The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • Identity crisis

    Identity crisis

    • President Jonathan’s call that a national citizens’ data base be pooled by 31 December 2014 is good, but …

    President Goodluck Jonathan spoke the minds of many Nigerians when he ordered all government agencies needing citizens’ data should hook on to the centralised data bank, which the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) is building. He also gave a target of December 31, 2014, for the NIMC to complete the current registration exercise.

    The president did well by putting a halt to what appears some malady on the data gathering front. The situation in which the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC), Nigeria Police, Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) and Nigeria Population Commission (NPC), would embark on varied data gathering, some of them at the expense of the citizen, is undesirable and absolutely unacceptable.

    In one of those schemes, the FRSC even unilaterally cancelled binding legal agreements, by purportedly abrogating national drivers’ licences before their due date, for a new updated one, just like it did in the case of car registration plate numbers. In its own case, the Police also started – before it stopped – its own Biometric Central Motor Registration scheme. In both cases, citizens were burdened with undue expenses.

    Still, it is only fair to note that these multiple registrations, in search of data gathering, were caused by the absence of a national data base, in which biometrics of every citizen is captured. That absence was itself caused by the failure of previous attempts at national identity card projects, under Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo as military head of state, under President Shehu Shagari and under Obasanjo as civilian president. On these three occasions, the schemes failed, with billions of naira going down the drain.

    It is with such previous failures in mind that everything must be done to make the current exercise a success. On that score, NIMC is expected to capture all eligible citizens latest December 31, 2014. Perhaps the NIMC would have preferred an open-ended deadline, particularly given the fact that citizen registration is an open-ended event, taking in newly born citizens while the dead ones exit. Still, a deadline of one year and two months would appear fair, other things being equal.

    That is why the commission must ensure it makes a success of this current exercise. As the president said, multiple registration for data is not only expensive, it is inefficient. If indeed resources are scarce, that would appear a double jeopardy. It is better, cheaper and more productive, therefore, to invest in one fool-proof scheme, and build a pool from which other data-thirsting agencies could drink from.

    But if the present exercise must succeed, there must be more publicity and enlightenment. Indeed, NIMC should crank up its publicity blitz as if the exercise is closing in but a few months, enlightening citizens on how to register, where to register and possibly how long registration takes. That way, the target is likely to be achieved.

    The benefits of a central biometric data base are many. To start with, it would generate social security numbers imperative for planning and other social security schemes. It also acts as control to census exercises, which in these climes, have also been too controversial, therefore making planning a nightmare. With adequate citizen registration, it would be more difficult to manipulate census figure; and the Nigerian economy would be better for it.

    Nigeria must get the national identity card scheme right this time. It is the least the country can do if it ever wants to get its planning right.

  • Fitch fetish

    Fitch fetish

    THE Jonathan administration has quite typically, been on the defensive to the latest averments by Fitch describing the Nigerian economy as “stable but non-productive”. The global rating agency had observed in its latest report on the economy that “Nigeria’s ratings remain constrained by weak governance, low per capita income and vulnerability to oil price volatility.

    “Data weaknesses” the agency would further note, “hamper the monitoring of economic and fiscal performance and reform progress”.

    It says of the key drivers of the economy that nothing has changed in any appreciable sense. GDP growth is said to have slowed to 6.4% in the first quarter although the overall picture was one of resilience, particularly in the aftermath of the severe floods of 2012 and the effects on agricultural output. Yet again, the security situation in the North came up for mention; so is oil theft and vandalism which eventuated in shutdowns, leading to contractions in oil output for the second year in a row.

    In 2012, the non-oil sector grew by 7.9%. By the first quarter of 2013, this slowed to 7.6% – a rate expected to pick up in second quarter “as normal weather resumes and the authorities respond to security problems. Reforms to the electricity and agriculture sectors could start to boost potential growth. Inflation has remained at single-digit – the lowest in five years, and the longest stretch in that single digit since 2008.

    To finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the findings are nothing to worry about. According to her, “What’s important about the ratings is that while acknowledging all the challenges the economy faces, it points to and applauds the strengths such as progress in the power sector, increased focus on agriculture, strong investment in local manufacturing and other areas”.

    To start with, we must say that there is very little in the latest report by Fitch on the economy that Nigerians are not already familiar with. By now, number-numbed Nigerians ought to have grown weary of the claims of outlandish growth that has left more people impoverished than it has been able to lift out of poverty. That is, if it is not more worrisome that the same old problems of weak governance, poor attention to the critical linkages in the economy, and the pathetic indifference to the challenge of physical infrastructure and security of lives and property which have since become the annual refrain, are now restated at every turn, not just by Fitch but other rating agencies as well.

    Far from seeking to rationalise the situation, the report should in fact embarrass if not shame the Federal Government. One question most Nigerians seek an answer to is: what has the Jonathan administration done in the whole of 29 months to change the environment of doing business? What about corruption? What concrete foundations are being laid to diversify the economy – to make the economy less dependent on oil which everyone accepts is prone to volatility? Is it simply about mouthing the now familiar reform refrain?

    Of course, we disagree with Minister Okonjo-Iweala’s suggestion that the nation has nothing to worry about. If anything, we worry about the administration’s continuing false choice between so-called macro-economic stability and the welfare of the citizens; its lack of appreciation of the urgency of the situation and palpable disconnect with cold realities on the Main Street. Nigerians of course continue to wonder what it is that makes the Federal Government respond to issues whenever they are raised by foreign agencies, even when the same issues go largely ignored when raised by citizens who in fact bear the brunt of ineffectual governance.

  • Taxing Peter, robbing Paul

    Taxing Peter, robbing Paul

    NIGERIA’S feeble federalism is likely to be subject to even further stress if the Federal Government attempts to further curb the rights of states to levy tax, using the excuse of preventing multiple taxation as a cover for its actions.

    Speaking at the inauguration of the Ministerial Implementation Committee (MIC) on the Harmonisation of Taxes and Levies across the Federation in Abuja last Monday, the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister for the Economy (CME), Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, bemoaned the prevalence of multiple taxation. She pointed out the negative effects it had on the expansion of business, creating employment, diversifying the economy and attracting foreign direct investment, and said that the MIC’s work would be expedited so that it could be enshrined in the nation’s law.

    On the surface of it, the finance minister’s remarks were eminently reasonable. Multiple taxation is a well-known drag on economic development: it constrains industrial growth, makes planning difficult, and encourages tax-evasion. The “Doing Business” study used by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to measure the ease of business regulations ranked Nigeria 155th out of the 185 countries it analysed in 2011. Nigerian entrepreneurs continually complain about the numerous and arbitrary taxes, charges and levies that their businesses are subject to, as well as the sometimes crude methods utilised in collecting them.

    However, the suspicion that the Federal Government is embarking upon yet another unconstitutional power-grab cannot be wished away. A recent tax law has increased its already-extensive powers. Among other things, the law bans state governments from engaging tax consultants in the collection of internally-generated revenue (IGR); recalcitrant consultants have been allegedly threatened with arrest if they persist in their activities. Lagos State is set to lose an estimated N6.25 billion monthly as a result.

    When this tax law is combined with the mandate given to the MIC, it does seem that the Jonathan administration is interested in enhancing its own ability to collect tax revenue while hampering the capacity of states to do the same. This is blatantly unfair and runs counter to the most fundamental principles of federalism.

    In the United States, levels of taxation differ depending upon resource base, financial situation and political policy, resulting in a very diverse tax landscape. Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon do not levy state or local sales tax. Oil-rich Alaska has an average sales tax rate of 1.11 per cent, and its citizens receive an annual financial windfall through its Permanent Fund Dividend. At the other end of the scale, Tennessee has state and local sales tax rates averaging 9.44 per cent, comparable to California (9.08%), Arizona (9.01%), Louisiana (8.69%) and Washington (8.61%).

    Nigeria’s Federal Government seems to be saying that states should not have the flexibility to establish tax regimes that are appropriate for their peculiar situations. A heavily-populated state like Lagos, with its plethora of business establishments, simply cannot be expected to pursue a taxation policy similar to agrarian Ebonyi, or oil-rich Bayelsa. If a state recognises that it does not yet possess the ability to fully handle tax matters, it is unreasonable to deprive it of the capacity to bring in organisations that can help it to achieve its goals.

    If the Federal Government is sincere about reducing the tax burdens on businesses operating in the country, it should seek to work with the states, rather than against them. It must understand that the right of states to levy taxes is non-negotiable, and that different states will of necessity pursue different taxation policies which will aim at a variety of socio-economic goals. Lines of authority should be clearly demarcated: in determining who is responsible for what, taxes can be imposed more accurately and less unfairly.

  • Unwise Saudi snub

    Unwise Saudi snub

    Saudi Arabia’s rejection of a rotating seat on the Security Council just hours after it was elected for the first time to the body owes much to the UN’s handling of Syria. More than that, however, last week’s surprise snub is a protest at the policies of the US across the Middle East, from Egypt to Iran.

    Riyadh might think that some of its grievances with its biggest ally are understandable, particularly those relating to events in Damascus. The deal with Syria on the dismantling of its chemical weapons and the push in the west for a peace conference are viewed in the Gulf as a legitimisation of Bashar al-Assad and an acceptance that he will remain in place, something Riyadh will not countenance.

    There is also concern that a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme and the US’s friendliness with Hassan Rouhani, the centrist new president, will offer Tehran greater political influence in the region.

    On Iran as well as Egypt, Riyadh’s attitude is unreasonable. Its calls for international acceptance of the Cairo coup and a continuation of US aid will not restore stability to the Arab world’s most populous nation. The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood cannot stay locked up without those who hold the key facing any consequences.

    Ultimately, the snub was ill-considered, owing too much to emotion and not enough to realpolitik. The nature of the rejection of the rotating seat, a move that stunned even the country’s own diplomats, will raise questions about a leadership that appears capricious and unable to follow through on its policies.

    Even on the issue of Syria, Saudi rulers should have taken into account the huge public opposition in the US and Europe to any kind of military intervention, however limited. Indignation in Riyadh will neither change Russia’s support for Syria nor spur the US into action. As a form of protest, it is self-destructive.

    Yet the kingdom remains a very important ally for the US, and Washington’s relationship with its rulers should not be allowed to drift. If Saudi Arabia begins to act unilaterally, the crisis in Syria could worsen. Riyadh is likely to pour in more weapons yet will still lack the ability to tilt decisively the military balance on the ground. Such a policy will also hasten the disintegration of rebel groups by increasing competition between those funded by Saudi Arabia and those backed by Qatar. Riyadh must ultimately be kept engaged, whether it is in or outside the Security Council.

    – Financial Times

     

  • A dialogue without power

    A dialogue without power

    President Jonathan’s decision that the national conference will report to the National Assembly makes the whole affair a waste of time and money

    Less than a month after President Goodluck Jonathan unveiled his ambition to set sail on a national conference, his ambition has begun to unravel. He has said that the report of the national conference will be sent to the National Assembly for approval.

    This statement exposed the whole definition of the conference from the presidency’s point of view. He sees the national conference as a mere opportunity to dialogue without power. If the conference had a fundamental power to re-enunciate its dreams, redefine its ethos and politics, restructure the nation and vouchsafe our past to a future rippling with clear vision, why would it report to the National Assembly?

    This has not only exposed President Jonathan’s parochial standpoint on the matter, but also clarified the contrast for those who have called for a sovereign national conference. The difference between both positions is now potent. For Jonathan, the conference will be an anaemic affair, even if full of debates, disagreements and the theatre of backslapping. It could debate the issue of state police, the cartography of revenue allocation, the furies of insecurity and the darkness cast over our education system. In the final analysis, the lawmakers will decide what they want and what to discard. Has the same National Assembly not been engaged in such parley across the country in the name of constitutional amendments? What results have emanated from them?

    According to the Jonathan agenda, once the conference has completed its work, the presidency would append its assent.

    For those calling for a national conference of the sovereign type, the issue is more sober. It entails a representation of people from all over the country, covering ethnicity, geography, class and tendencies. The result will not be subject to any special institution like the National Assembly, the presidency and it is above the power of the courts for any sort of adjudication. It is a sovereign in miniature having embodied the soul of the entire nation in trust.

    This means the sovereign body cannot be appointed as perfunctorily as President Jonathan has done. It is a matter of national survival and progress. If, as President Jonathan has declared, the conference representatives will not be hamstrung by any fetters, including the issue of the survival of the nation, why would they want any existing institution to decide on the wisdom or foolishness of their submissions?

    The conference, among other things, will discuss the essences of the presidency and the National Assembly. It will decide how the representatives are elected, what powers they should wield, what kind of funding they could amass, how they relate to the electorate and the limits of their swagger. As it regards the National Assembly, it will also have to deliberate whether we need a National Assembly, or whether we need a bi-camera or uni-camera legislature, and the modes of representation and operation.

    In the sort of debate and powers without fetters, the sovereign national conference could decide that the way both institutions are constituted do not chime with the popular will. If that is the case, the National Assembly suffused with persons who might want to retain the status quo, may decide to assign the full report of the conference to a committee, and the process may end up restoring the status quo for the National Assembly. Not just that, other aspects of the report that today’s decrepit elite may oppose may become subjects of lobbying.

    At the end, fundamental aspects of the report would have been either deleted or diluted, leaving for the presidency a corrupted version of the people’s will. The presidency, also aware of its interests, may do same.

    The people’s position would have been compromised, and the final copy a mockery of intense work done by the people’s representatives.

    But if the people have finished their work, what will be left? It will be subjected to a plebiscite, and the majority of the people will be asked to either endorse the document or reject this. From historical examples, such conferences often exercise tremendous power because they are a precursor to a fundamental change in the way things are run. Its existence necessarily curtails powers of all institutions as they pertain to the conference’s powers.

    No chief executive or legislature can assume powers over those of the conference. Those may be the nuances that are troubling President Jonathan and his fellow travellers. That accounts for their decision to subject the people’s will to a coterie of interested men and women.

    Other nations have passed through that process, whether it was the United States, Britain, France, Germany or even South Africa. It is not often a tea party. It offers an opportunity for unflattering introspection. Every tribe or region or class will spill its views with unvarnished candour, and the conference will have to distill every word or body through the rigour of debates and sundry other engagements. It is an opportunity for histories and cultures of different parts of the country to collide and align.

    That is why we have called a national conference a dialogue with power, not one as ritual. If we follow the pattern President Jonathan has set in motion, we cannot avoid the conclusion that it is another exercise in squander-mania and diversion. It is a rigmarole that will lead back to where we have always been. It is a dialogue without power.

  • Wanted: exemplary leaders

    Wanted: exemplary leaders

    AFRICA’S glaring and perplexing leadership challenge was again highlighted by the bleak announcement that there was no fit person for the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership for 2013. It was a damning verdict with huge negative implications for progress on the continent, and an awful advertisement for Africa, which continues to contend with the stigma of “darkness”.

    It is a cause for concern that for two consecutive years, and for the fourth time in the award’s seven-year history, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation found no African leader worthy of the yearly $5 million prize (about N800 million) to be paid over a period of 10 years. In addition, the winner is guaranteed $200,000 annually (about N32 million) for life. The qualification – being a democratically-elected leader who has stepped down from office in the past three years, after serving constitutionally-mandated terms marked by a demonstration of “excellence in office” – appears tragically beyond the reach of most of the continent’s political leaders.

    Sadly, the epileptic nature of the record of winners lacks inspirational value, the very attribute that the prize is designed to promote. After the inaugural award to Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique in 2007, he was followed by Festus Mogae of Botswana in 2008; then there was a two-year hiatus occasioned by ineligibility before Pedro Verona Pires of Cape Verde took the prize in 2011.

    There is no doubt about the good intentions of the promoter of the award, which is by far the biggest prize for good governance in Africa, Dr. Mohamed “Mo” Ibrahim, a 67-year-old Sudanese-British mobile communications entrepreneur and billionaire. The beauty of the award is perhaps the institutional objectivity that it represents. What is doubtful, however, as the laudable scheme approaches its first decade, is the capacity of the continent’s leaders to grasp the vision and rise to new heights of exemplary leadership. For it would amount to an undesirable capitulation to visionless mediocrity if the criteria for the award were scaled down in order to ensure that a winner emerged every year.

    As absurd as it might sound, it may be that the Mo Ibrahim Prize does not offer sufficient incentive to Africa’s leaders to govern well. For, considering the monumental levels of official corruption on the continent, it might possibly not be in the best interest of Africa’s greed-driven leaders to sacrifice the immediate dividends of corruption for an uncertain award.

    However, it should be stressed that what is at stake is certainly beyond the pockets of some self-focused leaders. It goes without saying that Africa desperately needs new paradigms of progressive leadership, particularly in today’s world with its galloping pace of development. It is a huge shame that the continent still grapples with inexcusable poverty, appalling infrastructure, backward education and primitive health care arrangements, among other inadequacies that make it the butt of jokes in enlightened circles.

    With specific reference to Nigeria, whose leaders enjoy the self-flattery of the tag “giant of Africa”, without in any way thinking like giants, it is disgraceful that the country was ranked 41st on a 52-country list called the 2013 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG), also a project of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. The country not only scored lower than the continental average (51.6), it also ridiculously scored lower than the regional average (52.5) for West Africa. Assessment was based on four key areas: Safety and Rule of Law, Participation and Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Human Development.

    This context underlines the enduring appeal of the Mo Prize, which should inspire Africa’s leaders to dream and re-imagine not only their various countries, but also the entire continent. It would be interesting to see whether they would eventually respond to the award with the enthusiasm and commitment to good governance that it desires to stimulate.

     

  • Baba Omojola (1938-2013)

    Baba Omojola (1938-2013)

    HIS life could easily have followed a totally different trajectory. He certainly had the requisite intellect, talent, energy and abundant opportunities to accumulate wealth and live in personal affluence while being totally indifferent to the fate of the poor, weak and disadvantaged. But Adewole Babarinde Omojola Abiola, popularly known as Baba Oluwide Omojola, who died last Saturday, October 19, at the age of 75, steadfastly defied the lure to live according to the decadent norms of an overly acquisitive, materialistic and self-centred society.

    Baba Omojola, one of Nigeria’s most committed, consistent and versatile revolutionary thinkers and activists died, as it were, on active service. Even at his advanced age, he had travelled to Akure, Ondo State, and made a presentation at the Town Hall meeting organised by the National Conference Advisory Committee just a day before death came calling. He died in pursuit of his life- long commitment to fundamental socio-economic and political change in Nigeria. In every sense, the struggle for a just, equitable and democratic society that upholds human dignity and freedom was his life.

    Born in Ipetu-Ijesha, Osun State, in 1938, Baba Omojola attended Ilesa Grammar School between 1952 and 1956. Thereafter, he was admitted to the London School of Economics, where he obtained a 1st Class Degree in Economics in 1961. A man of uncommon brilliance, his academic record at the famous institution was unsurpassed for over four decades. He received further education at the Central School of Planning and Statistics in Poland, from where he graduated in 1970.

    Resolute in his commitment to the emancipation of the poor and underprivileged, Baba Omojola was active throughout his life in various pro-democracy and revolutionary socialist movements in the country. Among these were the Movement for Popular Democracy in Nigeria (MPD), Peoples Redemption Party (PRP), Socialist Revolutionary Vanguard (SRV) and the Socialist Party of Nigeria (SPN). He was also a member of the Campaign for Democracy (CD), the National Consultative Forum (NCF) that organised the 1990 National Conference forcibly terminated by the military dictatorship of General Ibrahim Babangida; the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), which led the struggle against the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election as well as the Pro-National Conference Organisation (PRONACO).

    Not unexpectedly, Baba Omojola’s radical political activism earned him the wrath of the state, particularly during the period of military rule. He was often harassed, had his residence searched for arms and in 1992 was detained for months at the Kuje Prisons near Abuja, along with Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Femi Falana (SAN), Olusegun Maiyegun, and Dr Beko Ransome-Kuti, for their opposition to the Babangida regime. These threats to his life and liberty never dimmed the ardour of his dedication to the cause of truth and justice. He never for once contemplated compromising his principles or integrity for self- preservation.

    But then, Baba Omojola’s revolutionary passion and influence transcended the borders of Nigeria. He was an ardent Pan-Africanist who played a key, although largely uncelebrated role in the struggle to liberate Africa from colonial bondage. He thus worked very closely in this regard with key revolutionary figures within and beyond Africa, including Fidel Castro of Cuba, Che Guevara of Bolivia, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Algeria’s Ben Bella, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Sam Nujoma in Namibia as well as Oliver Tambo, Steve Biko, Thabo Mbeki and Winnie Mandela in South Africa, to name a few.

    The demise of Baba Omojola is a monumental loss, especially at this time when there is urgent need for fundamental transformation in Nigeria. He was indeed an authentic hero of the Nigerian and African masses. We pray that his soul rest in eternal peace and that his example remains an enduring inspiration for future generations.

  • L’affaire Dibrani

    L’affaire Dibrani

    French authorities may have followed the letter of the law when they deported Leonarda Dibrani and her family to Kosovo this month. Her parents had made numerous applications for asylum since entering the country illegally in 2009; all had failed. Yet that does not excuse the shameful behaviour of police who intercepted a school bus and escorted Ms Dibrani, a 15-year-old Roma girl, away from her classmates and teachers.

    President François Hollande has conceded that officers displayed a “lack of discretion” when they apprehended Ms Dibrani. The best that can fairly be said is that they acted in a clumsy and insensitive manner. A darker explanation is that their political masters are vying with a resurgent National Front for the ears of voters who are growing hostile towards immigration. Such jingoism would grate in any democracy. In France, which has struggled to come to terms with the wartime Vichy government’s complicity in atrocities against foreign refugees, it is especially jarring.

    Governments have a responsibility to enforce immigration laws to prevent citizens from being burdened by people who are not entitled to be in their country. France is more welcoming than many European nations to immigrants from outside the EU. Failure to uphold the rules risks prompting a backlash against immigration.

    However, the law’s supremacy entails that it must also be impartial. France has previously been accused of expelling Roma more diligently than other illegal immigrants. Now it has appeared to do so in a vindictive manner. Laws should be instruments of justice, not pretexts for discrimination.

    Mr Hollande tried to quell the uproar over Ms Dibrani’s deportation by mouthing feeble bromides. These have rightly been met with derision. His insistence that “the law was perfectly respected” gave too little weight to the authorities’ obligation to behave decently. Worse, he used a television address to offer the teenager an unseemly bargain, promising that if she returns to study in France “a welcome will be extended to her, alone”. Many considered it a further cruelty to ask a young girl to choose between family and country. This exception further undermined France’s reputation as a nation of laws.

    The episode has humiliated Mr Hollande and brought shame upon his government. His compatriots should remember that a civilised country is above all one that upholds its laws in a civilised way.

     

    – Financial Times

  • Condemnable intolerance

    Condemnable intolerance

    In the face of it, the rally by the Federal Capital Territory Authority (FCTA), to maintain the integrity of the Abuja master plan, by sealing off the Maitama Governor’s Lodge of Adamawa State, would appear dutiful, or even patriotic.

    The accusation, for the seal-off, was that the building was being used for political, instead of residential purposes, for which the Maitama district was designed. The lodge serves as temporary head office of a faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    But if you look closely, you cannot but reflect on that quip, that states patriotism is the last bastion of the scoundrel! The FCTA legal rally is no more than subterfuge to clamp down on a rival faction of the party; using governmental force to cripple its operations.

    If you link the fact that the police, under the goading of the presidential faction of the federal ruling party, had earlier sealed off the first headquarters of the Baraje PDP faction, a pattern of provocation is established.

    Yet, the Jonathan faction could also, not illegitimately, claim counter-provocation from this splinter group that calls itself “New PDP”, a name a court of competent jurisdiction had disowned. Political splintering is recognised under the law. But not manufacturing a name, to parody the splintered party. That appears the logic behind the court’s decision that nPDP could not fly.

    Perhaps with the atavistic mindset triggered by a military era hangover, it might be too much for a Presidency that has exclusive control of the security forces not to be tempted to clamp down. But such reckless behaviours do nothing to ground the ethos of democratic tolerance that Nigeria sorely needs.

    The FCTA legal grandstanding, prelude to the seal-off, was therefore an illicit cloak masquerading as legality. The presidential faction of the PDP sadly resorted to self-help, in a democracy which ought to be grounded on the rule of law. That is not only bad behaviour from the highest quarters; it is also an act of gross corruption of the vital security institutions of state. Involving the police to settle factional scores in a party breaking up would invite nothing but further future abuses and the ensuing anarchy. That should be decried.

    Still, the situation would have been radically different if, armed with its regulations, the FCTA had gone to court and asked it to compel the Adamawa Governor’s Lodge to close down the PDP factional secretariat on its premises. That probably would have taken a longer time to effect.

    But if the action succeeds, the FCTA would have saved itself the legitimate charge that as a department of government, it is involving itself in factional political feuds. Yes, the Abuja minister is a politician. And he would probably not have been minister without his party card.

    Still, the FCTA is no factional PDP office; and strictly by law, it would appear to have no locus to twist its regulations to favour one faction above the other, no matter where its own sympathy lay. The most tragic thing about it all is that by conspiracy by the powers-that-be, it is yet impunity to undermine democratic institutions. Besides, how does such strong-arm tactics promote the so-called “reconciliation” the party crows about?

    This brazen power show also reflects, in dirty Technicolor, the abiding crisis of federalism in Nigeria’s troubled polity. Governors’ Lodges ought to be sacrosanct territory, not to be invaded at will by a bully Federal Government, because it monopolises the Nigeria Police. The building belongs to the Adamawa people and Adamawa ought to be a state, not inferior, but coordinate to the federal bully now turning itself the security village headmaster.

    Perhaps Adamawa should not have “abused” its territory, by converting part of it to the headquarters of its faction of the party. Yet, that territory ought to have been respected, as it is the convention with foreign embassies – or worst, call in the courts to adjudicate the matter.

    The federal authorities under Jonathan should resist cutting its nose in a fit of undemocratic temper. Each time it does that, it spites the face of our democracy. Believe us, it is grotesque!

  • Omoruyi’s sad farewell

    Omoruyi’s sad farewell

    I am going back to the hospital, the president should help me. Jonathan should help me for goodness sake, he has not. I cried to him through E.K. Clark, that he should help me and pay my bills. I am going back now for recurrence of cancer, help me… There is vindictiveness in the land. I have paid my dues in this country and the country is unfair to me. What did I not do?”

    This heart rending plea was not the lamentation of some insignificant, inconsequential Nigerian. Rather, they were the pathetic and helpless words of one of the country’s most accomplished and distinguished academics, the political scientist, Professor Omo Omoruyi, as he sought assistance for treatment abroad in his protracted battle against prostate cancer.

    Edo State Governor, Adams Oshiomhole, eventually came to Professor Omoruyi’s aid and he was able to travel to the United States twice to receive effective care for his medical condition. But, on October 13, barely a month after his return from his last trip to the US, Omoruyi lost his brave fight to live. He died at a private hospital in Benin, aged 75.

    The erudite political scientist came into national consciousness when he was appointed Chairman of the Centre for Democratic Studies (CDS) during the military dictatorship of General Ibrahim Babangida. He was known to be one of Babangida’s closest advisers and one of those who helped conceptualise key elements of the administration’s political transition programme.

    It was thus a grand irony that as he struggled against his life-threatening ailment, Omoruyi had cause to publicly lament his alleged neglect by his former boss and benefactor. In his words, “IBB abandoned me. I let him know about the first journey. He did not help me, not even one kobo, so I cannot go to him this second journey. In the first journey I did not hear from him. I sent him a message that I am going back to the hospital”.

    Of course, Professor Omoruyi’s sense of betrayal is understandable. As he said in one interview, “I did not come into his administration to make any personal name for myself, my ethnic group, my partisan ends, but to assist IBB meet his political goal. My loyalty was total”.

    But then, Omoruyi’s experience offers serious food for thought as regards the role of the academic, or indeed any other professional, in public office. Should such an appointee’s loyalty be to an individual leader or to the country?

    It would appear that Omoruyi placed greater premium on his obligation to help actualise Babangida’s personal goals above the collective national interest. This was probably why the professor was unable to utilise his enormous clout within the regime to help influence Babangida to chart a more patriotic and ennobling path.

    Along with other palace intellectuals of the Babangida regime, Omoruyi certainly deserves credit for such initiatives as the two-party system and the open ballot electoral process that resulted in the historic June 12, 1993, presidential election. However, when the election was unjustifiably annulled, he was one of those who shirked the responsibility of speaking up for truth and justice when it mattered most.

    There are those who believe that Omoruyi later redeemed himself by publishing an insider account of the annulment, which affirmed that Chief M.K.O. Abiola actually won the election; a book which is an invaluable historical and intellectual document.

    Earlier, Omoruyi’s criticism of the annulment during the Abacha regime was probably responsible for the assassination attempt on him in Benin City on February 3, 1994. Others think that he spoke up too late after the damage had been done. Whatever may be the case, Omoruyi has played his part and the final verdict rests with history.

    May his soul rest in peace.