Category: Editorial

•A case of a prophet without honour in his own country; or simply a victim of Nigeria’s shambolic oil sector?

Alhaji Rilwanu Lukman, a former petroleum minister who passed away in Vienna, Austria, on July 21, made his mark as a technocrat on the petroleum front. In that sector, he held offices fit only for royals, both locally and internationally.

Yet, when his name comes up for mention, not a few raise their noses, like supercilious camels, with the query: if he was so good, why did he exit leaving behind a sick petroleum sector in the country?

That query is hardly fair, for Nigeria’s eternally ill petroleum sector is no fault of one man. So, using the sick petroleum industry to blight the memory and legacy of a man, at his passage, would appear unfair.

Yet, the query is not totally unfair: Alhaji Lukman was one of the leading lights in that sector. If it had turned out nice, he would have taken the glory. Now that it has turned out nasty, shouldn’t he take part of the blame?

At the end of the day, however, the late Lukman was only one man, who tried his best under very challenging circumstances.

There was no doubt about his near-eternal appeal, his durability on the local sphere: Minister of Mines and Power (1984-1985); Minister of Petroleum Resources, and chairman, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC (1986), Minister of Foreign Affairs (January to September 1990) and chairman, Board of Directors, National Electric Power Authority (1993-1994) — all under military rule.

With the return to democracy in 1999, Alhaji Lukman became President Olusegun Obasanjo’s Special Adviser on Petroleum and Energy Matters, with the president himself the oil minister, honorary (unpaid) adviser on Energy and Strategic Matters to President Umaru Yar’Adua (August 2007), Minister of Petroleum Resources (December 2008-2010). He left that office on  March 17, 2010, when then Acting President Goodluck Jonathan dissolved the cabinet.

Even if many a cynic could dismiss Alhaji Lukman’s intimidating ministerial log at home, what of his even more intimidating international log, as either Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Secretary-General (1995-2000) or president, serving eight consecutive terms from 1986?

If Alhaji Lukman was a careerist as many a critic would suggest, or his ministerial long life was due to alleged northern domination of the political space, would those two factors also explain his durability at OPEC, where as secretary-general, he emerged as compromise candidate when two candidates, Dr. Subroto of Indonesia and Hossein Kazempour Ardebili of Iran, could not stand down for each other?

The fact is, despite his perceived faults by those just angry with the Nigerian system, Alhaji Lukman had a few things going for him. For starters, he was a mining engineer, who first trained at the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, and later at Imperial College, London, before earning a higher degree in Mining Engineering at the University of Mining and Metallurgy, Leoben, Austria. He also earned a degree in Mineral Economics from McGill University, Montreal, Canada. So, he had basic competence in the sector of the economy in which he played.

Then at OPEC, his ability as a team player and compromise builder stood him in good stead. For instance, he was instrumental to striking agreements in oil cuts, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, to implement OPEC’s decision to cut output, to raise crude prices. That was when prices plummeted as a result of oil glut.

Alhaji Lukman, who received an honorary doctorate in chemical engineering from the University of Bolgnia, Italy, may not have bequeathed his country an enviable oil industry, running on squeaky clean accountability. But it is tribute to his own personal integrity that he was generally perceived straight and austere. In a crooked Nigerian system, he tried his best. No, that best was not good enough to change the system. But it should motivate other decent people to have a crack at the problem.

In a degenerate generation, Alhaji Lukman played his role and exited. May Allah grant him rest. May He also console and comfort the family he left behind.

•Governor Fashola’s new maternity and paternity laws brings a human face to family values

Although the idea of maternity leave has been with us in Nigeria for decades, that of paternity leave appears novel. Perhaps it is common among some non-governmental organisations, but not in government service or even in the private sector. But the Lagos State government has reworked its guidelines on maternity leave, such that fathers of new-born babies in the civil service are now entitled to 10 working days paternity leave, in relation to and at the time of their spouses’ first two deliveries. Similarly, the government has extended the maternity leave for its female civil servants from the present three months to six months, with full pay.

The state head of service, Josephine Williams, who unfolded this at a press conference at the Bagauda Kaltho Press Centre in Alausa, Lagos, said however that the leave, which would commence at least two weeks before the expected delivery date would apply in the case of a nursing mother’s first two deliveries. “Any third and subsequent deliveries by any employee shall only attract 12 weeks maternity leave for female officers, while the male officer shall not be entitled to paternity leave in that circumstance …” she said.

We commend this kind gesture by the Lagos State government which is in line with what obtains in some parts of the world. As the government rightly noted, most nursing mothers abandon their babies to nannies at tender ages under the old leave regime, which is neither beneficial to the babies nor the mothers. While the babies could not get the desired motherly attention, the mothers too would find it difficult to concentrate at their duty posts because their minds would always be on the babies they left in the care of nannies. There would naturally be a situation of divided loyalty; one in which the mother is torn between her love for her job and that for her baby. This is exacerbated by reports of all kinds of abuses to which some of the nannies put the babies. As Williams observed, “However, at six months, a baby is considered strong enough to be left in a decent crèche for proper care, having gone through close affection and nurturing by the mother for those very important and delicate first few months of his or her life”.

Since the new leave regime affects only couples having their first two issues, child-bearing represents a new experience for both father and mother, which they need some time to master.   On the father’s part, the paternity leave would enable him to give the needed support to the spouse in the critical moments after child-birth, and, in our social milieu perhaps afford him the time to plan for the naming and recover from its hangover!

There are other advantages of the new policy. It is sensitive to the idea of child-bearing; it also conforms to the campaign of exclusive breast-feeding for six months for new-born babies. The fact that it is limited to the first two children is also a subtle campaign for family planning. We hope civil servants in the state would appreciate the kind gesture by being dedicated and productive in their various offices. The new policy should bring an end to the hanky-panky that some of them play when nursing babies by coming to sign the attendance register only to return home to take care of their babies.

We urge the beneficiaries of the new leave regime to utilise it strictly for the use for which it was meant. Parents, particularly mothers, need to devote full attention to their children, especially at such tender age so as to promote emotional bonding between them and the children when it matters most. We look forward to the day that the Federal Government, other state governments as well as the private sector would come up with a similar policy for children who are the country’s future leaders. We need it for a balanced family-work life.

• One of Africa’s most formidable writer-activists passes on

The widespread sorrow which greeted the death, at 90, of the South African activist, novelist and short-story writer, Nadine Gordimer, is a tribute to the social benefits of personal courage and the value of politically-relevant art. In an era where literary, musical and other artistes appear to have found compromise more profitable than commitment, Gordimer represents a distinguished coterie of writers who consistently spoke truth to power.

Her life reads like the fiction for which she became world-famous. The daughter of European immigrants to South Africa, Gordimer was brought up in a social context of racial privilege which she could have accepted like millions of fellow-whites in the racist enclave. It is a tribute to her moral integrity that she refused to do so, devoting all of her adult life to exposing the contradictions of apartheid and fighting for its complete eradication.

In novels like July’s People (19810, Burger’s Daughter (1979), The Lying Days (1953), Occasion for Loving (1963), and short-story collections like Face to Face (1949) and The Soft Voice of the Serpent (1952), Gordimer explored the ways in which a system of institutionalised racism brutalised both its victims and its ostensible beneficiaries, and thus created a society in which real progress was impossible. These and other works celebrated the inner strength of individuals who found the courage to look beyond stereotypes and prejudice, regardless of the seeming justifications of race, ethnicity and social class. The courage and artistry with which she wrote were rewarded by distinctions and honours from all over the world, culminating in the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1991.

Gordimer also walked her talk. She joined the African National Congress (ANC) at a time when the apartheid regime branded it a terrorist organisation, and treated its members as such. At great personal risk, she hid fugitive ANC leaders and was an outspoken advocate of its goals. She never lost an opportunity to denounce apartheid for the abomination that it was whenever she was outside the country, over time becoming one of the most respected anti-apartheid voices in the world. It is no surprise that when Nelson Mandela left prison to world-wide acclaim in 1990, she was among the first set of people that he wanted to see.

Unlike many politically-committed and socially-relevant writers, Gordimer was not an uncritical follower of the causes she supported. As an ANC member, she was well aware of its numerous flaws, but argued that it was counterproductive to criticise it while remaining outside its ranks. When President Thabo Mbeki infamously questioned the cause of HIV/AIDS, she openly disagreed with him, in spite of his impeccable credentials as a hero of the liberation struggle. She lamented the crime and xenophobia which have come to characterise the ‘Rainbow Nation’, and was particularly scathing of the current Zuma administration’s attempt to clamp down on freedom of expression through its so-called Protection of State Information Bill.

Nadine Gordimer was, in essence, the fullest manifestation of the engaged artist, one for whom art could not but function at its best within the ambit of the society that was its context. As she claimed, “To be a writer is to enter into public life.” It is an example that recommends itself to the African writers who are her literary descendants. Gordimer did not set out to “oppose” the authorities of her day in order to obtain a reputation; she did not seek to undermine the status quo for its own sake. She chose the route she embarked upon because it was so obviously the right thing to do. It was not easy. It was not convenient or comfortable. But it was right. Too many of Africa’s upcoming writers seem not to possess the courage of their convictions that is required to follow moral courses and causes, regardless of how difficult or unpopular they may seem. In Gordimer, they have a sterling example of what to do and how to do it.

May her soul rest in peace.

•U.S. Consul-General Hawkins and other election monitors must observe beyond the E – Day

The United States (U.S), the European Union (EU), Canada and a good number of the countries of the West have proved to be good allies to Nigeria in her quest for nationhood. Particularly so in the last quarter century that Nigeria has grappled with what seems like an onerous task of establishing a democratic system of government. These bastions of democracy have lent helping hands in seeing to the building of sustainable civil institutions in Nigeria, for the electioneering process, anti-corruption regimes ands civil society groups.

It must be noted that the US has been in the forefront of what seems like a crusade to steady this seemingly shambling giant and get her on the track of respectable civil rule and good governance. Since the ‘90s, it could be said that Uncle Sam has been particularly anxious to see that one of the key ingredients of democracy – electioneering – gets off on an even keel in Nigeria. The US has therefore supported the electoral body, both materially and in fortifying its institutional integrity. She has also consistently made a ritual of hands-on monitoring of elections across the country over the years. These are no doubt worthy and laudable gestures; remarkable labour of love worthy of commendation.

We are however, recently minded to call for caution following a statement credited to the US Consul-General in Nigeria, Mr. Jeffrey Hawkins, in which the top diplomat declared he would be leading a team of about 30 American observers to monitor the governorship election in Osun State on August 9. It was at the opening session of a four-day workshop for press and public affairs officers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) held early last week in Lagos.

At the event which was sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Hawkins enthused that the US government was happy with the successful conduct of the June 21, 2014 Ekiti governorship election, urging INEC to exhibit greater transparency as it seeks to replicate the feat in Osun State. Again, we applaud the concern and kind gesture of the US government and the enthusiasm of Mr. Hawkins. We acknowledge and appreciate particularly, the financial cost and logistical efforts required to have such large number of American observers, first in Ekiti and now Osun, but we call for a more holistic approach.

While it is largely believed that the Ekiti election was ‘successful’, some of the parties in the process are not so persuaded. They are sure something was amiss and one of them, the All Progressives Congress, APC, has sought legal redress. Also, we are witnesses to the overly militarisation of the state in the period running up to the election and how movement was restricted, especially with bias to the chieftains of one of the major parties while those of the ‘favoured’ party moved freely. Thus, the Ekiti election may have been free, it cannot be said to be altogether fair.

In other words, we insist that while E – Day monitoring is good, there may be need to pay some attention to certain conditions precedent to the Election Day. For instance, there has been complaint in Osun about the flawed process of voters’ registration right now and the use of heavily armed soldiers to ‘shock and awe’ some sections of the electorate.

We urge INEC and all concerned stakeholders not to overlook some of these complaints and other untoward dealings leading up to the Election Day. A free and fair election does not start and end on the Election Day, lest we confer legitimacy on a fraud.