Category: Editorial

A RECENT DISPATCH in The Post from a village in Tanzania foreshadowed stark choices facing Africa in the decades ahead. Journalist Sharon Schmickle, watching young children eagerly await scoops of corn and beans for lunch, described the conflict in Tanzania between those who suffer from food shortages caused by drought and pestilence and those who hold deep suspicions about the genetic engineering of crops, which might help grow more food. The doubters about genetic modifications seem to have the upper hand in Tanzania at the moment, and that is disturbing.

As a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out, genetic engineering in agriculture is not a magic bullet for Africa, but it can help battle pests and diseases, improve nutrition and reduce the use of water and chemicals, all of which would benefit farmers and their families. Genetically modified crops can increase yields, which lag in Africa behind those of the rest of the world.

African countries and research organizations in the Water Efficient Maize for Africa project, for example, have incorporated a gene from a common soil bacterium into corn, enabling plants to produce kernels even when short of water. The genetically modified corn is expected to increase yields by 25 percent during a moderate drought.

Yet this corn is not being tested or planted in Tanzania. The country has adopted some of the most restrictive rules on the continent to govern genetically modified food. A policy of “strict liability” threatens companies or organizations that introduce genetically modified crops, and none has dared to bring such plants to Tanzania’s fields. Scientists are hampered and frustrated.

Africa in general has been slow to accept genetic engineering. Only four nations have commercialized biotech crops: South Africa, Egypt, Sudan and Burkina Faso. Underlying the hesitation is a suspicion that the genetically modified crops are the first wave of malevolent U.S. corporations seeking a toehold in African fields. Since U.S. farmers first adopted genetically modified crops in 1996, some 17 million farmers in 29 countries have followed suit, but Europe has rejected the crops, and European activists have urged Africa to follow suit. There is much talk of a threat to Africa’s “food sovereignty.” This is having some impact, however misguided.

Smallholder farmers — those with less than two hectares — are the backbone of Africa’s agriculture. They face immense difficulties. Fewer than a third of the farmers in sub-Saharan Africa use any type of improved seeds that have been developed through conventional breeding, let alone more advanced, genetically modified varieties. This is the hard reality that can’t be changed overnight by genetic engineering. Surely, there is no harm in a vigorous debate about genetically modified food; if people don’t understand it, the benefits will never be realized. But it is a shame to abandon these crops based on irrational fears and suspicions. If Europeans choose to forego genetically modified food, they can do so without risking hunger. They ought not discourage its use for those village children in Tanzania who are hungry and at the mercy of drought.

– Washington Post

•A nine-year-old boy shows Nigerian potential with his Microsoft certification

Nigeria’s education system may not be as bleak as circumstances suggest, with the report of the distinction of a nine-year-old computer whizz-kid, Jomiloju Tunde-Oladipo, who has set a record as the country’s youngest Microsoft certified professional. He is now a Microsoft office specialist in Office Word 2010. With an examination score of 769 out of 1,000, Jomiloju outclassed 20 others, performing excellently in Sharing and Maintaining Documents, Formatting Content, Applying Page Layout and Reusable Content, among other subjects.

It is noteworthy that Microsoft Certified Professional, a certification programme of the reputable Microsoft Corporation, is aimed at building skills on Microsoft business solutions, focusing on client-end operating systems such as Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7, among others. Also worth mentioning is the international status of the certification.

Young Jomiloju’s accomplishment is particularly significant in the Computer Age, with the heart-warming implication that the country may not be such a terrible laggard, after all. His success placed him in the company of brainy peers who are equally Microsoft certified, including Nigeria’s 10-year-old Anjolaoluwa Seyi-Ojo, an eight-year-old Indian, Lavishnashree, and two Pakistanis, Arfa and Thobani.

The prodigy’s story is even more remarkable because he had previously taken the test last year as a Primary Five pupil. “I did not make it then,” he said, adding, “But I remained focused and I put in a lot of hard work.”  According to him, “At home and in school, I am always on the computer. After school hours, if I am not doing anything, I will go to my Information Communication Technology teacher, to learn more.”

Such studiousness deserves commendation, especially considering his age, when playfulness would have been perfectly understandable.  It is a testimony to the depth of his interest in the subject as well as his concentration that he eventually cleared the hurdle. However, even more praiseworthy is his ambition. He was quoted as saying, “I still want to sit for more examinations.  I will still do Excel and Power point.”  There is no doubt that his obvious fascination with the computer would benefit greatly from enlightened support and informed guidance.

Kudos must be given not only to his parents, but also to his school, Role Model School, Oregun, Ikeja, Lagos, for recognising his gift and providing inspiration, encouragement and learning. It is important to note that he reportedly said his parents bought him “the latest Dell laptop.” Certainly, parental and institutional influences played key roles in his success story, which is a big lesson.

Of relevance are the ambitious computer schemes of some state governments, notably, Ekiti and Osun states. In the former, Governor Kayode Fayemi is focused on the distribution of 33,000 laptops to students and teachers in public secondary schools under the administration’s e-School Project. In the latter, the groundbreaking computer-based educational project for public secondary schools, known as Opon Imo, introduced by Governor Rauf Aregbesola, promises a revolution in learning methods. These examples bring hope; and when considered in the context of Jomiloju’s feat, which he achieved within the private school system, the picture is of optimism.

In contrast, it is pertinent to revisit the spectacular case of the negatively adventurous Daniel Oikhena, the teenager who in August made news as a stowaway when he secretly slipped into the landing gear compartment of a Lagos-bound Arik Air aircraft on the runway of the Benin Airport in Edo State. In a sense, his escapade, motivated by an incredible dream to fly to America, mirrored the mentality of a large number of youths who, sadly, have lost hope in the country.

Perhaps the basic moral of Jomiloju’s example is that the structures of socialisation, in this case, parents and schools, have a major responsibility in the raising of the proverbial leaders of tomorrow. Society must not fail them.

IN a clime where impunity by corporate actors is the rule rather than the exception, it comes as no surprise that the Nigeria Stock Exchange, NSE, is again posting an unflattering score-card on the activities of some of its listed companies. The X-Compliance report published by the NSE is instructive: 92 companies fell short of the exchange’s minimum listing standards. The infractions were specific: failure to disclose audited annual financial statements and interim quarterly accounts on time, and non-disclosure of information.

Of the 92 companies, the report found that 51 defaulted in filing their audited accounts; the rest did not bother to render audited financial statements for 2012. In more serious cases, some did not even render audited accounts for three years. Jos International Breweries, for instance, was indicted for non-rendition of audited accounts for 2010, 2011 and 2012; while G. Cappa Plc was cited for default in its 2011, 2012 and 2013 accounts. Others like Afrik Pharmaceuticals Plc and Nigerian Wire Cable Company Plc did not file in their audited accounts for 2011 and 2012; in the same vein, Nigerian German Chemicals Plc and Union Homes and Savings Plc failed to render their audited accounts for 2012 and 2013. This is in spite of the fact that the listing rules mandated them to file their quarterly accounts within 45 days after the end of the quarter.

That is not all. In the current year, a total of 66 companies failed to file in their interim quarterly accounts for the first quarter of 2013, with 30 also in default in rendering their audited accounts. In the second quarter, 13 companies were affected with five defaulting in other areas. Sterling Bank Plc, Union Bank Plc and Dangote Cement Plc were charged with operating below listing standards for non-disclosure of information. Dangote Cement and Union Bank were found to have violated guidelines for non-rendition of free-float compliance report; Sterling Bank was listed for non-disclosure of the material information to the regulator with N1.323m fine imposed for non-disclosure of bond issuance to the exchange.

On the balance, the report found that a total of 25 companies duly filed their interim accounts for the first quarter of 2013; 49 quoted companies filed their interim accounts early for the second quarter of 2013.

The NSE has certainly taken an important step of identifying the infractions; we consider this first and necessary step to getting the companies live up to their responsibilities as quoted companies. The question is what next?

We expect the exchange to move beyond the tactic of ‘naming and shaming’ of offenders. It should devise effective methods to secure the compliance of the affected companies with relevant regulations. Need we remind both the NSE and the companies that the regulations were put in place to ensure discipline and order in the capital market and in particular, to guide investors into making informed decisions? When regulations are observed more in the breach as the X-Compliance report does suggest, the result is not just the calling of the institutional integrity of the NSE to question; the net effect is the gradual erosion of confidence of the investing public in the capital market.

The offending companies must not be allowed to carry on as if nothing happened. A good place to start is for the NSE to undertake a realistic assessment of its capacity to enforce the regulations. Better, in our view, to deal with the capacity issue first to guarantee success of any planned enforcement action.

The bottom-line is the right of the investing public to know. Nothing of the activities of the management of the quoted companies must be seen to abridge that right.

NIGERIANS yet again are regaled with the tales of the Abacha years of kleptomania. This time, the news is that Liechtenstein is trying all the tricks in the books to further delay the repatriation of $185 million, stolen through surrogate companies by Gen. Sani Abacha, when he was the maximum ruler in Nigeria. According to the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the help of the World Bank has been enlisted to help persuade Liechtenstein to do the right thing, by returning the loot. She wondered why the delay, when courts in Liechtenstein had ordered that the money be released to Nigeria.

The finance minister, addressing a press conference at the International Monetary Fund/World Bank annual meetings, noted the disturbing long effort to get Liechtenstein to return the stolen wealth to Nigeria: “For 14 years, starting since the Presidency of President Olusegun Obasanjo, we have been pursuing this money in Liechtenstein and this is part of the legacy of the Abacha money taken out of the country”.

Now after the courts in Liechtenstein have ordered the return of the money, the indicted companies trumped up a new course of action at the European Court of Human Rights, and Liechtenstein is relying on that to further hold on to the loot.

This should be unacceptable both to Nigeria and to the international community; so we urge the World Bank to pressure Liechtenstein to return the money without further delay. Indeed, if Liechtenstein has any reputation to protect, it should be seen to be making concerted effort to help return the stolen wealth of ordinary Nigerians to their country, instead of taking steps that can rightly be seen as stalling the release of the looted resources. After all, under the municipal law of any modern society, the receiver of stolen goods is as guilty as the thief.

While the Federal Government deserves commendation for working hard to recover the country’s wealth stolen by previous regimes, it is also fair to ask, what has become of the portions of the loot so far recovered? As many have asked, is it not possible that the regimes that have worked so hard to recover these monies have also re-looted the recovered funds? We are asking this question because we are not aware of how the funds recovered over the years have been utilised or paid back into our consolidated revenue account. It is also fair to ask whether the recovered monies have been frittered away as fees to third parties, or through other questionable means.

Even more pertinent is what has the current government done to stop the clearly observable stealing of our common resources, at several levels of governance? Again, will it not be right to state that despite assurances from the highest officials of government, there is no serious effort to rein in corruption by the current government? Is it not likely, therefore, that when a government willing to demand an account is voted into place, we are likely to have tales of similar recoveries from the regimes that have been celebrating the recovery of loots from the Abacha years?

While we await answers to these questions bothering the general public, it is important for our governments to be transparently more accountable. Unfortunately, this government and the ones preceding it have presided over heartbreaking scams just like in the Abacha years, such that many Nigerians are left wondering whether anything has really changed.

THOUGH few details of Iran’s new offer on its nuclear program have been released, two broad points were clear following this week’s negotiations in Geneva. One is encouraging: The Iranian government is more serious than it has been in years about negotiating a deal with the United States and its five partners. The other is ominous: Tehran is still insisting that it will never give up its capability to enrich uranium, which is the key to nuclear weapons production.

The detailed proposal set out by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was a stark change from previous rounds of negotiations , which featured filibustering by Iranian negotiators who offered only vague ideas. Mr. Zarif made clear that Iran is eager to come to an agreement that would lift the sanctions crippling its economy. He reportedly talked about finalizing an accord within three to six months.

Several reports, including one by Iran’s state news agency, suggested that the plan includes limits on the degree to which uranium would be enriched and on the number of centrifuges, as well as acceptance of a more aggressive U.N. inspection regime. As Trita Parsi of the Iranian-American National Council pointed out, the proposal may resemble that offered by Mr. Zarif and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani when they last represented Iran in nuclear talks, in 2005. The scheme they presented then would have restricted Iran to 3,000 centrifuges; it now has 19,000 installed.

That 2005 plan was rejected by the Bush administration and the European Union because it would have allowed Iran to continue enrichment, which remains a central feature of the new proposal. Mr. Zarif is saying that Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium must be recognized, and it appears Tehran may be unwilling to take even the interim, confidence-building steps proposed by the United States unless this principle is conceded.

This position is troubling. No “right” to enrich uranium exists in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nor is enrichment needed for a nuclear power program: Many countries using nuclear power do not enrich their own uranium. On the other hand, as Mr. Rouhani himself said in a 2005 speech, a “country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons.” Iran’s insistence on enrichment appears meant to preserve a capability for nuclear breakout after sanctions are lifted.

The Obama administration has been hinting that it could accept some Iranian enrichment, provided it was under strict controls. But any such deal would pose political challenges. Israel and France remain opposed to any Iranian enrichment, as do many members of Congress. Six Democratic and four Republican senators recently sent President Obama a letter rejecting Iran’s enrichment demands and saying that Iran should suspend all enrichment now in order to avoid further congressionally mandated sanctions.

We believe it is worth exploring a settlement that permits a token amount of enrichment while locking down the program to minimize the chance of an undetected breakout. Certainly this would be preferable to military action. But such a deal would require far greater concessions than the regime appears to be contemplating. As Russia’s deputy foreign minister put it in Geneva, the sides remain “kilometers apart.” And since Iran has yet to slow its enrichment, time is running out.

– Washington Post