Category: Editorial

•Neither Sulaiman nor Monye answered Buhari’s question on empty treasury

Two former officials in the President Goodluck Jonathan administration, Dr Abubakar Olanrewaju Sulaiman, and Prof. Sylvester Monye, goofed in their reactions to the claim by President Muhammadu Buhari that he inherited “virtually an empty treasury.” Sulaiman is former Deputy Chairman of the National Planning Commission (NPC) while Prof Monye was special adviser on monitoring and evaluation.

There is nothing wrong with people who should know putting the record straight, especially if they were active participants in the government or institution being wrongly criticised. But it is a different thing if those reacting to criticisms resort to mischief, which is what, to us, the two former aides to President Jonathan have done.

In the case of Dr Sulaiman, he said, contrary to President Buhari’s claim of meeting an empty treasury, the Jonathan administration left behind $2bn in the Excess Crude Account (ECA) and another $28bn in the external reserves, making a total of $30bn.

He however began to go off the mark the moment he attempted to make the past administration look holier than it was. “Are we saying the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and related agencies had not in the last one month been generating revenue? Until they are able to prove they had no receipts from these government agencies in the last one month before Nigerians can now buy into Mr. President’s claims of an empty treasury” he said.

Now, who is fooling whom? Even if those agencies have been generating money in the last one month, how does that form part of what the Buhari administration inherited? Secondly, Did the inputs from the parastatals amount to much, given that they avoided lodging earnings in the federation account? Thirdly, even if all such monies were paid into the Federation Account, what is the percentage, given that crude oil is the country’s economic mainstay?

Furthermore, going by Dr Sulaiman’s logic, the new government could not have inherited an empty treasury with Nigeria’s economy adjudged the largest in Africa and the 26th largest in the world in the Jonathan years. What is the correlation between this claim and the treasury? Again, his position that civil servants were not owed in the Jonathan years in spite of the drop in oil revenue is also false and misleading. Despite the robust income made by the Jonathan government, civil servants’ salaries had started being in arrears before his government was sent packing on May 29. If Dr Sulaiman had forgotten, we would like to remind him that the Federal Government and commissioners for finance had been having issues with revenue sharing long before the government left the stage.  We should not forget that former finance minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala confessed that the  the Federal Government borrowed to run its business in the first quarter of this year.

Finally, like Prof Monye, Dr Sulaiman too believed that there should not be an issue with a government incurring an empty treasury because all monies made by government are supposed to be spent. Hear Monye, “… It is not the issue of meeting empty treasury. The fundamental issue is, was there supposed to be anything in the treasury? That is the fundamental thing”, he added. He said the constitution stipulates that all monies made must go into the Federation Account and then shared among the tiers of government. True, but was this not obeyed more in the breach by that government?

If Dr Sulaiman and Prof Monye had nothing to say, they should have kept quiet instead of exhibiting ignorance or mischief in response to President Buhari’s claim. The president was apparently referring to the reckless spending of the Jonathan government which made it impossible for it to leave something reasonable for its successor. Even if the Jonathan government ensured that all the monies due the government were brought into the Federation Account, what did the government do with the money? These are the issues. Unfortunately, neither Dr Sulaiman nor Prof Monye clinically addressed these. Rather, they merely launched into the realm of mischief or simply put facts on their head.

‘If Dr Sulaiman and Prof Monye had nothing to say, they should have kept quiet instead of exhibiting ignorance or mischief in response to President Buhari’s claim. The president was apparently referring to the reckless spending of the Jonathan government which made it impossible for it to leave something reasonable for its successor’

• FG must come up with measures to stimulate local production 

THE fears in the local textile and furniture industries over the delisting of textile and furniture from the Import Prohibition List are expected even if we must quickly add that the decision is inevitable, in view of the circumstances under which it was done. The idea for removal of the two items from the list was mooted in the twilight of former President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, effective April 11, 2015. Expectedly, the recent resolve of the Nigeria Customs Service to implement the directive, as confirmed by Abdullahi Dikko, Comptroller-General of Customs, is heightening anxiety in the local textile and furniture sectors.

The delisting was done under the Import Adjustment Tax  (IAT) of the new Economic Community of West African States – Common External Tariff (ECOWAS-CET) regime involving about 15 countries in the ECOWAS sub-region. The CET policy that is subject to review every five years will enable Nigeria Customs Service ensure that by 2020, none of the currently banned items would be on its Import Prohibition List.

The silence of the current administration has amplified fretfulness among the local manufacturers of these products, especially against the background of the recent directive from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to deny access to foreign exchange by  some sectors, including furniture and textiles.

We are not oblivious of the negative implications of this directive, more so on the sustainability of the capacity utilisation of local industrial plants that currently stands, sadly, at a vastly discouraging 30 per cent in an economy that yearns for employment generation to accommodate the millions of unemployed graduates in the land. We doubt whether there was deep thinking before the Federal Government came up with its N50 billion intervention fund for the textile sector. The repayment terms of the facility will definitely be imperilled by this latest delisting since that sector and the furniture industry will now be exposed to influx of cheap imported commodities.

Already, the textile market is saturated with over 85 percent imported printed fabrics most of which are sub-standard fabrics from Asian and neighbouring African countries. Unfortunately, apart from the government’s intervention fund, the Bank of Industry’s (BoI) ongoing 44 financed projects under its Cotton, Textile and Garment (CTG) intervention fund with a loan profile of N46.89 billion, and five projects under wood and leather sector intervention fund that had gulped N1.93 billion are under imminent threat. Will all these huge credit facilities be wasted because of policy approbation and reprobation by the government?

The way things stand, and in view of the globalisation treaty to which Nigeria is a party, it might be difficult for her to arbitrarily repudiate the treaties/protocols because of likely sanctions, no matter how inconsequential. We will therefore not encourage any infraction of treaties voluntarily signed by the country. At the same time, the self-first instinct, despite the globalisation policy, dictates that the nation should not imperil her economy. This is why the government should forthwith throw up incentives that will mainly cater to the interests of local industries to avail them the opportunity of competing favourably with their foreign counterparts. Power supply, among others, is important here.

The Nigeria Customs Service should realise the need to be strict and effective in applying the correct levies and duties on these unbanned items to earn desired revenue for the government that is in dire need of money. This will stem the influx of just any textile or furniture items into the country. Our stand is that this or any other policies of government should not be allowed to endanger our furniture and  textile industries.

Sir: If it is in your power to keep Omobola Johnson in her position as the information and technology minister, please retain her.

She has shown that she understands the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) trade and she could do what is expected of her. The attention given the sector as a viable sector in Nigeria’s burgeoning market has never been quite enormous as it had been in the last four years, and the gains accrued from technology-related initiatives within the period could only be better explained by well-meaning experts as foundational but essential.

My task since 2008 has been to monitor, analyse and report on ICT-related development across West Africa; from an end-users’ perspective.

It is the latter part of my task that makes Ms. Johnson’s role at the ministry somewhat different from previous handlers of the position. She blended easily with the flow in the changing technological trends in the world, and users (Nigerians) –rather than providers -have benefited more from the IT sector in the last few years. This is largely due to the conducive environment her ministry was able to create to enable the creativity and the untapped business acumen of several talented Nigerians to be put to proper use.

I agree that she could have done better, especially in taming the telcos, which have been trampling on everyone’s rights so as not to reduce cost for the benefit of final consumers but I think she can fix it. In fact, if she is to handle just that aspect for the next four years, it would be worth it. We all know that the Nigerian telecom service providers could be made to offer more to consumers. We all know they can do better.

I believe she could better address such issues head-on with another opportunity. Aside that she is in tune with developing trends, her sense of responsibility to service and her ability to connect with the public are, to me, commendable. These are key elements that I believe, as a public sector student myself, are potent when you are saddled with the responsibility to deliver with efficiency and effectiveness as a custodian of the people’s trust in a particular MDA.

Furthermore sir, if you agree that introducing an initiative on paper and implementing it require two different phases, please note that there is a greater general focus on the ICT sector today to accommodate empty promises  to Nigerians in that regard.

However, if my petition would not be considered on certain grounds, kindly ensure that you appoint someone truly capable of doing better than Johnson. Nigeria does not have an excuse to be playing catch up in Africa as far as ICT development is concerned.

• Olusegun I. Ogundeji,

Sierra-Leone

Yes, in the United States, Adam may now take Steve as his legally wedded wife in a same-sex ‘holy’ matrimony

The United States of America has finally crashed the last wall of resistance in the Western world against same-sex marriage. In a landmark judgment by the US Supreme Court, June 26, 2015, five justices against four ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is against the constitution.

 According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who delivered the majority lead judgment: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family”. Perhaps justifying the reason for this historic ruling, Kennedy expressed an especial concern and sensitivity to children in this kind of relationship, noting that: “…Their children suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”

Before this ruling, 37 out of 50 states in the US had already legalised and recognised same gender marriage. And 20 countries of the world, including the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and Belgium have either totally legitimised or given one form of consent or the other to gay marriage right. With this ruling, it has become a fait accompli for the few resisting states of US as they are now bound by law to recognise and indeed, license same-sex marriages in their domains.

It is indeed a historic judgment because with America now giving a free rein to the gay movement, the entire free world could be taken to have allowed what only a few years ago was an abomination which could lead to immediate and violent death for the victim. The question is that, is the contest between the ‘naturalists’ and the ‘un-naturalists’ finally over; is the battle won and lost now that America has finally gone gay? Maybe not entirely, but the ground covered so far holds significant implications for humanity in the years ahead.

The conservatives, the naturalists and religionists seem to have lost the battle as the issue moved rapidly in recent years from morality to the realms of law, individual freedom and human right. The argument of pro-gay people basically, is that same-gender co-habitation and copulation is the only type they know and that it is their ‘natural’ sexual preference. They think it is indeed ‘ungodly’ to deny them their right to co-habit, to love, to be loved, to matrimony and even ‘procreation’ among their kind.

The anti-gay world has, however, moved from being outraged by the very idea of a liaison between two men or women to the stage of confusion and the current acquiescence and surrender. Early gays would declare their inclination openly at their peril. They were stoned to death, discriminated against and ostracised. Today, they have completely left the closet. They have evolved from stealthy holding of hands and stolen moments to legitimised and elaborate wedlock.

Today, it has become politically incorrect, inelegant and indeed unlawful to as much as speak ‘ill’ of gay people. In some Western countries, homosexuals and bisexuals now stand proud and walk tall in their new-found freedom than the ‘normal’ heterosexual people. In fact, homophobe is the new, ‘ugly’ name for those who express concern about this imploding affair.

Both Christianity and Islam abhor homosexuality and describe it as sodomy. The Bible, the Christian canon holds same-sex cohabitation in utmost disdain and makes no excuses for people who engage in such sinful, if not evil act. Sodomy actually derives from the Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which God destroyed by fire in exasperation over the utter depravity of their inhabitants.

Opponents of homosexuality have also raised concerns about possible long-term effects of this new way of life. Some of these fears include: health issues associated with anal sex; procreation; the possible decimation of the human race and child rearing in same-sex homes. There are also fears that if same-sex relation is acceptable, people may begin to ask what is wrong with polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and other sexual deviations.

 As we have stated before, we still believe that homosexuality is not the natural design for humanity and that it cannot be unconnected to a severe psycho-social disorder that require medical attention. The world needs to be wary about opening what looks like the floodgate of the unknown upon the human race. We urge the so-called civilised world to tread a bit more cautiously and continue to interrogate this odd phenomenon.

Lastly, the West must desist from harrying and haranguing the rest of the world to get on this bandwagon. They must always remember that what is human right in one corner of the world could be taboo in another.

•Nigeria should federalise the solid minerals sector to expand the economy

A news report, in Vanguard newspaper, claims Nigeria loses about N50 trillion yearly because the bulk of mineral resources, buried nationwide, is not mined. Even if many could controvert the basis for this figure, there is no controversy that the mining sector of the Nigerian economy is near-comatose.

That is a clear bastion of wilful waste, even as the country faces a crunch, with dwindling cash from oil and gas.

The lull in the mining sector had not always been a way of life. Nigeria was the global largest exporter of columbite in the pre-and early independence years; aside from robust records in  lead and zinc mining, aside from the famous coal mines of Enugu; and the tin mines of Jos.

But the solid minerals sector got abandoned with the advent of oil and gas. With oil becoming the country’s revenue mainstay, the hitherto federalised operating laws that delivered the region-driven solid minerals mining activity and prosperity of the pre-independence era and the pre-military rule years became centralised. With seeming easy money from oil and gas from a central purse feeding the states, there was little impetus to challenge the centrist laws that decreed the Federal Government should monopolise the ownership and mining of solid mineral resources.

With the present turn of events, that situation must change. The Mining and Mineral Act of 2007 gives the Federal Government the exclusive rights to explore and exploit mineral resources, wherever located in the country.

The negative effect was two-fold: the central government, flushed with petro-cash, was in no hurry to dabble into robust mineral deposits exploration and exploitation, though it made a show of granting a slew of barren licences. Then, dog-in-a-manger fashion, the Federal Government kept at bay the state governments, which local revenue could be boosted by renewed mining activity. The net result is wilful waste.

Besides, because of Nigeria’s “nanny-economy”, which puts the states on a virtual federal dole, when they could themselves work their hearths, the states have not developed the capacity to take on fresh investments needed in solid minerals exploration and exploitation. Even where there are clearly established deposits in commercial quantity, the centralised mining and mineral laws give states little leeway to play in that sector, even in partnership with foreign investors.

With the petro-dollar crunch, and the urgent need to further diversify the economy and federalise resources, that legal regime must change. So, the Buhari Presidency should, in earnest, work with the National Assembly, to at least amend the 2007 law to make mining concurrent. But the eventual destination, under the federal doctrine, is to give states exclusive mineral rights, with the trade-off of each paying commensurate taxation into the central purse.

No doubt, there is an urgent need to exploit solid minerals to diversify revenue and boost the economy. But before that, conscious and deliberate efforts should be made to develop a robust market-cum-financial infrastructure, a policy that should reassure foreign investors; and point their attention to the untapped gold in the Nigerian earth; and the shared treasure assured, should they come invest in the country. Such a document, with a federalised legal regime, would strengthen the hands of the state governments or even a corps of states jointly investing in exploring and exploiting a certain mineral resource.

With all the pre-investment fundamentals fulfilled, a massive effort to create awareness and local and foreign markets for Nigeria’s metallic and non-metallic minerals like gold, zinc and gemstones like sapphire, aquamarine, topaz and emerald, just to mention a few, would be in order.

Sunny Ekosin, president of Miners’ Empowerment Association of Nigeria, told Vanguard Nigeria could gross N8 trillion yearly from gold alone. If true, and barring the notorious oil-era corruption, Nigeria might just be on the cusp of a new economy, with every part of the country driving its own wealth and paying appropriate taxes into the central purse.

That prospect is exciting and enchanting. But changing the present centrist legal regime is the key.

•Nigeria cannot go to sleep with the resurgence of EVD in Liberia

Just when the world thought the threat from the deadly Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) had become inconsequential, the potential consequences of a new death from the affliction in Liberia, which was declared Ebola-free on May 9, has justifiably set the alarm bells ringing again. The country was labelled safe after the standard 42 days without infections.

But all that has changed with the news of the death of an unnamed Liberian teenager, whose body tested positive for Ebola, prompting official efforts to trace people he may have had contact with. It is disturbing that Liberia has announced two more confirmed cases of Ebola infection resulting from physical contact with the 17-year-old victim before his death on June 28 in Margibi County, a rural area near the capital, Monrovia.

Even more unsettling, health officials appear clueless on how the victim caught the virus. To compound the development, there is speculation that he could have been infected by an entirely new variant of the virus from an animal such as a fruit bat, rather than from a human. There is also a worrying possibility that Ebola is alive and well under the surface, outside the focus of local or international health personnel.  The virus is transmitted through body fluids, and symptoms of infection include diarrhoea, vomiting, internal haemorrhaging and external bleeding.

Tragically, a total of 11,207 people have died from Ebola in Liberia, neighbouring Guinea and Sierra Leone since the December 2013 outbreak, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO); and about 43 percent of those deaths were in Liberia where the epidemic claimed hundreds of cases a week between August and October last year. Although WHO figures suggest that the spread of the virus has been arrested with only 12 new confirmed cases reported in Guinea and eight in Sierra Leone as at June, the fresh Liberian case has introduced a complication.

The situation is grave enough for Nigeria, which shares the West African sub-regional space with the countries at the heart of the Ebola epidemic, making it geographically vulnerable.  This reality was captured by the spokeswoman for the U.N. Ebola response mission, Fatoumata Lejeune-Kaba, in a reaction to the latest Ebola death in Liberia. “This should have been expected because as long as there is Ebola in the region, no one country can be safe. Liberia is vulnerable because of Guinea and Sierra Leone,” she was quoted as saying. In truth, so also is Nigeria because of its sub-regional neighbours.

The Liberian experience should be regarded and treated as a serious alert by the Nigerian authorities. In the circumstances, it would amount to sheer ostrichism if Nigeria chooses to bask in complacency on account of the declaration by WHO in October last year that the country had become Ebola-free, following a difficult four-month period during which 20 Ebola cases and eight related deaths were recorded.  It is worth recalling that Nigeria’s Ebola problem was triggered by the entry of an infected Liberian into the country.

It is relevant to quote the statement by WHO country representative in Nigeria, Rui Gama Vaz, saying that the Ebola storm was over. He said: “WHO officially declares that Nigeria is now free of Ebola virus transmission. The virus is gone for now. The outbreak in Nigeria has been contained. But we must be clear that we only won a battle. The war will only end when West Africa is also declared free of Ebola.”

As things stand, Nigeria should be vigilant to prevent an unwanted Ebola reappearance and ensure that its response capacity is primed. The development calls for protective measures based on a proactive approach. The country must not be caught napping.