The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

So, who stole UBEC’s N787m?

Last week’s judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja freeing four directors of the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) and an expatriate contractor, charged with embezzling N787million of the commission’s fund, is very depressing. In discharging and acquitting the accused persons, Justice Adamu Bello, ruled in favour of ‘a no case’ submission made by the defence, after the prosecution had closed its case. The trial judge held that the accused persons were mere scapegoats, insisting that it was members of the board at the time of the award of contract in 2005 that should have been charged for the offences.

The prosecuting agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC) is reported to have disagreed with the judgment and has decided to appeal. The discharged directors of UBEC are, Molkat Mutfwang, Michael Aule, Andrew Ekpunobi and Professor Bridget Sokam; while the Amercian contractor is Alexander Cozma. The two companies allegedly used to siphon the money are Intermarkets USA LLC and Intermarkets Nigeria. According to the judge, the real culprits are free, while the above charged persons have no case to answer. He held that the accused persons were being victimised.

The case brought by the EFCC against the accused persons was that they were complicit in an illegal diversion of the contract sum for the supply of learning facilities to all secondary schools in Nigeria. Now, with the judgment, unless upturned on appeal, nobody would be held accountable for stealing such a humongous public fund, meant for the upgrading of our schools. We say without equivocation that such a development is totally unacceptable, and we urge the office of the Attorney General to ensure that those who stole our common patrimony are made to answer for their criminality.

The public, no doubt, is left confounded, at the sad turn of events. Both the prosecuting EFCC commission and the judgment acknowledge that N669 million, representing 85 percent of the contract sum, was unlawfully paid up-front by UBEC, without the approval of the Federal Executive Council, as required by law. It was also established that further sums of N41 million and N16 million, not within the contract sum, were paid to the contractor. Yet, as it is now, those docked did not do the heist. Who did?

It will therefore be in the interest of the public to know whether the claim of the judge that the wrong parties were brought to court is true. While we have our doubts, as to how UBEC bid committee can be exculpated from a fraudulent award of contract under their nose, it is the duty of the prosecution to bring the correct parties to court. If it turns out that the wrong parties were charged to court, as held by the trial judge, then the EFCC will need to convince Nigerians that such a serious error was inadvertent.

While the office of the Attorney General of the Federation is sorting out who is wrong between the judge and the commission, it may be helpful to quickly arraign the members of the Board of UBEC in 2005 that awarded the unlawful contracts as held by the judge. It will be unfair for such a huge sum to be lost between the tardiness of the prosecution as implied by the judge, or because a judge misdirected himself, or is swayed by untoward reasons. The sharp difference between the position of the EFCC and the judge needs to be explained.

All concerned must remember that the future of our country is at stake. This is one sleaze that must be cracked and those guilty punished.

October 3, 2013
Shut up, Boy George!

How does one deal with a seeming lost case like the one of Olabode Ibiyinka George, military governor of old Ondo State in the lost years of the military and former deputy national chairman (South) of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), aside from being an ex-convict for sleaze?

In pristine Yoruba culture, the Elewon (prisoner, criminal or ex-convict, depending on the context of translation) is the ultimate stain. But then has come the Common Law compassion that admonishes you to hate the crime but love the criminal.

Still, how do you manoeuvre this delicate balance of compassion, faced with a grating and unrepentant ex-convict like Bode George, who appears determined to stain about every segment of honourable society with the tragic tar he brought upon himself?

In a September 21 interview George granted The Punch, he ridiculed and blamed everyone, except himself, for his present sorry state: the court that gaoled him for sleaze, the church that told him to ‘go sin no more’ at his post-prison release thanksgiving – and maybe even the media that dare report, based on solid evidence of trial and conviction, that Bode is indeed an ex-convict!

Bode George’s attack on the court and the church is both reprehensible and cowardly. The court has done its job and moved on. If George still professes his innocence even after serving his gaol term, the least he could do is wait for the appellate court to do its job. Pray, how does insulting the lower court and maligning the judge that sat over the case help George in his appeal? Or would he be the appellant and judge in his own case?

Even the attack on the cleric that told him some bitter truth is even more brainless, made all the more sickening by the empty conceit, base vanity and rank arrogance that George exhibited. For having the temerity to tell him to change his ruinous ways and make peace with his God, George dismissed the cleric as that boy, who was in class four in secondary school, when he was already military governor in Ondo State! With George’s clear emptiness, despite his elite university education as engineer and elite military training in the Navy, it is no surprise that the military era is best forgotten.

Though George claimed in the interview he would be 70 in one-and-a-half years’ time, it is clear he has not outgrown the rashness that made his government present visiting Gen. Ibrahim Babangida with a life-size statue, which Babangida however rejected on religious grounds. Such recklessness also accounted for the apocryphal tale that quoted him as saying that by the time he was through as governor, Ondo State would know a Lagos boy passed through it!

George ridiculing the court and the church is cowardly, because no self-respecting judge or priest would respond in kind, by the dictates of their calling.

But perhaps the most comic, if not so tragic, of Bode George’s vituperation is his self-delusion that his was a political trial. No, it was a criminal one – and fair and squarely convicted, until of course a higher court holds otherwise.

So, to comically compare his trial and conviction to those of Nelson Mandela and Obafemi Awolowo is the height of reckless hallucination. To bring in the hallowed name of Herbert Macaulay – the family he claims his mother belongs – and to claim it was family tradition to go to gaol because old man Herbert did is a monumental disservice to the memory of that nationalist icon. Macaulay did not go to gaol for graft. George did.

Bode George should take Venerable Aduloju’s advice, purge himself of unbridled arrogance which gaol has so far not curbed, and seek true forgiveness from God. Otherwise, his case might be beyond redemption.

October 3, 2013
Netanyahu pushes back on Iran

During an aggressive speech at the United Nations on Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel used sarcasm and combative words to portray Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, as a smooth-talking charlatan, one who is determined to continue building a nuclear weapons arsenal.

Mr. Netanyahu called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the previous Iranian president, “a wolf in wolf’s clothing” and Mr. Rouhani “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Mr. Netanyahu has legitimate reasons to be wary of any Iranian overtures, as do the United States and the four other major powers involved in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. But it could be disastrous if Mr. Netanyahu and his supporters in Congress were so blinded by distrust of Iran that they exaggerate the threat, block President Obama from taking advantage of new diplomatic openings and sabotage the best chance to establish a new relationship since the 1979 Iranian revolution sent American-Iranian relations into the deep freeze.

Mr. Rouhani and the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, have insisted repeatedly that Iran wants only to develop nuclear energy and that obtaining a nuclear weapon would harm the country’s security.

Even so, Iran hid its nuclear program from United Nations inspectors for nearly 20 years, and the country is enriching uranium to a level that would make it possible to produce bomb-grade nuclear material more quickly. It has also pursued other activities, like developing high-voltage detonators and building missiles that experts believe could only have nuclear weapons-related uses.

These facts make it hard not to view the upcoming American-brokered negotiations skeptically. But Mr. Netanyahu has hinted so often of taking military action to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon that he seems eager for a fight. He did it again at the United Nations on Tuesday, warning that Israel reserved the right to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities if it deemed that Iran was close to producing nuclear weapons. “Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself,” he said.

The Iranians were so angered by what they called Mr. Netanyahu’s “inflammatory” speech that they issued a rebuttal and spoke of the need to “sustain the current positive atmosphere” so that diplomacy could be successful.

Similarly, they were not happy that Mr. Obama, meeting Mr. Netanyahu at the White House on Monday, took a harsher tone toward Iran than he did when he spoke by phone with Mr. Rouhani last week.

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Rouhani have hard-line domestic audiences and allies that they will need to consider and cajole as they undertake this effort to resolve the nuclear dispute and develop a new relationship. For Mr. Obama, that means working closely with Israel and helping Mr. Netanyahu see that sabotaging diplomacy, especially before Iran is tested, only makes having to use force more likely. That would be the worst result of all.

– New York Times

October 3, 2013
War in FAAC

•NNPC should open its book for public scrutiny; states should develop their IGR to reduce dependence on federation account

Nothing better illustrates the dependent nature of the nation’s federalism than the perennial row between the 36 states and the Federal Government, over the sharing of national revenue. On September 13, the Federal Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC) meeting held to consider and approve the statutory distribution of revenue for the month of August ended in a deadlock. Again, on Monday, last week, another meeting also ended similarly without the issue being resolved.

At the heart of the dispute is the N140 billion shortfall – an amount representing the differential between the projected revenue and the actual revenue earned for the first seven months of the year. The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation had after the botched Monday meeting issued a statement that efforts were being made to get N75bn from the NNPC to pay the shortfall.

The issue revolves around the projected revenue of N702.54bn for the three tiers of government in the 2013 Appropriation Act. In January, the three tiers could only realise N651.26bn revenue; February was even worse with only N571.7bn netted into the treasury. Although a modest improvement was recorded in March with N595.71bn, it was mixed fortune for the four months of April, May, June and July: the revenues came to N621.07bn, N590.77bn, N863.02bn and N497.98bn, respectively. That development prompted the Minister of State for Finance, Dr. Yerima Ngama, to announce earlier in the month that revenues would, from October, be shared on the basis of actual amount earned rather than what was budgeted.

We must say here that the best argument that the states have made for pushing their position is that the budget instrument – the 2013 Appropriation Act –lays out the basis for the revenue accrual based on production volume and the benchmark price for the nation’s crude. While that law assumes that production and price would go pari pasu, the reality however is that production has fallen short due to massive oil theft and associated production shut-ins.

Asking the Federal Government to carry the can – or asking that the shortfalls be charged to the Excess Crude Account (ECA), as the states are wont to do, vide their demand for augmentation of the shortfalls, in our view, skirts around the issue. Suppose there was nothing in the ECA, would the states still have demanded augmentation from the Federal Government?

The primary challenge is to stop the menace of oil theft or at least reduce it to the barest minimum. The challenge is beyond the ad-hoc committee for the mitigation of oil theft headed by the Delta State Governor, Emmanuel Uduaghan. A more permanent framework for dealing with the menace is what is recommended, which unfortunately, the Federal Government appears to lack the nerve to undertake.

Once again, the development has brought into sharp focus the activities of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), particularly its opaque accounting responsible for short-changing of the federation account. What we have today is a national oil corporation that sees itself as not answerable to anyone; one that does as it pleases and one with such immense powers as to be able to hold the beneficiaries of the federation account, save the Federal Government, to ransom. FAAC members obviously need to do more than the loud, occasional whispers only in the event of shortfalls at their monthly meetings. We expect them to put greater pressure on the National Assembly to get the NNPC to throw its book open for better scrutiny since attempts to get it to act responsibly have met with a brick wall.

The greatest lesson from the ruckus is the need for the states to grow their internally generated revenues to wean their dependence off the federation account. Relying on the federation account to pay salaries and remuneration of staff is not only unhealthy; it is the surest recipe for disaster, as the states may have learnt to their regret in the last few weeks.

October 2, 2013
Guilty as charged!

• CJN is right that our prosecution agencies usually place the cart before the horse

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mariam Mukhtar, has identified one of the weakest cogs in the judicial wheel when she openly denounced the way in which the nation’s prosecutorial agencies routinely charged suspects to court, only to then embark on a frantic search for the evidence needed to convict them.

Speaking at a special session organised by the Supreme Court to mark the commencement of the 2013/2014 Legal Year, Justice Mukhtar claimed that such agencies used holden charges to detain suspects in order to buy time to conduct investigations which ought to have been completed before the suspects were charged. The CJN explained that the practice had helped to contribute to the very high number of cases pending before the nation’s courts, as well as the length of time it took to conclude cases.

There is little doubt that Nigeria’s various prosecutorial agencies are guilty as charged. Even when allowance is made for the operational and other challenges that they face, there can be no justification for their adoption of tactics and strategies which defy the most fundamental tenets of justice.

The Nigeria Police is notorious for arresting individuals and charging them to court without a shred of evidence to back up its claims, only to resort to endless requests for adjournments while desperately searching for evidence it should have secured in the first place. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is no slouch when it comes to shooting first and talking later, either. Ever since its inception in 2003, it has been synonymous with strong-arm tactics – midnight raids on the homes of suspects, laying siege to their places of work, and trial in the media.

Because undue emphasis is put on charging suspects rather than securing cast-iron evidence against them, the investigative process is often carried out in a perfunctory manner. Crime scenes which should be cordoned off are left open, with the consequence that fingerprints, DNA samples and other crucial evidence are hopelessly tainted, if they can be found at all. Instead of conducting the painstaking forensic accounting that is vital to obtaining concrete evidence of financial crimes, prosecution agencies resort to the crude strategy of seizing files and computers, most of which are irrelevant to the case at hand.

When the suspects finally appear in court, the inadequacy of such methods is brutally exposed. Perhaps the most notorious example of prosecutorial perfidy is that of Dr. Peter Odili, the former governor of Rivers State, who was able to secure virtual immunity from prosecution, thanks to the EFCC’s incredible inability to vacate the injunction he had obtained against it. The fact that only one ex-governor has gone to jail is a sad testimony to the inefficiency of these methods and the danger their continued use poses to the justice system.

The failure to establish watertight cases against suspects makes it easier for them to escape on legal technicalities, thereby weakening public faith in the judiciary, which in turn strengthens the desire to resort to self-help. As criminals realise that indictments are no guarantee of successful prosecution, they will become even more emboldened in their criminal activities. When others see suspects virtually getting away with murder, they will be tempted to pursue careers in crime.

If this situation is to be halted, Nigeria’s prosecution agencies will have to rethink their approach and seek to play by the rules of the game. Investigations must be carried out in a thorough and comprehensive manner. Full use should be made of modern technologies and international assistance. Prosecutors must stop raising public expectations unnecessarily by conducting trials in the media. The human rights of suspects must be fully respected. Functional judicial systems are based on prosecution, not persecution.

October 2, 2013
Still crawling at 53

•Urgent steps should be taken to rescue this sinking giant, Nigeria

There is a saving grace, at least, as the Nigerian government has acknowledged that little progress is being made in, and by the country. This it has done by refusing to roll out the drums in wild celebration of the country’s 53rd independence anniversary.

Things are not looking good. Poverty is ravaging; death is stalking the land, snatching both the old and the young. The very young, infants, do not enjoy any form of protection and the youth are restive as jobs are unavailable. Most of the social and economic sectors are comatose while infrastructure is permanently experiencing decay. Looking at the statistics, the future appears bleak.

This is indeed a time for sober reflection. It is a time to seek answer to the question: How did we get to this sorry pass? The founding fathers had lofty dreams captured in the first National Anthem. They looked forward to handing to their children ‘a banner without stain’. They designed a constitution that they expected would bring out the best in the people – allowing the various regions enough autonomy to promote competition and creativity.

After rounds of meetings and conferences, the leaders agreed that federalism would promote national unity and encourage the blossoming of ideas. In addition to the federal constitution, each region had its constitution. Each region had its autonomous legislature and judiciary and the executive arm did not feel inferior to the Federal Government. Police was not on the exclusive legislative list and each region had enough latitude to generate resources without depending unduly on allocations from the centre. All the gains have since been lost to years of over-centralisation occasioned primarily by military rule and sustained by their short-sighted civilian successors. A plural society with a unitary system foisted on it could only have bred mediocrity and underdevelopment.

In contrast, some of the countries at the same level of development when Nigeria obtained independence in 1960 have joined the League of Developed Countries. Others that are yet to be admitted to that exclusive club have made such remarkable progress that they are a toast of countries like Nigeria. It pays to ask again: Where were Indonesia, Malaysia and the South East Asian countries in the 1960s? India and China used to be the butt of derisive comments among the Nigerian elite before and after the country’s independence in 1960.

One country that has taken giant steps and thus deserves closer attention by the people and government of Nigeria is Singapore. A country of a mere five million people, it has very little in terms of natural resources. Ruled under British sovereignty between 1824 and 1963, it opted to go with Malaysia in 1963. That relationship lasted only two years before it pulled out of the union to stand alone. Today, Singapore occupies a pride of place in the comity of nations. It is one of the five busiest ports in the world, is regarded the fourth leading financial centre and holds the enviable record of having the highest percentage millionaires – one of every six households is said to have disposable income of at least one million dollars.

For a country not known to have oil reserves, it is one of the three top oil-refining centres in the globe. It is also renowned as a ship repairing country; the manufacturing sector contributes more than a quarter of the Gross Domestic Product and has been adjudged by the World Bank the easiest place to do business. As a prosperous nation sitting pretty in the club of rich countries, the people have a lot to be proud of. Alongside Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea, Singapore is acknowledged as an Asian Tiger. Its prosperity has reflected in all the social and economic sectors – education, health, agriculture, manufacturing and maritime.

Conversely, Nigeria is quick to describe itself as the ‘giant of Africa’, relying solely on its huge population and natural resources. Those in government are quick to humour the people by describing the country as a potential world leader. Nigeria is the 10th on proven oil deposits and holding 180 billion cubic feet of gas. The huge agricultural potentials that could be derived from the available land remain a dream.

The human development indices are enough to elicit tears from the stone-hearted. The most recent Index released by the United Nations Development Programme ranks the country 156 of the 187 states surveyed. Life expectancy is put at an average 51 years. Compared to Singapore, reputed to be one of the few countries where corruption is not a way of life, Nigeria was ranked 143 on the Corruption Perception Index in 2011. When the Failed States Index was computed last year, Nigeria was listed along with Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia in the Alert Category.

The institutions, including the Federal Executive Council, the National Assembly and the Judiciary continue to sink daily, leading to despair among the people. The bedrock of development in modern times is the democratic culture. Until 1999, it was fashionable to blame the retrogression in national affairs on military intervention and the instability it generated. It was argued that no civilian government had ever succeeded another. However, since the inception of the Fourth Republic, there has been an unbroken civilian rule, but democracy is still a far cry. Impunity rules. The Federal Government is wont to see itself as the headmaster who could bludgeon anyone seen to be falling out of an imaginary line drawn by him.

The President decides who should run as a councillor on the ticket of his party, grants himself the power to supervise governors and rations resources to be allocated to the federation states. In theory, it keeps about 52 per cent of federally collected revenue, but, in practice, perhaps more than two-thirds. Ineptitude has robbed the country of oil revenue and thus, billions of dollars. Mere lip service has been paid to diversification and restructuring of the economy. This has continued to pauperise the people.

At a point, the people were benumbed into believing that 1990 would mark the El Dorado when every citizen would be comfortably catered for by the state. When that failed, the goal post was shifted to 2000, then 2010 and now 2020. No one in government is planning. The power sector that should serve as the catalyst for development remains comatose despite tens of billions of dollars sunk into the project. Today, the country barely produces 2,000 megawatts, while transmission and distribution remain as challenging as ever.

Perhaps some progress has been recorded in recent times in the education sector. The results by the national and international examining bodies suggest that measures to check the steady slide in education standards are beginning to yield some result. But a lot more could be done.

We are convinced that Nigeria could yet leap into the comity of decent and developed countries if the leadership question is sincerely and comprehensively addressed. There is an urgent need to have a Nigerian Lee Kuan Yew or Nelson Mandela to give all a sense of belonging and motivate the people to work for national development. Justice and merit must be enthroned. Until the shortfalls are fixed, Nigeria would remain a country of great potentials. It is time the potentials were translated to actual.

October 1, 2013
No cause for celebration

MINISTER of Petroleum Resources, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke, must certainly have been on top of the world when she announced with glee that the Federal Government had last year saved N850 billion in the downstream sector of the petroleum industry. According to her, the savings included N467.20 billion obtained from the N32 per litre mark-up in petroleum pump price of January 2012 and the N142.30 billion savings from the N20 million litres per day reduction in national consumption of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS).

While claiming that the government had been able to maintain stability of products supply as well as putting in place stringent regulatory measures to make it difficult for dubious marketers to short-change the system, the minister said “The Federal Government has done extremely well in halting fuel subsidy scams in the country, and as such, our efforts at transparency and accountability are beginning to yield positive results”.

Without prejudice to the various positive reforms, which the minister reported as being undertaken in the petroleum sector, we believe that her self-congratulatory elation on the reported savings of N850 billion in the downstream oil sector is misplaced and even self-indicting. For, this only confirms that the data on which the Federal Government predicated its decision to remove the purported fuel subsidy, thereby increasing the pump price of petrol by 100 per cent to N142 per litre were thoroughly faulty and unreliable. Yet, Nigerians were told that if the fictive subsidy was not removed, the economy would collapse!

The implication of the minister’s disclosure is that if Nigerians had not vehemently protested the insensitive fuel price hike, the fraudulent oil marketers profiting from a phantom oil subsidy would have continued to smile to the banks at the expense of millions of deprived Nigerians. It is clearly not enough for Mrs Alison-Madueke to congratulate herself and the Federal Government for purportedly taking steps to strengthen regulations and curb the antics of dubious oil marketers short–changing the system. The point is that the fuel subsidy scam occurred under the minister’s watch and somebody must be held responsible for what may be negligence, sheer incompetence or even collusion.

Impressive as they may be, the various on-going reforms itemised by the minister cannot achieve the desired objectives if the issue of massive corruption in the petroleum industry, particularly the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), is not decisively tackled. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has shown little inclination in this direction. For instance, the House of Representatives ad-hoc Committee on the Management of the Fuel Subsidy Scheme found that about $6 billion was defrauded from the fuel subsidy fund in the last two years. According to its report, a total of 15 fuel importers collected more than $300 million in two years, without importing any oil.

It is unfortunate that while some oil importers allegedly involved in this monumental swindle have been charged to court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the prosecution has been perfunctory and anything but diligent. Indeed, some of the indicted oil importers have reportedly been listed as suppliers for the third quarter of the year.

In the same vein, nothing has been done about the damning revelations in the Nuhu Ribadu-led Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force report, which, among others, found that oil funds that should accrue to the federation are treated by the NNPC as a reserve of funds that could be used for illicit purposes without accountability.

Again, the KPMG audit report detailing massive fraud in the NNPC has been ignored by government. Can any meaningful reforms towards greater transparency and accountability in the oil sector be achieved under Mrs Alison-Madueke’s watch? We doubt it.

Above all, we do not have any evidence in the economy of any such savings. Yet, it is too significant to be lost in the system.

September 30, 2013
New PDP, tread softly

NIGERIA’S 1999 Constitution spells out the basic requirements for various political offices, including that of the President of the Federal Republic. President Goodluck Jonathan met these basic requirements; otherwise he would not have been elected President. We are also aware that governors and the president are allowed a maximum of two terms of four years each. The only barrier that could stop them from going for second term are Nigerians who may choose not to reelect them for whatever reason.

This is why we are surprised by threats by members of the New Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that the President should drop his ambition to seek reelection in 2015, unless he wants the country to disintegrate. A statement signed by the publicity secretary of the Alhaji Kawu Baraje faction of the party said the President would be breaching the constitution if he decides to seek reelection. It condemned what it called the desperation of the President to contest the 2015 election against the admonitions of some respected Nigerians. “What else is he looking for that is making him desperate to participate in the 2015 presidential election, despite warnings that doing so may spark a chain of events capable of culminating in the country’s disintegration, thereby bringing to pass the predictions of Lord Lugard that Nigeria as a nation by 2014 may be history, later confirmed by the US think-tank that Nigeria may disintegrate by 2015”, the statement added.

It is true that personalities such as Professor Ben Nwabueze and Archbishop Emeritus of the Catholic Archdiocese of Lagos, His Eminence, Anthony Cardinal Olubunmi Okogie, have advised that President Jonathan should stay away from the 2015 presidential race. As a matter of fact, we share this opinion, given the fact that we cannot see the benefits that the Jonathan presidency has delivered to Nigerians. And if his government cannot deliver democratic dividend for more than three years that he has been in office, including the remaining period of the Umaru Musa Yar’Adua presidency that he completed, there is nothing to suggest that it will ever improve.

But then, our dislike (or that of any other Nigerian for that matter) of his administration, cannot be a substitute for constitutional provisions. The law should be the compass in all we do if we are to advance the cause of democracy. Yes, we expect the Nigerian leader to be a man of his words; in this context we are talking about the pact that the President allegedly signed with governors of his party while seeking election in 2011, to the effect that he would only spend one term of four years. But so far, Nigerians have not seen the document. For now, it is the word of those claiming that the pact exists versus that of the President. If the President has reneged on that pact, and members of the New PDP feel sufficiently aggrieved, they may approach the courts to decide the matter.

Even the other leg of their argument that Jonathan’s “running in 2015 will mean spending a total of 10 years in office” and that this would be contrary to constitutional provisions, the President having been sworn in for three terms as president, should be similarly decided.

We empathise with members of the New PDP but hasten to add that they should seek to stop the President by lawful means instead of resorting to threats of violence. In this wise, they should rally to defeat the President and his ambition. The fact is that the Jonathan presidency has won so many enemies for itself, for various reasons and the only thing the aggrieved can do is to come together with the aim of stopping him, either at the courts or at the polling booths. This can only be possible if the opposition ensures that the principle of ‘one man, one vote’ is strictly adhered to at the polls.

September 30, 2013
Some Progress on Syria

The resolution to rid Syria of its chemical weapons, agreed to by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, is a useful, if imperfect, step toward a credible international response to a bloody war that has killed more than 100,000 Syrians.

The resolution would legally obligate Syria to give up its stockpile of poison gas, estimated at 1,000 tons. While it does not threaten the use of force if Syria fails to comply, it says in that event the Security Council will reconvene to address the issue and impose unspecified measures under Chapter VII, a provision of the United Nations Charter that is used to authorize sanctions or the use of force.

Russia received a lot of credit for the recent deal with the United States that delayed American military action by requiring Syria to surrender its chemical weapons by the middle of next year. But, in recent weeks, as the major powers haggled over a resolution that would enforce the deal, it seemed as if Russia might revert to a more familiar, obstructive role by shielding President Bashar al-Assad of Syria from punishment if he fails to comply.

Since October 2011, Russia has blocked three attempts to condemn or punish Mr. Assad for brutality against civilians, leaving the Security Council looking feckless in the face of slaughter. It took the Aug. 21 poison gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians outside Damascus to provoke a long-overdue unified diplomatic response.

Absurdly, the resolution does not name the party responsible for the gas attack, but Western governments and most independent groups say it could only have been committed by Syrian government forces. Russia blames Syrian insurgents but has never offered any proof.

Russia had made it clear that it would not accept an initial resolution threatening action under Chapter VII and that any punitive measures would be considered only after Syrian noncompliance was clearly proved. The United States and France wanted tougher language putting the resolution directly under Chapter VII, but the two-step enforcement process, which gives Russia a chance to veto any punishment, appears to be the best they could get.

There are huge challenges ahead, including devising a plan to get rid of the chemical weapons and trying to reach a broader deal that could end the fighting and put a transitional government in place. That was made even harder on Wednesday when some Syrian rebel groups abandoned their Western-backed political leaders in exile and cast their lot with an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

If there is any hope of a peaceful solution, it will take unity among the major powers to push it forward. The chemical weapons resolution moves toward that goal.

– New York Times

September 30, 2013
UN Security Council

Nigeria should tackle the basics at home before seeking grand distractions abroad

President Goodluck Jonathan’s call for a non-permanent seat, in the 2014-2015 session of United Nations Security Council is legitimate and fair. But before the country can lead a credible campaign for the democratisation of that body – that principle is infallible – it must settle the basics at home. This is one area where foreign aspirations must help propel better governance at home, if the whole exercise were not to turn a grand distraction.

In making a demand for the non-permanent seat, President Jonathan did a brilliant presentation. Addressing other world leaders and delegates at the opening of the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly, in New York, United States on September 24, the president announced that both the African bloc, through the African Union (AU), and the West African bloc, through the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have endorsed Nigeria’s aspiration. Therefore, support from other blocs in the global body should come as routine. That was well pitched.

But beyond regional support, Nigeria’s perennial support to the United Nations, in terms of global and regional peace-keeping missions, is another strong recommendation. If the Security Council drives these peace missions on behalf of the General Assembly, and Nigeria had always contributed contingents to keep and enforce peace in trouble spots all over, then it makes eminent sense for Nigeria to seek election into the Security Council.

This is a legitimate request that the president has well articulated. What must follow is effective diplomatic lobby to make the aspiration a reality.

But the much more difficult campaign is the democratisation of the UN Security Council. “Democratisation” is euphemism for either total equality of the 15 members without any member wielding veto powers as it is now; or Nigeria landing one of the permanent member seats, for the African Region too to hold some veto in the Council’s affairs and decisions.

To be sure, the principle of democratising decision-making in the Council is fair and just. It is an ideal that should be pursued, no matter how long it takes. Of all the 15 members, the Big Five including Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States hold the veto. So, no matter how reasonable or equitable or urgent a matter is, it suffers a fatal kiss should any of the five wield its veto.

Often, the veto has led to some balance of terror, resulting in delayed or even scuttling of actions, particularly when the Big Five members have ideological differences. But at times too, it has led to a conspiracy of the strong against the weak, which often buys poisoned peace, all too soon coming back to haunt the global community.

But even with the Big Five having veto power to cancel out themselves, it is always a roiling point that they are only one-third minority, dictating tunes to the two-third majority. The Big Five insist it is equitable, since they bear the brunt of any action the Council might decide to take – a not unreasonable argument.

But the “Weak” 10, on behalf of other members of the United Nations, counter it is patently undemocratic, for always being lorded over. There is, therefore, the difference between the pragmatic and the ideal.

For Nigeria to lead the campaign for such democratisation therefore, it must equip itself. It must build its economy. It must develop its people. It must earn enough international economic clout, prestige and respect to command global attention in the matter.

Ironically, the place of attaining such lofty goals is at home, not abroad. If the Big Five have literally muscled the global community into accepting the Council’s veto system, they base the “equitability” of the apparently unjust action on the likelihood of losing more than the non-permanent members, in case of any adverse consequences. That is no illegitimate argument, except of course the majority members in the Council can build themselves and effectively counteract the argument. They obviously can’t – at least, for now.

For Nigeria to make a bid for a permanent seat in the Council, therefore, and to angle for veto as the rest, it must fix the basics at home. The sad fact is that among the three contestants for the post in Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa, Nigeria, on the basis of socio-economic development indices, appears the least placed. Yet, it is not only the best centrally placed (virtually right at the heart of the continent), it is also the most populous – both in Africa and in the entire Black universe.

But neither the accident of geography nor the boom of population is enough. What is needed is birthing a country that functions well, meets the developmental needs of its citizens, forge its own economic niche, deliver local productivity and prosperity and earn respect among the comity of nations.

With such a profile, when Nigeria speaks, the world will listen. With renewed economic power, Nigeria can then challenge the “equitability” theory of the Permanent Five. It too can claim that it deserves more from the international system, since it has much to lose if it goes awry.

So, there is nothing wrong with Nigeria aspiring to a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. But it must take the first steps by putting right the home front. Otherwise, such foreign aspiration would be nothing but grand distraction.

September 29, 2013