagos, denied that the soldiers from the unit were responsible for the mayhem. Instead, he blamed the ‘area boys’ for the escalation of the problem. Though Ogeh admitted that the soldiers from the unit were aggrieved that the soldier who was knocked down was allowed to die because no one took the initiative to rush him to a hospital, he still exonerated his men. According to Ogeh, “A soldier, who was passing through the bus stop saw the soldier and called the office… By the time we got there, we realised that our colleague was inside the bus already dead. He was riding a licensed motorcycle. So, why was he not taken to the hospital until he died? Of course, our men were angry and we decided that no BRT bus would be allowed to pass through the road”.

    While denying that the soldiers burnt the BRT buses, Ogeh puts the blame on miscreants, who, he said, perpetrated the act. Hear him: “When things like this happen, you will hear different versions, but I can tell you that soldiers did not burn the buses. It is possible that some ‘area boys’ carried out the act. No one was harassed by soldiers; we only stopped some people who were taking pictures and wanting to film the area.”  In the same vein, the 81 Division of the Nigerian Army also exonerated his men. In a statement signed by the Deputy Director, Public Relations, Lt. – Col. Omale Ochagwuba, the army alleged that one of its personnel was killed by a BRT bus, but claimed that soldiers did not carry out reprisals. According to Ochagwuba, “…when the other soldiers who witnessed the incident rushed to the scene, the driver of the bus ran away with the key. The soldiers then secured the vehicle which was later towed away to safety in our custody. ‘Area boys’ then took advantage of the incident and started attacking BRT buses… Our personnel were immediately dispatched to the scene to restore normalcy so that traffic could flow.”

    Both Ogeh and Ochagwuba’s claims were quickly debunked by the management of the BRT buses. Nonye Onwumere, the Public Relations Officer of the company, said, “On Thursday night, a red LAGBUS, which is run by Mutual Assurance and marked Mo63 broke down on the Ikorodu Road before Palmgrove Bus Stop. Early in the morning, around 7.15am, a soldier on a bike, driving on top speed, rammed into the stationary bus. After the accident, three female and two male soldiers going to work alighted from a vehicle to help their colleague. After seeing the extent of the accident, they gathered and became violent, stopping all BRT buses and ordering the passengers down. They beat some of the passengers and the BRT personnel, and then set some of our vehicles ablaze. They did not even care to know that our BRT are different from the red buses.”

    From these narrations by Ogeh, Ochagwuba and Onwumere, it is not too difficult to decipher who was telling the truth and who was just cooking up stories to cover their tracks. Only those who have ever fallen victim to all forms of brutality visited on hapless Nigerians in the past, especially in a situation like that of last Friday, can appreciate the depth and extent of inhuman treatment usually meted out on people by our uniformed men. While many eye witnesses insisted that the violence was coordinated and carried out by soldiers, their spokespersons have laboured hard to wriggle out of blame. They were simply economical with the truth. I am sure they are conscious that the undisciplined act exhibited by the soldiers in their moment of temporary insanity that day clearly negates the ethics of service discipline that the military should be known for.

    Ogeh’s explanations cannot hold water. If, as he claimed, the soldiers were angry but no one was harassed, what method did they employ to prevent people from taking pictures and filming the incident? Was it by persuasion or brute force that the angry soldiers prevented people from recording the event? In any case, why was it important to prevent people from recording the event when the soldiers could have used such recordings to prove their innocence? That is why I believe that all these cock-and-bull stories are clever ways to pull cotton wool over the eyes of Nigerians and sell them a dummy about what actually transpired on that day. Even Ochagwuba’s claim that soldiers did not carry out reprisals is hollow and falls flat in the face of rational thinking. Why didn’t the other soldiers who witnessed the incident and rushed to the scene convey the lance corporal to the nearest hospital? In other words, what was more important: securing prompt treatment for the wounded soldier or securing the bus that was allegedly involved in the accident?

    Assuming it was ‘area boys’, as claimed by the Army, which took advantage of the incident and started attacking BRT buses, what efforts did the soldiers make to checkmate them?  They also claimed that their “personnel were immediately dispatched to the scene to restore normalcy so that traffic could flow”. Was any effort made by the soldiers to alert the police? Are soldiers now traffic wardens? Indeed, there are too many questions begging for answers. Moreover, in the history of such incidents in this country, soldiers are known for their penchant and proclivity for violence. So it is easy to conclude that what happened that day was a well-beaten track and behavioural pattern our soldiers are known for. This is quite unfortunate. The fact that four out of the more than 17 buses either vandalised or  torched were barely a month old in the BRT fleet shows that these soldiers don’t even value public property and the hardship they would cause commuters who have apparently been groaning that the buses were not even enough to cope with the demand. Apart from this, huge revenue was lost as the BRT buses were quickly withdrawn from their routes to prevent further damage to them.

    At any rate, if and when investigations finally identify these vandals, the appropriate thing to do is to demand compensation for the cost of damages to public property. We cannot afford another ‘unknown soldiers’ episode. Neither would we accept to trade ‘area boys’ for ‘area soldiers’. Chikena!