Category: Editorial

THE Federal Government may have meant to douse the anger of the oil industry unions over the planned sale of the refineries when it put out a disclaimer on the statement credited to the Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, on Bloomberg TV Africa in London. Instead, it ended up undermining its own credibility.

The minister had been widely quoted in November as saying that the Federal Government would commence the privatisation of the nation’s four refineries in the first quarter of this year. Sequel to the announcement, the Bureau for Public Enterprises (BPE) also announced that President Goodluck Jonathan had not only directed it to commence the process of privatising the refineries, in collaboration with the petroleum ministry and Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC, but had also approved the constitution of a 13-member “steering committee” for the exercise.

Reaction to the planned privatisation has been notably strong, with the two unions in the oil industry – the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association (PENGASSAN) and the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) leading the charge. Both are on record to have threatened showdown should the government proceed with the sale. Their grouse has dwelt largely on allegations of under-the-table deals that would see the refineries sold to cronies of powerful officials for pittance, and the fate of the workers in the aftermath of the sale.

That was the situation before last week’s volte-face in the form of a terse statement from the President’s Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Reuben Abati, to wit: “government is not going to sell any refinery. There is no such plan and there is no presidential approval for such. Nobody, not even the Minister of Petroleum has the powers to sell any government property”.

No doubt, a lot could be said of the volte-face as reflecting much of the administration’s infinite capacity to dither on important issues. Given that the presidential audit team led by a former Minister of Finance, Kalu Idika Kalu, had in its report submitted as far back as November 2012 recommended the privatisation of the refineries within 18 months for reasons identified as inadequate government funding and “sub-optimal performance”, the twist would seem rather curious.

Has the government now effectively thrown away the recommendations of the panel? Isn’t it another way of saying that it cannot find a way to address the concerns raised by the unions and other stakeholders, to the challenges posed by the privatisation exercise? Or is it that it lacks the conviction and – if you may add– the nerve to engage with relevant stakeholders on the issue?

Like other Nigerians, we are alarmed at the prospects of endless Turn Around Maintenance (TAM) programmes that continue to fall short of delivering value. Given the bottomless holes that the refineries have become to the treasury, we remain convinced that the way to go is to hand them over to those who can manage them for results. Unlike the Federal Government that prefers to vacillate, we have no reasons to change our earlier position that the privatisation of the refineries has become inevitable.

The challenge, in our view, is to deliver a process that is not only credible and transparent, but one seen by all to address the concerns of relevant stakeholders. That calls for a lot of hard work and purposeful engagement. Needless to state that the absence of the latter is what tends to project the process as jinxed.

THE Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has, despite the obstacles on its way served notice that it is still formidable enough to win the 2015 elections. In far-away London, PDP’s national chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, made light of the challenges confronting the party even as leading lights are quitting to pitch tent with the All Progressives Congress (APC). He told Nigerian professionals in Europe that no other party could confront the PDP at the polls. He said: “The PDP remains a party with the largest spread and tested strength to win elections any day, any time.

“The PDP is at home to contain all forms of harassment by the opposition, either vaunted or intended. If it is a game of number in any election, you can always count that the PDP would have it greater.

“The good thing is that if five people move out of PDP into the other party, even by a dint of propaganda, the party takes in more than 500 at a time, as replacement.”

Alhaji Tukur has the right to imbue confidence in members and potential members, but, given the practice at previous elections, the boast has sounded a warning that the ruling party may be set to do more than campaign to win elections. In 2003 and 2007 elections, the PDP had boasted that it was the ‘largest party in Africa’ and would do anything to retain its hold on power. It actually followed by conducting the worst elections in the history of the country.

Alhaji Tukur’s predecessors in office, Prince Vincent Ogbulafor and Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo actually told Nigerians that the party would hold on to power for 60 years. They were not perturbed by the outcry that followed the declaration, but as men who knew what the party was set to do kept restating the point until the general elections were held and the image of the country soiled by the abysmal performance of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The salvo from the ruling party’s national chairman, embattled as he is, is another indication that the PDP may be desperate to retain hold on the levers of power. Every Nigerian knows now that, more than ever before, the opposition is strong enough to challenge the ruling party. It has, for the first time in the history of the country, succeeded in putting together a formidable opposition structure and has gone on an aggressive membership drive. The poor performance of the Goodluck Jonathan administration has further given a boost to the main opposition APC’s bid for power. Yet, Alhaji Tukur is suggesting that his party would coast to victory.

At a time when state governors are defecting from the party; when officials of the Federal Government are taking on one another in public, and when the President is finding it difficult to properly constitute his government owing to the disaffection in the ranks, Alhaji Tukur is flying the kite that the trophy is already in the kitty before the race is formally flagged off.

It must be pointed out that what Nigerians want now is peace. They also want their votes to count. Contrary to the submission of former President Olusegun Obasanjo that sovereignty resided in him, the people of Nigeria are set now to exercise their civic right of determining who runs national affairs.

Alhaji Tukur’s primary responsibility now should be reconciling the warring factions to halt the spate of defections and check disaffection. Anyone, party or state institution that wants to impede the desire for credible election in the country should be warned that Nigerians are no longer willing to remain a laughing stock in the comity of nations.

TWO YEARS ago, the newborn nation of South Sudan represented a rare foreign policy triumph for President Obama, largely because of the president’s decision to lead from the front. When an accord laying out a path for Sudan’s largely Christian south to separate from the Muslim Arab dictatorship based in Khartoum threatened to unravel, Mr. Obama appointed two special envoys, attended a United Nations meeting on Sudan and dispatched then-Sen. John F. Kerry to lay out a detailed “road map” for Sudanese leaders. The result was a successful referendum and the July 2011 birth of a new nation of 8 million people.

Now that achievement is in danger of crumbling, thanks to the wretched behavior of South Sudan’s leaders. Rather than use the country’s abundant oil revenue to build up one of the world’s most undeveloped territories, President Salva Kiir tolerated corruption, engaged in proxy wars with Sudan in disputed territories and feuded with his vice president, Riek Machar. On Dec. 15 Mr. Kiir accused Mr. Machar of attempting a coup, arrested 11 senior officials and tried to disarm members of the presidential guard belonging to Mr. Machar’s Nuer ethnic group. This touched off fighting across the country between supporters of the two leaders, largely divided along ethnic lines. Mr. Kiir is from the majority Dinka group.

On Tuesday, the two leaders, under pressure from African leaders and the Obama administration, agreed to begin negotiations. But the fighting continued: A Nuer “White Army,” believed to be under the control of Mr. Machar, was said to have captured most of Bor, a town that has changed hands three times in the fighting. Thousands are believed to have been killed, and the United Nations says 180,000 have been displaced in just two weeks.

To its credit, the Obama administration again has been actively trying to broker a solution. A new envoy, Donald Booth, had met with Mr. Kiir four times in eight days as of Tuesday, and he has been on the phone with Mr. Machar. The United States has considerable leverage, having supplied South Sudan with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Just as influential are Ethiopia and Kenya, whose presidents have pushed for negotiations. But Uganda’s leader, Yoweri Museveni, has tilted toward Mr. Kiir, a longtime ally. On Monday he threatened to “go after” Mr. Machar if he did not agree to a cease-fire.

In fact, foreign intervention in the fighting might make the conflict worse. What’s really needed is pressure on both leaders to pull back their forces and begin negotiations on a more lasting political settlement. They should agree to contest South Sudan’s leadership in elections scheduled for 2015, not on the battlefield. In the absence of such a compromise, South Sudan could slip into an unrestrained ethnic conflict. As nations new and old can attest, such bloodshed can take on a life of its own.

– Washington Post

When it became the world’s newest nation in 2011, the Republic of South Sudan was globally recognised as being symbolic of an enduring political phenomenon in Africa – that of the triumph of self-determination in the face of overwhelming odds. Sadly, the political crisis which erupted in December, triggering virtual civil war is a tragic reminder of an image of the continent that is only too familiar to the rest of the world.

It appears that the South Sudan crisis is the end result of a potent mix of inordinate political ambition, deep-rooted ethnic mistrust and the uncertain loyalties of the country’s military. In mid-December last year, a faction of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) mutinied, an action President Salva Kiir denounced as a coup attempt allegedly instigated by the former Vice-President, Riek Machar. Fighting between troops supporting both leaders escalated, especially in Bor, the capital of Jonglei State, and parts of the neighbouring Unity State.

Over 1,000 people are said to have died, with about 800 injured in the fighting, which has taken on the character of an ethnic conflict between the Dinka people from whom President Kiir hails, and the Nuer, who are Machar’s ethinc group. About 120,000 people have fled the fighting to refugee camps where they now live in hunger and squalor. The African Union (AU) and East African leaders have waded into the crisis, and the warring sides have sent delegations to Ethiopia where a ceasefire is currently being negotiated.

This crisis is only the latest in a series of disruptions which have bedeviled South Sudan since its inception as an independent state. The country is made up of several often-hostile ethnic groups whose antipathy towards one another has repeatedly resulted in clashes that have caused extensive loss of life. Ethnic antagonisms are worsened by the political tensions which elaborate power-sharing arrangements put in place by the United Nations have done little to resolve. The country’s growing oil receipts and the steady inflow of aid have created a culture of greed, ostentation and a lack of accountability which have combined with the widespread availability of weapons to make South Sudan a very unstable political entity.

The international community has invested heavily in the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous South Sudan. There is the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), in addition to a host of aid agencies all aimed at reducing the tensions that are the precursor to conflict. However, there is little that any outsider can do if the South Sudanese continue to choose armed confrontation as the preferred option for resolving disputes. Even before independence, there were repeated clashes between ethnic groups, such as the Murle and Lou Nuer; hundreds died in cattle raids and retaliatory attacks. Several rebel leaders, including George Athor Deng, Peter Gadet and Gabriel Tang, attacked the SPLA on a regular basis.

If this situation continues, South Sudan is well on its way to becoming another Somalia. There is the same generalised lawlessness, fuelled by a profusion of weapons, thousands of individuals trained in the use of arms, a seething mass of ancient hatreds and simmering feuds, and a weak central government which seems to be interested only in holding on to power.

The world must make South Sudan understand that political independence is meaningless without peace and development, which can only be secured when rival politicians and ethnic groups stop killing one another. In order to achieve that, the UN and the AU must work with the South Sudan government to create a peace-building mechanism which will incorporate extensive disarmament, a workable dispute-resolution system and the effective sanctioning of those whose actions lead to the widespread breakdown of law and order.