The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

Reflections on the Great War

In January 1914 few Europeans imagined that, seven months later, their political and military leaders would plunge the world into a cataclysmic war. Public attention in most capitals was elsewhere. Britain was preoccupied with the Irish home rule crisis and other domestic troubles. Le tout Paris was about to engross itself in the Caillaux affair, in which a French politician’s wife shot dead Le Figaro’s editor, stood trial for murder and was acquitted.

According to the memoirs of Vladimir Kokovtsov, Russia’s premier in early 1914, politics in St Petersburg revolved around the personality of Grigory Rasputin, the tsarist court’s hypnotic holy man. Meanwhile, a penniless 24-year-old Austrian painter mooched about Munich, desperate to avoid his native country’s military draft. His name was Adolf Hitler.

Little more than a month after the June 28 assassination in Sarajevo of the archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Habsburg throne, fighting erupted on multiple fronts. By the time the conflict ended in November 1918, the war had resulted in tens of millions of military and civilian casualties.

While there is no reason to fear that the world in 2014 is on the edge of such an epochal disaster, there are some disquieting similarities between then and now. It will be incumbent this year on governments and peoples to commemorate the outbreak of the first world war with dignified ceremonies and respect for the dead, but also with sober consideration of the lessons to be drawn from the catastrophe of 1914-18.

One lesson is that the contingent causes of conflict should not be confused with more deeply rooted tensions in international relations, or in the internal affairs of nations, that lead to war. Many seeds of the first world war were sown well before the killings in Sarajevo. Such acts of terrorism are notoriously difficult to prevent, in our era as in the early 20th century, but global military, political and economic tensions are matters that statesmen can and should address. It is their responsibility to act within accepted international rules and to ensure that competition among states and peoples remains orderly.

Another lesson is that the frictions of rival nationalisms, fuelled by pride, ambition, ignorance and lovingly nursed historical grievances, are no less capable of causing war today than they were in 1914. The risks are especially acute if the international system is being reordered by the rise of new great powers and the relative decline of older ones. One hundred years ago it was Germany seeking its place in the sun at the British empire’s expense. Now it is, increasingly, China and the US. Recent tensions in the East China Sea between Beijing and its neighbours, which rely on US support, recall Germany’s strained relations with Britain, France and Russia before 1914.

A certain brinkmanship is inevitable in international relations, but appreciation of the other side’s motives and legitimate interests is essential. In this respect the measured progress towards a settlement of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme is promising.

A third lesson is that it is foolish to go to war in the belief that it is bound to be short, inexpensive and with manageable consequences. In 1914 some European politicians and generals, their outlook shaped by the limited wars that had unified Germany and Italy half a century earlier, harboured this illusion. So did Washington and London when they invaded Iraq in 2003. How wrong these war leaders were on both occasions.

A final lesson is that, if war does break out, it is vital at its conclusion to construct a secure peace. The 1919-23 Paris peace conferences did not achieve this. By 1939 the Austrian draft-dodger was at the height of his powers in Berlin and the world was paying an even heavier price than in 1914.

– Financial Times

January 3, 2014
Scary stats

It is the sort of statistics that sends any government into a tizzy. But the Goodluck Jonathan Presidency is either taking it in its strides, or is far too gone to realise the explosive social danger the country is close to.

BGL, a Lagos firm of consultants, has come up with grim stats that only five per cent of Nigerians consume 40 per cent of national income, with a hefty 70 per cent of Nigerians still employed in subsistent farming, suggesting massive underemployment in the rural areas, even worse than the trend in the urban centres.

BGL’s breakdown of the lucky five per cent offered no surprise: politicians, civil servants, blue collar workers, directors in government parastatals, industrialists and top executives of companies.

What the political bureaucracy draws from the country’s coffers has been a perennial cause of media hysteria, with perpetual focus on earnings in the National Assembly; even if there has not been a matching attention on the pay of ministers, special advisers and other presidential aides, and their equivalents at state and local government levels.

Civil servants’ pay would appear not fantastic — at least compared with the political bureaucracy — and they would appear to have made the list because of national minimum wage and the fortune of earning regular salaries, in the midst of mass unemployment and crippling underemployment. Blue collars workers — technicians, technical consultants, factory workers — are captured by more or less the same logic.

Nigeria’s industrialists and company top executives, as it obtains in any free enterprise set-up, handsomely reward themselves, at least claiming to deliver value. Of course, directors of government parastatals are mostly political jobbers masquerading in specialised agencies; and that makes them an extension of the political bureaucracy.

If all of these — Nigeria’s organised working class — are no more than five per cent, then it shows how grotesque the structure of the Nigerian economy still is, despite the loud strivings of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nigeria’s finance minister and coordinating minister for the economy.

It is well and truly damning: Nigeria’s formal economy is dominated by huge government (which pays its civil servants and political appointees), firms in the service industries like banks and telecoms whose directors pay themselves heftily for their chores in the economic jungle, and a few industrialists still battling in the economic desert.

The 70 per cent in subsistent farming is, of course, emblematic of the informal sector, which slogs on despite an ever uncreative government economic policy, despite all the buzz and funny stats from the Breton Woods-inspired economic managers. But if only five per cent enjoy 40 per cent of the land’s fat, and 95 per cent descend on the remaining 60 per cent, there is definitely cause for alarm!

Dr. Okonjo-Iweala keeps on slamming the private sector for not creating jobs but creating money for a few. She also claims the Jonathan government, in 2012, created 1.6 million jobs and another 431,000 jobs by March 2013. The minister is entitled to her claim. Suffice it to say that even if true, those jobs are but a miserable drop in the ocean.

Despite Mrs Okonjo-Iweala’s heroics, however, it is clear that her economic team is doing pretty too little in infrastructure: economic infrastructure like power, physical infrastructure like roads and rail, monetary infrastructure like credit. President Goodluck Jonathan and his minister had better jerk awake and perform in these key areas.

As it is, you cannot stop people from earning salaries due to them simply because they belong to a statistical economic aristocracy, though the gulping of the political bureaucracy is well and truly scandalous, and something drastic must be done about it.

But by stepping up infrastructure, you could at least provide fresh opportunities for millions of others to fend for themselves.

That is the stark challenge facing the Jonathan government. It had better rise up to it fast — before the roaring ocean of the angry and hungry 95 per cent roll over the lucky five per cent!

January 2, 2014
This haemorrhage must stop

Fuck passing is a game engaged in by officials who are not sure of their abilities and capabilities. We have watched with bewilderment as the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and the Federal Ministry of Finance have engaged each other in the trade blame over the state of the economy, especially accounting for oil receipts. Shamelessly, officials of the three organisations have called attention to the lack of transparency and accountability in a sector that accounts for more than 70 per cent of export revenue.

We are alarmed by revelations that the same level of recklessness and impunity that resonate on the political scene are replicated on the more technical economic sector. It is appalling those high officials of state who all parade glittering qualifications are unable to answer simple questions on how much actually accrued to the federal coffers in a given fiscal year. When she appeared before the Senate Committee on Finance recently, the finance minister, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, admitted that the sum of US$10.8 billion had not been reconciled by officials of the CBN and the NNPC. She said so while disputing the revised claim by the CBN governor, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi that US$12 billion oil receipts could not be accounted for.

Economists have pointed out that the revelation is a proof that the economy is bleeding. Last year, appearing helpless, President Goodluck Jonathan lamented that mind-boggling oil theft was the lot of the country under his watch. He said: “it is embarrassing that it is only in Nigeria that crude oil is stolen. It is a very bad news and I believe that Nigerians and foreigners who are involved in that act need to throw their heads under the pillow because all over the world, it is only in Nigeria that crude oil is stolen.”

The President and his Coordinating Minister for the Economy and Minister of Finance must respond to the poser by the Vice President of the Dutch oil giant Shell, Ian Craig, that about 150,000 barrels of Nigerian crude oil is stolen daily. A United Kingdom think tank, Chatham house, put the figure at about 100,000 barrels daily.

The incredible rate of crude oil theft, unwillingness to implement the Appropriation Act, inability to explain the bloat of external and domestic debt since we exited the Paris Club under former President Olusegun Obasanjo and failure to explain why we still run budget deficits despite coming up with surplus receipts indicate that a lot is being deliberately done to harm the economy by those saddled with the task of managing it.

Going by the 10.8 billion dollars that the finance minister accepted has not been reconciled by agencies of government, about N2 trillion oil receipts is missing. President Jonathan certainly owes the nation more explanation on how he is managing our oil wealth. Fortunately, this is a season for considering the 2014 Budget; the National Assembly should ask all necessary questions and put all facts in the public domain. How much accrues from oil receipts annually? How much is captured in the budget? Why is the budget being half-heartedly implemented despite apparent budget surplus? What is the role of the Debt Management Office in all this? Why is the petroleum resources minister still kept in office despite the leakages in the system over which she presides? Nigerians must not remain hungry when they have food; naked when they have clothes and homeless when mansions abound. The vultures must be exposed.

We do not need soothsayers to point out that if the current level of theft and incompetent management continues, the economy cannot survive for much longer.

January 2, 2014
Counting the cost of sporting glory

In 1964 the Tokyo Olympics established the idea that staging a leading international sporting event is a fantastic way for a country to market itself. However, in 2014 – 50 years on – a Winter Olympics in Russia and a football World Cup in Brazil may demonstrate that hosting such an event is now as likely to damage a country’s reputation as to burnish it.

The main reason is the fantastic amounts of money that are poured into the staging of these mega-events. The Sochi Winter Olympics look likely to set a world record for cost overruns, coming in at a spectacular $50bn – compared with the “mere” $6bn spent on Vancouver’s winter games in 2010. Many Russians assume that the cost has been wildly inflated by kickbacks. The extravagant sum of money poured into Sochi also contrasts with the obvious social and infrastructural needs of the rest of Russia. The fact that President Vladimir Putin regards Sochi as his second home means that his personal prestige is deeply invested in the success of a games that may come to be seen as epitomising much that is wrong with Putin’s Russia.

The Russian Winter Olympics have not sparked open demonstrations of public discontent, although two bombings in the city of Volgograd at the weekend have raised fears that they may become a magnet for terrorism. But Brazil’s footballing ambitions, by contrast, have already led to the biggest mass demonstrations in the country in decades – staged during the Confederations Cup of 2013, a warm-up event for the World Cup. Many Brazilians are outraged that $3.2bn is being poured into building ultra-modern “Fifa-standard” football stadiums, when so many Brazilians live in poverty. Demonstrators pointedly asked whether Brazil could also aspire to “Fifa-standard” transport, hospitals and schools. Since then, the deaths of construction workers hurrying to finish stadiums on time have cast a further pall. The issue will not pass quickly: Brazil and Russia have also committed themselves to a double dose of international sporting hospitality. Rio will host the Summer Olympics in 2016 and Russia will stage the Fifa World Cup in 2018.

Politicians have generally assumed that ordinary citizens will love them for delivering an Olympics or a World Cup. But when voters are actually consulted, they often take a negative view. In the past year, referendums have been staged in Munich about bidding for the Winter Olympics and in Vienna about bidding for a summer games. In both cities, the voters said Nein danke.

For a relatively autocratic government such as Russia with a lot of gas wealth to spray around, the risk of public disaffection may seem worth taking. Qatar, which will stage the World Cup in 2022, probably made a similar calculation. But in the age of social media, it is not just local opinion that governments should worry about. The Russians have found themselves targeted by gay rights activists, while the Qataris are having to answer awkward questions about the treatment of the migrant workers who are building their stadiums.

But predictions that the Sochi Olympics or the Brazil World Cup will backfire on the hosts cannot be made with any certainty. Experience suggests that once an event gets under way, the sheer joy of the spectacle can sweep away the cynicism that preceded it – at least as long as the athletes are in town. Londoners also grumbled about the cost of the 2012 Olympics and feared that it would turn into a logistical fiasco. In the event, they enjoyed the party and look back on it with nostalgia.

Brazil has its problems. But it also has a fantastic football team and a public that loves the game. An exciting tournament and a Brazilian victory could yet confound the doubters.

– Financial Times

January 2, 2014
Jonathan’s 11th jet

•This is squandermania in the face of limited resources

For President Goodluck Jonathan, we must add one to the 10 commandments: ‘thou shalt purchase an 11th presidential jet’. This ‘11th commandment’ was contained in the budget estimates submitted to the National Assembly by the Presidency. If the National Assembly approves the purchase, the government is expected to make an initial deposit of N1, 520,000,000 for the aircraft next year.

Presently, the aircraft in the Presidential Air Fleet (PAF) are two Falcon 7X jets, two Falcon 900 jets, a Gulfstream 550, one Boeing 737 BBJ (Nigerian Air Force 001 or Eagle One), and a Gulfstream IVSP, one Gulfstream V, Cessna Citation 2 aircraft and Hawker Siddley 125-800 jet. Each of the Falcon 7X jets purchased in 2010 is said to cost about $51.1 million, while the Gulfstream 550 was purchased for $53.3 million.

As we have always said, the Goodluck Jonathan presidency is not giving the impression that the country is facing any economic challenges, given its proclivity for frivolous expenses. Many of these have already been condemned at various fora.

Honestly, we do not know how those preparing the budget for the Presidency reason. What does the President need an 11th presidential jet for? Jets are money guzzlers, whether on air or on ground. This is clear from the planned expenses on the items to be purchased by the PAF. Expectedly, there is a long list of fresh items in the budget for the fleet, including completion of hanger project for N405,500,000; tyre bay tools and equipment – N106,000,000, Towberless tow tractor for aircraft towing – N58,740,000, hanger sweeper – N31,870,000, luggage conveyor belt truck – N28,898,000 and harlan tow tug for aircraft equipment towing – N27,590,000.

President Jonathan has something to learn from British Prime Minister David Cameron who slummed it out in business class on a flight from London for scheduled talks in Washington in 2010. This was unusual as British PMs usually travel on their own planes, use a Boeing 747 or 767, or use military jets. In this particular instance, Cameron did not even fly first class. He wanted to prove a point. As one British official put it then, “When we are asking the country to tighten their belts as much as we are, it’s very hard to justify hiring big jets to swan around the world. It may make his travel a little harder, but the Prime Minister believes it’s up to him to set an example.”

Cameron’s point was that if government said it was broke, this should reflect even in the First Citizen’s actions and travels. What the government saved by his taking commercial flight was no more than $300,000, but that was beside the point. The real issue was in the huge gesture.

We know it will be difficult to ask President Jonathan to travel by commercial flights, as he would readily cite security reasons; but then, he can set the tone by at least reducing the number of jets in the presidential fleet. Leaders should learn to cut their coats according to their country’s purse. It is not only the citizens that should make sacrifices in times of economic adversities. A gesture like that of Cameron in 2010 would have gone a long way in convincing the Britons.

As we have said in previous editorials on the frivolous expenditures of the presidency, the National Assembly has a lot of work to do on the Federal Government’s 2014 budget. In 2010, Britain, like much of Europe, was in the midst of making drastic cuts to many government programmes in order to keep its economy afloat. Downturn in government’s finances would be a hard sell in a situation where the presidency is competing with individuals for private jets.

January 1, 2014
Vindicating Obasanjo?

•The attacks on a judge and Rivers State deputy governor happen days after ex-president’s killer squad allegations

The unfurling theatre of the absurd in Rivers State is avoidable but for the deplorable politics of bigotry that is regrettably gaining ground in that area. Every passing day, the state is transgressing into anarchy arising ostensibly from political distrust between the Presidency and Governor Rotimi Amaechi, over President Goodluck Jonathan’s bid to secure the state in preparation for his strictly guarded re-election bid in 2015.

In quick succession, the office of Tele Ikuru, the state’s deputy governor was bombed by yet-to-be identified persons. This was drearily followed by the despicable bombing of Justice Charles Wali’s office on Omoku Road, Ahoada. Part of the administrative block of the judge’s office and some cars were destroyed by the bomb. What could be responsible for this last dastardly act? We recollect that the judge, in one of his most recent rulings, gave an order stopping Evans Bipi, a legislator, from parading himself as Speaker of Rivers State House of Assembly when a de jure speaker is still in place. Could this despicable act of bombing be a stern but repugnant way of stopping judges in the state from valiantly dispensing justice?

We could see a regime of palpable fear evolving in the state because inhabitants now worry over when and where the next bomb will explode, since their safety can no longer be guaranteed by the state. And this is due largely to no fault of the governor as chief security officer but the disruptive activities of some people who are misbehaving because they feel they are covered by the federal might. Sadly, the criminal elements that the Amaechi administration had chased away from the state are currently staging a shameful comeback, in their bid to make the state ungovernable; with the police always looking the other way.

What is happening in Rivers State is condemnable, especially coming at a time when former President Olusegun Obasanjo recently wrote an incisive letter to President Goodluck Jonathan, in which he accused the federal administration of training snipers and putting over 1,000 persons under a watch list. The response of the president to the thought-provoking letter was tepid as it could not fully allay public fears over such a weighty allegation from an ex-president who is in a vantage position to have such privileged information. And barely two weeks after the letter, it is curious that some faceless unscrupulous elements are beginning to set Rivers State on fire for selfish reasons. To make the matter worse, the agents of darkness in that state are gradually making the Temple of Justice and its officers their object of target in their bid to gain political power at all cost.

We can decipher a gradual relapse of the country into the better forgotten tyrannical military era, particularly the reign of despotic Gen Sani Abacha when snipers mauled down a lot of notable Nigerians, mostly in their prime. While we are beginning to feel that such distasteful era belonged to the past, it is sad that President Jonathan is hopelessly watching as Rivers, which is one of the most important states in the country, is being put on fire for parochial political reasons.

The only way the presidency can convince deeply concerned Nigerians that it is not stoking this ember of discord is to ensure that those responsible for the bombings and other satanic acts in the state and indeed other parts of the country are apprehended and made to face the full wrath of the law.

January 1, 2014
The Obasanjo-Jonathan diatribe

•The President’s response to Obasanjo’s letter on the state of the nation failed to address the weighty issues raised

The rumpus generated by the exchange of fiery correspondences on the state of the nation by former President Olusegun Obasanjo and the incumbent, President Goodluck Jonathan, has continued to generate bad blood among the politically conscious in the country. The Obasanjo letter to Jonathan dated December 2 set the tone for the diatribe, and the President’s formal reply, as well as the informal, indirect response at a church service on Christmas day have heated the polity.

Rather than address the substance, the President’s response have sought to take attention away from the weighty allegations levelled by the former President against the incumbent and his administration. Five areas commanded the attention of the former President. He called attention to the fact that the state of the nation had become worrisome and that the current leader has not been alive to his responsibility generally. In the ex-President’s views, the Jonathan stewardship could be assessed from five stand-points. They are: the leadership of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), headship of the Federal Government, management of the military, control of the security of the nation, and general political leadership, especially in the movement towards 2015.

Former President Obasanjo was damning in his verdict. He said Jonathan has been an unmitigated disaster in the running of the country’s affairs and should check himself. The breakfast shared by both men in Kenya, the pledge that the presidency would only reply at an appropriate time and the nature of the season- a point at which activities were winding down for the year – gave the impression that little positive could be taken from the diatribe.

While it has been suggested that the Obasanjo administration could not be exonerated from the ills plaguing the country today, the President has a duty to comprehensively address issues of fundamental importance to the health of the country from whatever quarters. It is interesting that the letter came from a leader of the ruling party; a former President. The fact that he knows much about the subjects he addressed in the letter compels attention.

It does not help matters that President Jonathan merely dodged the issues raised. He glibly dismissed the concern over training snipers and putting about 1,000 compatriots on a political watch list. Why would a President do that in a democracy? Unfortunately, this uncontroverted information suggests that the country may be sinking further under the watch of President Jonathan.

The Boko Haram sore that continues to fester also received the attention of the ex-President who suggested that the incompetent handling of the security, intolerance, clannishness and inability to rise up to challenges have compounded the situation in a part of the country. The former President literally apologised for the part he played in encouraging the enthronement of President Jonathan.

Yet, in his reply, the President trivialised this serious allegation by asking if Obasanjo truly believed in all that he said. On corruption, Obasanjo had this to say: “Corruption has reached the level of impunity. It is also necessary to be mindful that corruption and injustice are fertile breeding ground for terrorism and political instability. And if you are not ready to name, shame, prosecute and stoutly fight against corruption, whatever you do will be hollow. It will be a laughing matter.”

Nigerians had looked forward to a rebuttal of this allegation with a robust account of what the administration has done or is doing to combat the scourge. It would appear that the presidency agrees that it has failed the nation on this score.

We call on the President to look into the Obasanjo letter again and respond appropriately. Since the letter is in the public domain, even if he thinks he owes Obasanjo no explanation, he should give an account of his stewardship to Nigerians.

December 31, 2013
Generator Government

• N.8billion to fuel generators is hardly the way to inspire citizens’ confidence in govt promise of improved power supply

Coming barely two months after the formal handover of the assets of the erstwhile Power Holdings Company of Nigeria (PHCN), subsequent to which the Federal Government has promised Nigerians improved power supply, it must come as a shocker that the Goodluck Jonathan-led government is proposing to spend a whopping N836.6 million to fuel generators in the coming year.

The details as reflected in the 2004 budget under consideration by the National Assembly shows that the Presidency alone plans to spend N33.47 million to fuel its generators. For the Federal Ministry of Finance, a tidy sum of N76.5 million is proposed; for the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission ( ICPC), it is N29.05 million while N16.48 million is earmarked for the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

For the Office of the Head of Service, the budget is N40 million; Ministry of Interior, N20.75 million. For the works ministry, it is N25.05 million, while the National Population Commission has a budget of N22.53 million set aside for same –fuelling generators.

The above are just a few of the Federal Government’s departments expected to share in the bonanza that comes close to a billion naira.

By way of comparison, the same Federal Government budget earmarked N654.02 million to purchase generators in 2013. Just as there may be those who may seek to rationalise the proposed expenditure on the grounds that no vote currently exists for the procurement of generators this year, even then, it is so easy to counter this by the fact that those generators purchased last year are nowhere near their replacement dates yet.

The issue however isn’t just the absolute numbers in the proposed spend. Rather, it is the attitude of the Federal Government – its preference for the easy and convenient – that we find deplorable. Nigerians should be worried that nothing appears to have changed in any attitudinal sense for the Federal Government, despite its averments to the contrary.

To start with, President Jonathan is on record to have made promises – not once or twice but severally – that Nigerians would by next year have no need for their generators. How does one reconcile that with the humongous allocation being proposed to fuel the generators at the seat of government for the same period?

Isn’t it an admission that the administration cannot guarantee uninterrupted supply of electricity to anyone? So, why should citizens take the assurances of an administration that does not appear to suffer diminishing appetite for the use of generators with any pinch of salt?

Today, despite the promises of vast improvements in services, the reality is one of acute regression. Not that Nigerians expected the new players in the power sector to wave the magic wand for the problems to disappear overnight. While the hiccups that have accompanied the take-over of the old PHCN entities by private investors may not be entirely unexpected, it would seem to have gone a shade beyond normal transition blues.

Presently, the same recycled excuses about gas infrastructure, capacity issues and systems collapse are still being bandied despite the huge funds sunk into overhauling the chain. Even more worrisome at this time is that citizens do not even know which agency to hold responsible for the current regression.

While it may seem impracticable to ask the Federal Government to throw away its generators, the point must be made that pooling nearly a billion of scarce public funds to fuel generators is hardly the way to inspire citizens’ confidence in the power sector’s so-called turn-around. Or, is the government saying that the delivery of uninterrupted electricity to the seat of government can only be done by generators?

December 31, 2013
Sanctioning telcos

•Govt should compel them to perform or face sanctions

POOR quality of service (QoS) is a problem consumers have been enduring for years, in spite of the telecommunications revolution that the country witnessed in 2001 with the advent of the Global System for Mobile (GSM) communication in the country. And this is causing the Federal Government a lot of concern.

It was government’s concern that prompted Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology, to warn at a joint press conference by the ministry and the Consumer Protection Council (CPC) of Nigeria, that government will no longer condone poor service delivery to telecoms subscribers: “Henceforth, it is no longer business as usual, and operators must rise up to redress the current poor state of service delivery”, she said.

Over the years, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), the regulatory agency for the telecoms sector, had taken some actions to remedy the situation. For instance, last year, the four major mobile network operators (MNOs), MTN, Glo, Airtel and Etisalat were fined a total of N1.17billion ($7.38million). That the QoS challenges persist suggest that firmer actions needed to be taken against the telecoms providers.

It is against this background that we welcome the Federal Government’s decision to sanction or prosecute erring ones among them over the matter and sundry other concerns that have been agitating the minds of subscribers. The collaboration between the Federal Government, through the Federal Ministry of Communication Technology and the CPC is pointer to the fact that it will, henceforth, be business unusual on the part of the telcos. It is good that the government seems set to compel them to improve on their operations or face sanctions. The same telcos that cannot cope with normal service delivery have compounded the problem with unsolicited messages as well as telemarketing calls they deliver to subscribers on their networks.

At the root of the poor QoS is failure of the operators to expand their facilities. And if they are doing this at all, it is not commensurate with the traffic. Yet, about N979billion was to be ploughed into network expansion this year alone.

The December 31 deadline to them to meet minimum requirements for service delivery, failing which they will not be allowed to embark on further network expansion initiatives is welcome. Indeed, it is surprising that the operators had to be given a deadline on this. Perhaps more shocking is the continued selling of SIM cards by them, when those already on the networks are not having value for their money.

Of course we are not unmindful of the fact that the telcos have their own peculiar challenges. These include challenges in the area of deploying or maintaining infrastructure, vandalisation of their equipment, multiple taxation, power inadequacy as well as the prohibitive costs of doing business in Nigeria. But the profits posted by the telcos show that they can still do better if only they reckon that subscribers, as customers, are kings.

The fact is, the telcos are also not helping matters. In some other countries, they cut cost through co-location, for instance; which is sharing of some facilities like masts, etc., instead of hoisting individual masts. The procurement, running and maintenance costs are thus shared among the collaborating operators.

It’s high time the government rescued telephone subscribers. Its threat to sanction or prosecute erring telcos this time around should not be an empty threat; it should be sincere about it at least to prove that Nigeria is not a place where companies can take Nigerians for granted and get away with it.

As a matter of fact, that the government itself is wading into the matter suggests that the NCC is not working as it should. Perhaps it is high time the government reorganised the commission itself.

December 30, 2013
Presidential profanity

•Jonathan’s habit of attacking political opponents from the sanctuary of churches is crude

TWICE in 17 days this month, the famed month of goodwill, President Goodluck Jonathan has launched attacks on political opponents from virtual pulpits in the church.

At the special memorial for Nelson Mandela, the iconic South African president on December 8 at the Aso Villa Chapel in Abuja, President Jonathan dismissed Nigerian politicians as harbouring the “vices of tiny men” rather than the “virtues of great men”, and finished the flourish with a Biblical allusion: “It is probably easier for the camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a politician to be truly great.”

Not a few believed the attack was aimed at the often meddlesome former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who, perhaps rattled by it, afterwards made public his own no less scathing 18-page letter, dated December 2.

Still, at the Mandela memorial, President Jonathan was careful enough to rope in Nigerian politicians across the spectrum: mates in the troubled Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the opposition, particularly the All Progressives Congress (APC) and even past military dictators, dismissing most of Nigeria’s public men and women, past and present, as persons of little minds.

All such tact vanished from the presidential bazooka on Christmas Day, the peak of the Yuletide season. It was Christmas service at the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Life Camp, Gwarimpa, Abuja, where the Jonathans worshipped.

Though Jonathan’s attack was still on the eponymous “politician”, the object of the attack was starker: Obasanjo, godfather turning nemesis — “We politicians think that we own this country and are already thinking about next elections, we are doing what we ought not to do; making statements we ought not to make, and “ — now, the real punch — “writing letters we are not supposed to write”! Aside from the president himself, and possibly the controversial missive purported to have issued from Iyabo Obasanjo, the only person who has written any letter of note is Obasanjo himself!

In fairness, President Jonathan was reacting to the homily of Archbishop of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Bishop Nicholas Okoh who, in his suit for national peace and harmony, not out of mood with the Yuletide season, tended to equate political dissent with alleged instigation to breach the peace. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Democracy, with its periodic but peaceful change of power, has enough safety valves to take care of political disputes, no matter how vigorous, if all players play by the rule.

But even with that, President Jonathan ought to have been much more gracious. For good or for ill, he has replied Obasanjo’s letter; and the appropriateness of his response is in the court of public opinion. He ought to have rested it that way.

To now take to the virtual pulpit and start attacking people was sheer lack of grace. It paints the president as agitated, grumbling, frazzled, ruffled and troubled. That does great harm to the majesty of the presidential office. It also reeks of lack of confidence, class and panache. The Nigerian presidency, the highest symbol of authority in the land, can do without such starkness.

But that is even on the secular plane. On the spiritual side, hurling political stones from churches is a profanity tantamount to what the Christ himself decried as “my father’s house of worship has become a den of thieves”, a rare occasion of ire from the ever meek and gentle Jesus, as he chased traders and money doublers from the temple. Ironically, Jonathan made an allusion to this episode during his address at that service.

Let Jonathan confront his opponents on acceptable platforms. The media, seminars, symposia and other platforms are wide enough to contain all contending political voices. But let church authorities too desist from making their sacred grounds available for profanities, not the least presidential ones.

Both the president and their lords spiritual must remember to keep the house of God holy; and immune from political impurities. The church is not a place to even political scores.

December 30, 2013