The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • Onaiyekan at 70

    Onaiyekan at 70

    •A role model to other clerics

    Although it is theoretically possible that he could become Pope and head of the world’s over one billion Catholics,  even if John Cardinal Onaiyekan, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, does not eventually attain that status, he has soared significantly high as a priest. It was cheery news for Nigeria when Onaiyekan was made a Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in November 2012, demonstrating that the country was not without redeeming features, after all.

    This singular elevation, which makes him qualified for election to the exalted seat of the Vicar of Christ, was indeed a tribute to his devotion and exemplary priesthood. In January 2013, Pope Benedict appointed Onaiyekan to serve as a Member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and as a Member of the Presidential Committee of the Pontifical Council for the Family, positions he will hold until his 80th birthday.

    After spells as a teacher at St. Kizito’s College, Isanlu, and as rector of St. Clement Junior Seminary in Lokoja, he finished his Licentiate of Sacred Scripture in 1973 and earned his doctorate in 1976. He became the Bishop of Ilorin, Kwara State, following his ordination as bishop in 1983; by 1994 he became the Metropolitan of Abuja, and in 2000 he was elected President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria. He was in 2013 appointed by Pope Francis as the Apostolic Administrator ad nutum Sanctae Sedis of the Diocese of Ahiara in Imo State.   Onaiyekan, who turned 70 on January 29, has had a remarkable journey on the road of faith since he completed his religious studies in Rome in 1969, and was ordained as a priest in August of that year. It is noteworthy that the late Ahmadu Bello, former Premier of Nigeria’s Northern Region, who was a devout Muslim, reportedly offered him a scholarship to study abroad. This fact may have influenced Onaiyekan, who is noted for his open-minded disposition toward people of other faiths, especially Muslims.

    Perhaps there can be no recognition of his religious liberality greater than his celebrated 2012 nomination for the globally respected Nobel Peace Prize, which was even more striking on account of the status of his co-nominee, the Sultan of Sokoto, Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, Nigeria’s foremost Muslim spiritual leader. It is instructive that both religious leaders were prominent among top picks for the award, for having “spoken out against the misuse of religion in legitimating conflict.”

    In addition to his efforts in promoting inter-faith harmony in the country, which was a key aspect of his tenure as President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) from 2007 to 2010, Onaiyekan has projected commendable priestly conduct in the public space with his sedate personality and absolute lack of ostentation. His unsycophantic relationship with political power is also a distinguishing quality that should serve as a model, especially in these days of influence-seeking spiritual leaders who thrive on name-dropping.

    However, it would appear that Onaiyekan ought to exercise his undoubted moral voice more vigorously on behalf of the people, perhaps in the tradition of liberation theology, by regularly speaking truth to power. It is evident that the country is going through a crisis of material and spiritual dimensions, with the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots and the disturbing resort to violence and destruction in the name of religion.

    At age 70, it is that period of human life when, given his rich experience, Onaiyekan can bless the country not only with his spiritual insights but also with his secular knowledge. There is no denying the fact that the priest from Kabba, Kogi State, has been a worthy ambassador of his place of origin as well as the larger Nigerian society.

  • Egypt’s military shows it is no friend of freedom

    Egypt’s military shows it is no friend of freedom

    SOME IN Washington argue that the United States has little choice but to support the new military regime in Egypt. While some of its tactics may be distasteful, the argument goes, the military is preferable to the presumed alternative — the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood — because it is friendly toward the West.

    Those who make that claim may remember the former government of Hosni Mubarak that way. But they clearly haven’t been paying close attention to the regime of Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi.

    Since leading a coup against the elected government of Mohamed Morsi last July, Gen. Sissi has turned Egypt’s state media into a propaganda apparatus that has made virulent anti-Americanism a touchstone. Television channels and newspapers regularly broadcast vicious attacks on U.S. officials and diplomats and lend credence to wild conspiracy theories about Western plots against Egypt.

    Now the regime has taken the step — unprecedented in Egypt’s modern history — of jailing and prosecuting professional Western journalists reporting from Cairo.

    On Dec. 29, security forces raided a hotel room being used as a production office by the Qatar-based Al Jazeera’s English language channel. A creepy video broadcast on Egyptian television Monday showed how police interrogated and then arrested Peter Greste, an Australian correspondent, and Mohamed Fahmy, an Egyptian-Canadian television producer. Both are well-known professionals: Mr. Fahmy previously worked for CNN; Mr. Greste has reported across the world for Reuters, the BBC and other organizations.

    During weeks of imprisonment, the journalists and their colleagues sought to persuade authorities that they were “caught in the middle of a political struggle that is not my own,” as Mr. Greste put it in a letter from Cairo’s Tora prison. Yet last week prosecutors raised the stakes, charging the two journalists and 18 others with supporting a terrorist organization and broadcasting false information. Three other foreign nationals were charged: two Britons who are outside Egypt and Dutch freelancer Rena Netjes, who fled the country Monday.

    Most of those being prosecuted are affiliated with Al Jazeera, which the regime accuses of conspiring with the now-banned Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, while the channel (and the Qatari government) was relatively supportive of the Morsi administration, the charges are ludicrous. Ms. Netjes, who did not work for Al Jazeera, believes she was indicted simply because she interviewed Mr. Fahmy for a story.

    Mr. Greste wrote from prison that he had been in Egypt only a few weeks on a get-acquainted tour. “The fact that we were arrested for what seems to be a set of relatively uncontroversial stories tells us a lot about what counts as ‘normal’ and what is dangerous in post-revolutionary Egypt,” he wrote.

    The arrests add to a growing pile of evidence contravening the Obama administration’s contention that the new regime is carrying out a transition to democracy. In a departure from its usually supportive rhetoric, the State Department last week condemned the prosecution of journalists, saying it “is wrong and demonstrates an egregious disregard for the protection of basic rights and freedoms.” The administration must certify to Congress that Egypt “is taking steps toward a democratic transition” in order to release $1.5 billion in annual aid. It should inform Gen. Sissi that it cannot do that while journalists are being prosecuted.

     

    – Washington Post

     

  • LASU lessons

    LASU lessons

    • The university’s students should have aired their grievances more circumspectly

    These are not the best of times for the Lagos State University (LASU), Nigeria’s premier state-owned university. After the recent cessation of a five-month strike by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), the continuation of academic activities was disrupted on January 22 by students protesting the alleged high-handedness of the institution’s authorities.

    The main grouse appears to be the refusal of the LASU administration to allow students to access the online registration portal because the deadline had lapsed. Non-registration meant that they would not be able to participate in the semester examinations which were already ongoing. The students had apparently asked the vice-chancellor, Professor John Obafunwa, to reconsider the university’s policy, but his ostensible refusal apparently infuriated them. The resultant protests turned into riots, injuring many and causing extensive damage to property.

    It is a pity that LASU’s students do not appear to have learnt anything from the bitter experience of student demonstrations in Nigeria over the years. Regardless of the depth of their grievances, they ought to have realised that the eruption of violence would do irreparable harm to their cause. They claim that the damage done to the VC’s office, the Law Faculty and other property was masterminded by hoodlums who took advantage of the situation to wreak havoc. However, the students should have known that such a scenario was inevitable the moment peaceful dialogue was replaced by so-called “aluta.”

    The main strategy adopted by the unregistered students was to disrupt the examinations of their colleagues who had registered and had therefore been permitted to sit for the examinations. Given the physical intimidation necessary to carry out such disruption, not to mention the reckless disregard for the safety and convenience of university staff and fellow-students, it is difficult to see such actions as being synonymous with peaceful protest.

    Indeed, such tactics simply worsened the case of the students in question: having failed to register, they now sought to infringe on the rights of those students who were diligent enough to register within the prescribed time, and endanger them into the bargain.

    To further compound an already-indefensible position, the students decided to make life difficult for commuters by blocking the Lagos-Badagry Expressway which runs in front of the institution. By taking what was a purely internal affair on to the streets, the students gave a blank cheque to criminals of every stripe to take advantage of the situation, which they did, to devastating effect.

    The cost of these ill-judged actions has been steep: about 30 individuals have been injured; the damage caused by the riots has been assessed as exceeding N100 million; the school has been closed. Just as importantly, the reputation of LASU as a vibrant tertiary institution has been damaged precisely at the time when the state government and the university authorities had worked so hard to positively re-position it.

    Aluta has its limits; no amount of provocation can justify the thuggish disruption of legitimate processes, the mindless harassment of innocents or the malicious destruction of public and private property. The students of LASU must accept that their reaction to their perceived ill-treatment worsened the situation instead of rectifying it. Utilising emotion instead of reason, they precipitated a chain of events that created new difficulties without resolving the ones already confronting them.

    It is now time to put the past behind and move on.  Achieving this aim means that the irrational defiance of constituted authority must end; that involves adhering to the resolutions arrived at by the Lagos State House of Assembly. The damage caused must be promptly paid for so that renovation can be carried out in order for the institution to resume academic activity.

     

  • Another setback

    Another setback

    •The cycle of political tragedies in Egypt continues as military strongman el-Sisi is being positioned to assume power

    The central concern of key watchers of the Egyptian political scene is no longer a general apprehension about the future; it is the place of the military in agenda for survival and development. It is almost clear now that Field Marshal Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is in the race for civilian leadership as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces issued a statement last week literally urging him to take the plunge. While awaiting el-Sisi’s formal declaration, the Generals said, “The council looks with reverence and respect at the desire of the masses of the honourable Egyptian people for the candidacy of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for the presidency.”

    A number of facts tend to suggest that the military has decided that no one else would be allowed to take the reins of government. The statement suggests that el-Sisi is the choice of the people without spelling out how it came to the conclusion. The council, presided over by Sisi as grand commander, has grown in influence since it toppled the government of Mohammed Morsi in July 2013.

    The interim leader, constitutional court chief judge Adly Mansour, knows he owes his office to el-Sisi who doubles as defence minister. His recent promotion of the defence chief to the rank of Field Marshal appears an endorsement of the political enterprise. It is also interesting that the heads of the Coptic Orthodox Christian community, Pope Tawadras and Grand Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayab, as well as opposition leader Mohammed ElBaradei have all associated themselves with an ambition yet to be officially announced.

    This suggests a grand conspiracy to install him. The Egyptian state is used to having military men-turned civilians as rulers – from the revered General Abdel Nasser to Morsi’s predecessor Hosni Mubarak. At the moment, given the scale of the unrest in the country in 2011 and 2013, it seems a safe option designed to ensure stability and keep away fringe elements. It is generally acknowledged that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood is sufficiently strong to call up its men and provoke another round of protests that could mark a setback for the quest for peace.

    However, by whatever name called, investing the head of the military with power is akin to a military take over. It is not known to aid the march towards democratic progress and development. Getting el-Sisi “elected” would amount to legitimising a military coup and, in the long run, could be counter-productive. Since the Arab Spring, as the series of popular protests that have swept through the Arab world is called, started in Tunisia in 2010, the Moammar Gadhafi regime in Libya has given way, two governments have fallen in Egypt and Assad is merely perching dangerously in Syria.

    The people want greater say in the running of the governments; they demand better lives and detest any form of repression. They have discovered that ultimate power lies in the people and would not tolerate any trick to foist totalitarianism on them.

    As Egypt is an African country, one that contributed largely to human civilisation and occupies a strategic point in current global military and political arrangement, we call on the people to be more circumspect in arriving at a durable political system. In the short term, installing a military government by another name may appear smart; but in the long run; it could be an invitation to erecting a deformed structure with its attendant cost.

     

     

  • Making homophobia legal in Africa

    Making homophobia legal in Africa

    – Nigeria’s newest draconian measure is part of a disturbing trend on the continent.

    A disturbing new law in Nigeria establishes sweeping restrictions on homosexuality and has already led to dozens of arrests.

    Even before the law went into effect, it was illegal to engage in same-sex relations. But the new law goes further, prohibiting civil unions and same-sex marriages and threatening to slap a 10-year prison sentence on anyone who officiates at such a marriage. The law bans public displays of affection between people of the same sex, outlaws gay support organizations and makes it illegal for gay groups to meet. In a country with the world’s third-largest number of people living with HIV or AIDS, the law could put serious obstacles in the way of health groups doing outreach to gay populations and possibly even outlaw programs providing education on HIV prevention.

    As U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said, rarely has there been legislation “that in so few paragraphs directly violates so many basic, universal human rights.”

    Africa is notoriously homophobic; 38 countries on the continent ban same-sex relations. Many of those bans are based on colonial-era sodomy laws, while others derive their authority from Islamic law or other religious and socially conservative ideologies. The initial version of Uganda’s infamous anti-gay bill — which was not ultimately enacted — would have authorized the death penalty for some repeat offenders.

    But Africa is not alone. Less draconian but still unjustifiable is the Russian ban on giving “propaganda” (otherwise known as information) about gay relationships to minors. In advance of the Olympics, President Vladimir Putin tried to reassure gays and lesbians that they were welcome in the country by saying they had nothing to fear as long as they left children alone — as if being gay meant being a predator.

    Such laws violate human rights. But it is worth noting that state sodomy laws were still enforceable in the U.S. as recently as 2003, when the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Lawrence vs. Texas. And only in the last decade has U.S. public opinion shifted from disapproving of gay marriage to supporting it. Ironically — and shamefully — some conservative evangelical Christians who lost ground with their anti-gay gospel here have exported it to African countries, including Uganda.

    No one has the moral high ground. Every country must work harder to create tolerant societies that respect the rights of all.

     

    – Los Angeles Times

     

  • Northern elders and Ihejirika

    Northern elders and Ihejirika

    It is our duty to raise an alarm when birds cease to cry like birds. That is why we are worried by the statement credited to the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) to the effect that the immediate past Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen. Azubike Ihejirika should be dragged to the International Criminal Court (ICC) over military operations against terrorists in the North.

    Chairman of the NEF, Professor Ango Abdullahi, had said in a statement that the group would take Ihejirika to the ICC for “extra-judicial killings by soldiers in Bama and the act of strangulating civilians in Giwa Barracks, using an underground detention centre, while depositing the corpses in hospital.”

    Expectedly, the statement has attracted criticisms and, understandably, one of the first critics of the NEF is Senator Uche Chukwumerije who, at a forum in Abuja dared the NEF to go ahead with its plan adding however that should the NEF go ahead with its threat, it would be a good opportunity for other aggrieved regions and people in the country to knock at the doors of the ICC for redress over one form of injustice or the other.

    These included the Igbo who would take the massacre of over two million Ndigbo during the civil war to the court, while the other groups would also table their own cases before the international court. “As Ango Abdullahi’s team opens the doors and walks into the hall of the world court, let them realise that they have at last opened the Pandora’s Box”, Chukwumerije said.

    We are however happy that the pan-Northern socio-political organisation, Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), is not in agreement with the position of the NEF. Indeed, we align with every point raised by the ACF in dissociating itself from the NEF position on this matter. This tells us that the thinking of the elders’ forum may not necessarily be the position of the entire northern region on the matter; which is heartwarming.

    As the ACF rightly noted through its National Publicity Secretary, Mr. Anthony Sani,:”The campaigns by the military against the insurgence could not reasonably be personalised against the former Chief of Army Staff. And that is why the military has its own way of bringing to book those soldiers who cross the line in any of such campaigns”. The elders’ forum did not tell us the basis of its conclusion or why the former chief of army staff should be held personally responsible for whatever crimes the soldiers might have committed.

    This issue is similar to the claims of marginalisation that nearly every region in the country has been complaining about. If, as Senator Chukwumerije noted, any group decides to approach the ICC for redress over any matter, a lot of past wounds will be reopened because hardly is there any group or section in the country that does not have one grievance or the other to report at the international court. We particularly deplore the ethnic flavour introduced into the matter by the elders’ forum and commend the ACF for its timely dissociating with the forum’s position.

    What we would urge, and indeed insist on, is strict compliance with rules of engagement in all military campaign, especially the ones against insurgents, whether in the north or any part of the country for that matter. Where there are breaches, the military should be able to decide those and address them appropriately. This is what we expect the elders to demand instead of fanning the embers of hatred and disunity. It’is high time elders started acting in a statesman-like manner and as the true elders that they are.

     

  • Suspicious timetable

    Suspicious timetable

    • It shows how underdeveloped we still are as a nation

    The brouhaha over the recently released timetable for the 2015 general elections by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) casts aspersion on the integrity of the electoral umpire. Nigerians have expressed concerns about the scheduled order of the elections. The commission, according to Mrs. Augusta Ogakwu, its secretary, places the presidential and National Assembly elections for February 14, 2015; the state assembly and governorship elections hold on February 28, 2015.

    The timetable also puts commencement date of primary elections of political parties for between October 2, 2014 and December 11, 2014. Political campaigns for presidential and National Assembly elections will commence on November 16, 2014 while campaigns for governorship and state assembly elections will take off on November 30, 2014. However Professor Attahiru Jega, INEC chairman, at a recent Chatham House, London presentation on “2015 Elections in Nigeria: Expectations and Challenges’’ defended the timetable which he said was “informed by rational and logical considerations, not sentimental or ulterior motivations.”

    However, the heap of doubts on the timetable is, regrettably, becoming a periodic issue. In the days preceding the 2011 general elections, something akin to this happened. This led to forced alteration of the timetable by a then largely suspicious National Assembly that believed that the Presidency influenced that year’s INEC timetable perceived to be detrimental to their interests. The National Assembly re-ordered the election schedule by putting its own elections first, followed by the presidential, governorship and state house of assembly elections. Shockingly too, due to lack of confidence in the system, some pundits are already calling for the intervention of the legislature in the matter again. We wonder: How long will partisan interests, rather than national, continue to dictate election timetable?

    INEC’s poor antecedent in the realm of election conduct in recent time has been shattering. The obvious bias displayed by the commission in last November’s Anambra State governorship election further amplify doubts about its capability to conduct free and fair elections in the country. For whatever it is worth, we, like most people, do not believe that the newly released timetable putting presidential election as first item on the agenda was done out of altruistic motive. It is also not out of place to contemplate the bandwagon effect that may ensue if the president’s party wins the presidential election. We share the sentiments of many Nigerians that are equally concerned about whether the elections will be free and fair in a country where institutions of state are imperilled by the whims and caprices of those in authority.

    We are aware, as a matter of fact, that millions of Nigerians are itching for change in 2015 despite manifesting concerns that the enabling environment may not be allowed if INEC has indeed been compromised by those who may covertly want to win at all cost. Pointers – Quite unusual of INEC tradition before releasing such important programmes, the newly unfurled 2015 election timetable did not benefit from consultations and deliberations with political parties and other stakeholders. Also, INEC has so far not been purged of officials who have been indicted by courts and election petition tribunals for their involvement in electoral malpractices in recent past. This has necessitated the question: Why? It is not in doubt that such disgruntled elements might have been used by external forces to influence this controversial timetable.

    We consider as discouraging a situation where an otherwise routine issue such as election timetable will be taking much of national attention. That shows how backward the nation still is in terms of election conduct. In a normal clime, where there is rule of law and respect for institutions, election timetable is actually taken as a foregone issue. The question: When is Nigeria going to get there with the inept approach of Professor Jega to handling election conduct in the land?

     

  • Big brother Jonathan?

    Big brother Jonathan?

    •FG lacks authority to monitor emails, sms, calls, etc.

    The report that President Goodluck Jonathan has forwarded an executive bill to the National Assembly for a law to enable security agencies record electronic communication between individuals and seize data from internet providers and mobile networks is alarming. The bill will enable security agencies to order telecommunication companies to conduct surveillance on individuals and release user data to authorities. It will also allow the agencies in ‘cases of verifiable’ urgencies to intercept and record electronic communications, without a warrant.

    Considering the level of impunity, private individuals and perceived opponents suffer in the hands of the power elites, this bill will do more harm than good. The potential chances for abuse, should this bill become law, will heighten as the political parties engage themselves in the run-down to a general election. Again, with our security agencies finding the pull to engage in partisanship difficult, there are possibilities that they will be used to abuse such a law. As events across less democratically developed states have shown, the less authoritative the state is, the more authoritarian it seeks to become.

    As partisans may ask, is this bill one of President Jonathan’s administration’s counter attack on the nationwide tectonic political movements? We urge the legislators to seek answers to this question from the executive as they debate the necessity and nature of such a law. The legislature must also bear in mind the possibility of abuse, where such an extensive security dragnet is entrusted into the hands of partisan interests, as we have seen with the abuse of the police in Rivers State. So, in treating that bill, the National Assembly should take apart all its provisions and examine its potential for abuse, one by one.

    The legislature must also be mindful of the provisions of such a tendentious bill considering the clear provisions of the 1999 Constitution on fundamental human rights. They must bear in mind that Nigerians will readily test any law that tends to limit the rights guaranteed to them under the constitution; and it is their duty not to pass any law that will impede the constitution. For their guide, section 37 of the 1999 constitution provides: ‘the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected’. It is hoped that the proposals in the executive bill before the National Assembly, respect this fundamental law.

    It is also important that our country should learn from the case of the United States of America and her estranged citizen Edward Snowden, now a fugitive in Russia. The grouse of Mr. Snowden, a villain or model citizen, depending on the commentators’ leaning, has substantially put the government of United States on a severe test over her claim to egalitarian democracy. Snowden, we recall, humiliatingly exposed his country as a hypocrite, which snoops on the social networks of friends and foes alike, in the name of national security. With her back to the wall, the world’s most advertised democracy was forced to re-swear to oaths of allegiance to her major allies; and despite her best efforts, the image of America as an honest dealer has diminished.

    So, our legislators must be wary of handing the executive the power to turn Nigeria to a police state, in the guise of fighting terrorism or other vices. Even scarier, is that the current power brokers have not shown the capacity to exercise power judiciously. We therefore doubt if the run-down to a major national election is an auspicious time for such law.

  • Electoral stumbling blocks

    Electoral stumbling blocks

    •Jega’s recent complaints make us wonder if he understands his role as umpire

    Predictably, a list of challenges identified by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega, ahead of the country’s 2015 general elections, has triggered another round of public debate and scepticism about the organisation’s capability to conduct transparent and generally acceptable polls. Coming from the body’s helmsman, the information certainly needs to be taken seriously, and Nigerians must be anxious for reassurance that Jega will be able to surmount the obstacles.

    The venue of the communication, which gave it a keen edge, was the United States (US), suggesting an international dimension that made it even more worrying because it was like alerting the world to the precarious situation. Jega, who took the stage to deliver a keynote address at the inauguration session of the CSIS Nigeria Forum in Washington DC, gave the audience a thought-provoking glimpse into the country’s problematic march to next year’s elections.

    The stumbling blocks, according to him, include insecurity, funding, attitude of the political class, and apathetic and inactive citizenry. Other alleged impediments are delay in amendment to the legal framework, completion of the review of electoral constituencies and polling units, and prosecution of election offenders.

    Against the background of the unsatisfactory 2011 general elections, and the contentious Anambra State governorship poll in November last year, both held under his leadership, Jega has clearly suffered considerable bashing, which interestingly contradicts the initial public warmth that greeted his appointment, based on his perceived potential as a change agent.  To those who now regard him as a disappointment, his latest alarm does not redeem his image.

    However, it is only fair to examine the identified difficulties, especially insecurity and funding, which are quite critical to successful conduct of the elections, and to give Jega some credit for highlighting the possible hindrances. On security, it is hoped, particularly, that the Islamist terrorists in the country’s Northeast would have been neutralised before the elections to allow the people make their electoral choices in a peaceful atmosphere. Additionally, it is important to effectively check other similarly disruptive activities which create insecurity, such as kidnappings, political thuggery and assassination, to mention a few. On funding, it is curious that Jega raised the issue, particularly considering the fact that the commission’s role is expected to come under budgetary cover.  It, therefore, prompts the question whether the government is demonstrating sufficient responsibility by releasing the necessary funds as and when due.  It goes without saying that denying the commission legitimate funds is not only inexcusable; it also cannot be in the best interest of democracy.

    Other problems raised by Jega would seem to require increased political consciousness on the part of the people, greater political will on the part of government, and improved organisation on the part of INEC.

    There is an aspect of Jega’s address that, perhaps inadvertently, tends to make excuses for unconstructive practices in the country’s democratic system.  His apparent rationalisation of such negativities is unacceptable and, in a sense, puts a big question mark on his understanding of his own role. According to him, “We are still nurturing a democratic political culture after many years of military rule and the anti-democratic tendencies it fostered. Our electoral system is therefore work in progress.”  He added, “Democratisation, in all societies, is neither swift nor smooth-sailing. It is a long and tortuous process that takes place in incremental waves.”

    This is the kind of sophistical reasoning that blocks democratic advancement in the country, the idea or implication that it must necessarily take a considerably long period for democracy to flourish. More than any other factor, what it takes is selfless commitment to democratic ideals and practice. The world has generally embraced the concept of “government of the people, for the people and by the people”; and Nigeria must stay on track.

     

  • N171bn or N1.4trn?

    N171bn or N1.4trn?

    •Okonjo-Iweala, Customs boss give conflicting figures on waivers!

    NOTHING better exemplifies the crisis of the management of our public finance and accounting system than the revelation that the finance minister and coordinator of the economy, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, misled Nigerians on the value of import duty waivers granted by the Jonathan administration in the last three years.

    The minister had in her response to the House Committee on Finance query on the matter in January claimed that the value of import duty waivers granted by the Jonathan administration from January 2011 to September 2013 amounted to N171 billion.

    Now, the documents emanating from the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) has since established that N1.4 trillion was lost to waivers during the period. Not only that, the documents have confirmed the serial abuses first highlighted by the Comptroller- General of the NCS, Dikko Abdullahi, at the Senate Committee on Finance and Appropriation session held to explain the inability of his agency to meet revenue target last September.

    Among other emerging revelations is that the Jonathan administration, in the first eight months of 2013 alone, actually granted N603.2 billion waivers and other concessions – a figure more than triple the N171 billion for 2011-13 as given by the minister.

    Just as instructive is the appetite for waivers which has grown humongous under this presidency. For instance, it is now known that the administration granted waivers to the tune of N480 billion in 2011; the figure for the following year, that is, 2012 came to N480 billion, while N474 billion was granted in 2013. Among the items covered by the waivers and exemptions are kolanuts, armoured cars, pot scourers, polishing pads and gloves, generators – goods that add dubious value to the economy.

    By way of contrasts, the value of waivers granted during the entire eight years spanning 2000-2008 was N276.9 billion.

    Contrary to what the Federal Government might want to argue as its prerogative to set priorities hence, the discretion on choice of fiscal instrument appropriate to drive its objectives, the issue here is not so much about the waivers per se. Hardly also is it about the minister’s false choice between customs revenue and incentive for industries. Rather, it is about the gross abuses and subversion of the waiver administration under which the nation is bled of billions in unpaid revenue annually.

    How does one explain the wide discrepancy between the minister’s figure of N171 billion and the customs version of N1.4 trillion for the same period?

    The discrepancy raises troubling questions. Top on the list is the possibility that the waivers may have been issued outside the established channels or procedures which might explain why a huge number of the waivers were not captured. More specifically, is the possibility that some of the waivers were actually recycled as we saw in the recent case when Coscharis allegedly used the waivers granted Lagos State government to import bullet-proof cars for the aviation ministry.

    What institutional checks currently exist to fob off pressures from politicians and religious groups seeking waivers? Does the NCS have the mechanism for validating every waiver granted by the ministry?

    While we await the rationalisations that might yet come from the minister and the finance ministry, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the minister misinformed Nigerians on the matter. Given that the abuses took place under her watch, her claims to have initiated reforms to address the problem not only rings hollow but sounds hypocritical.

    No doubt, finance minister Okonjo-Iweala owes the nation an explanation on the discrepancy. The National Assembly should get her to address the issue. That is what accountability is all about.