The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • Contract sanctity

    Contract sanctity

    • Since pacts are binding, FG must honour its agreement with ASUU

    Chukwuemeka Wogu, Minister of Labour and Productivity, exemplified official impertinence towards sanctity of an agreement during his appearance before the National Working Committee (NWC) of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP). He was before the committee to render his achievements as Minster of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    In condescension of a 2009 agreement which government signed with the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), he averred: ”I inherited an agreement signed by the Federal Government with ASUU and that agreement is practically impossible for any administration to implement. We are still discussing with them… I hope that very soon, we will resolve it.”

    The NWC, led by Bamanga Tukur, national chairman of the PDP should have been stupefied by the tepid response of the minister on efforts so far made to end the on-going ASUU strike. If members of the committee prefer to treat this as another PDP ‘family affair,’ we are not going to allow that. It is incredulous that the ruling party’s highest decision-making organ saw nothing awful about such a sneering response to an important enquiry about an issue that bothers on the country’s educational progress.

    Whatever the shortcomings inherent in the Academic Earned Allowance (AEA) agreement between ASUU and government since 2009; whatever the immoderation of ASUU itself in pursuing payment of superfluous allowances through incessant strikes, the issue remains that an agreement signed by a previous administration remains binding on its successor.

    We ask: How can an agreement validly entered into by government with a trade union be declared impossible to implement by a minister of this administration? Could his statement openly declared at the Wadada Plaza National Secretariat of the ruling PDP be a reflection of the mindset of the President Goodluck Jonathan administration? We doubt whether Wogu realised the damaging implication of his statement to the integrity of the government he is serving. The minister and the administration must realise that government is a continuum, as such, this administration is vicariously liable for the actions and inactions of its predecessors.

    Furthermore, previous administrations that signed agreements with ASUU were PDP governments like the one presently in power. At any rate, a legal document freely signed by parties automatically becomes a binding document. It would be dishonourable for either of them to renege on it.

    It is horrific that successive administrations in the country have developed the habit of not honouring pacts/agreements freely reached with ASUU. Yet, these lecturers are the bedrock for producing the best in diverse disciplines necessary to take the country to lofty heights. The Federal Government must show respect for sanctity of agreement. The government should not just be mouthing the idea of ‘doing everything possible to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of everybody,’ it should make sure that the public truly sees it as doing and achieving that laudable end so that students can be back on campuses as soon as possible.

    We call on President Jonathan, a former lecturer, to hasten the process of honouring this agreement so that the nation could bid farewell to the era of incessant strikes in the nation’s universities. It is bad enough that the nation’s polytechnics were grounded because both academic and non-academic staff of those institutions went on strike for about two months. When students are not engaged in school, they are otherwise engaged in ways that are detrimental to the society. As they say, ‘an idle mind is the devil’s workshop’. These incessant strikes are not doing the country’s tertiary institutions’ image or the ruling PDP-led government any good.

  • Helping hands

    Helping hands

    •Caring for the victims of fundamentalist militancy is vital to lasting peace

    As the Federal Government presses ahead with its efforts to resolve the problem of Islamic insurgency, it is vital that measures be taken to assist the women and children whose lives have been negatively affected by the conflict.

    They fall into two main groups. The first constitutes those who are relatives of the murderous bombing and shooting campaign of Boko Haram and other militant groups. The second is made up of the spouses and offspring of the militants themselves. Even though it would appear that they are positioned at opposite ends of the conflict, it is clear that they share more similarities than differences.

    For instance, both groups of women and children are passive observers rather than active participants. While the innocence of the relations of Boko Haram’s victims is beyond doubt, even those who are related to the perpetrators of terrorist acts appear to have been absolved of complicity in the actions of the insurgents. This was confirmed by a government announcement in May releasing several relations of Boko Haram operatives who had been apprehended by the Joint Task Force.

    Regardless of whether they are related to the insurgency’s victims or its operatives, the plight of these women and children is truly pitiful. Deprived of breadwinners, often ostracised or ignored by the rest of society, and nursing grievous physical and psychological scars, their situation further aggravates the trauma of a vicious conflict that has spared nobody.

    To make matters worse, it appears that there are few comprehensive efforts to ensure that those who have been adversely affected by the activities of the insurgents are properly rehabilitated. Many relatives of the victims have consistently complained of abandonment by both the Federal Government and the relevant state governments.

    In April, the Christian Elders Forum of Northern States expressed dismay at the apparent willingness of the Federal Government to grant Boko Haram amnesty without saying anything about compensation for the victims of its violence. Also, the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution on Security Challenges in the North, Tanimu Turaki, said government could only offer “support” to the victims, although it would compensate the families of soldiers who had been killed in fighting the militants.

    The anti-insurgency campaign cannot be won if those affected through no fault of their own are left to their own devices. Indeed, it might lead to a hardening of attitudes which could ultimately strengthen the cause of the insurgents. The vacuum created by the absence of resolute government action is very likely to be filled by those who hope to turn the inevitable anger and despair to their own ends.

    A comprehensive rehabilitation plan would incorporate two broad elements. The first is the provision of immediate and short-term succour relating to relocation and the provision of emergency relief, housing and counselling. The second deals with the resolution of less-immediate issues. One of the most important of these has to do with the education of the children. A far-reaching education programme for them is vital. It would solve several problems simultaneously: it would occupy them, counter radical ideas and vengeful notions, and properly equip them for the future. As for the women, training in a range of life skills and the provision of grants or soft loans would help them attain the financial independence that they need.

    Rehabilitation plans of this sort could become the launch-pad for the development of a far-reaching social welfare programme that would seek to address the long-standing deprivation that confronts the majority of Nigeria’s citizens. By seeking to even out the outrageous gap between the rich and the poor, it would help to ensure greater socio-economic stability and a corresponding reduction in sectarian violence.

     

  • Outrageous pay

    Outrageous pay

    •Must we look for a lens to know what our legislators (with oversight function) earn?

    When The Economist published the damning report about the stupendous pay Nigeria’s federal legislators take home annually, it probably said nothing new. Nigerians have themselves alleged that their federal legislators must be some of the most pampered in the world. The difference in The Economist’s report is that the magazine put figures to its claims which no one is yet to deny. Although the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) is saddled with the responsibility of fixing their salaries alongside those of other public officers, the fact is, the legislators cart home monthly far more money than the commission recommended for them under different guises.

    According to The Economist, a Nigerian legislator receives an annual salary of about $189,000, (an equivalent of N30 million) while their counterparts in Britain earn about $105,400 yearly; United States ($174,000), France ($85,900), South Africa ($104,000), Kenya ($74,500), Saudi Arabia ($64,000) and Brazil ($157,600). Other yearly salary details published by The Economist are those of lawmakers in Ghana ($46,500), Indonesia ($65,800), Thailand ($43,800), India ($11,200), Italy ($182,000), Bangladesh ($4,000), Israel ($114,800), Hong Kong ($130,700), Japan ($149,700), Singapore ($154,000), Canada ($154,000), New Zealand ($112,500), Germany ($119,500), Ireland ($120,400), Pakistan ($3,500), Malaysia ($25,300), Sweden ($99,300), Sri Lanka ($5,100), Spain ($43,900) and Norway ($138,000).

    Going by these figures posted on the magazine’s website on July 19, it is clear that Nigeria’s federal lawmakers earn by far more than their counterparts in 29 countries whose data were analysed by the magazine, comprising mainly prosperous countries as well as key developing ones. And these are in absolute terms. When we consider the ratio of what our National Assembly members earn to the gross domestic product (GDP) per person, the incongruity becomes the more flabbergasting.

    For instance, the N30million each that our federal lawmakers earn per annum is, according to The Economist, 116 times the country’s GDP per person while that of a British parliamentarian is just 2.7 times. Even Australian lawmakers, with $201,200 annual salary (the only country where the legislators earn more than Nigeria’s), their salaries are only three times their country’s GDP per person.

    This is one of the issues. If legislators in prosperous countries earn incomes that are a function of their GDP per person and that of Nigeria is so disproportionate to the country’s GDP per person, then, there is a problem, a big one at that. It is scandalous that legislators earn such humongous pay in a country where the majority live on less than $2 a day. Perhaps it is the guilty conscience arising from this indefensible emoluments that is making our legislators not to come clean on their worth.

    When a total of N150 billion was voted for the National Assembly in the 2013 national budget without a breakdown which should have shown at least a summary of the legislators’ earnings and a newspaper wrote to the National Assembly requesting for the breakdown under the FOI Act, the National Assembly refused to honour the request.

    Clearly, this pay structure is indefensible. Though not a part-time job, how many times do they sit in a year? They get paid for committee jobs, they get fabulous estacode and duty tour allowance per night. There are other packages, including severance package for a job that lasts four years and best, eight years!

    Though we now know the figures for the legislature, it is probably true the executive’s pay is no less bloated than the legislature’s. Yet, service delivery is as poor as the pay is rich!

    This is at the root of the do-or-die attitude by people willing to contest elections into the National Assembly. Many people go there because they have come to see it as the honey pot where people do so little for so much return. We urge the national legislators to do self-adjustment in view of the indefensibility of this pay structure. They do not have to wait until Nigerians begin formal protests like the Kenyans have had to do when confronted with a similar challenge. Nigerians do not have to go looking for lens to see what their representatives earn; people who carry out oversight functions on others must also come plain before the electorate.

  • Same old path?

    Same old path?

    •We can only hope that report that indicted firms are still inporting fuel is not true

    The report by an international newswire, Reuters, that a number of companies indicted in the fuel subsidy scam over the past three years have been re-listed for fuel importation by the government is shocking. The Minister for Petroleum Resources, Mrs Diezani Allison-Madueke has however denied that. But if the allegation is correct, we condemn such travesty against the Nigerian people.

    The Federal Government claimed to have paid over one trillion naira in fuel subsidy, amounting to about 20 percent of the national budget, last year. More than half of this sum was allegedly paid to suppliers who either diverted the products they imported or merely got paid subsidies for fuel imports that never took place.

    The report also stated that there has been an increase in the number of fuel importers, and that about $1.2 billion has already been spent on fuel import subsidy this year. According to the report, about $6 billion was lost to fuel subsidy corruption, in the past three years. It also named Nepal, Fresh Synergy, Ibafon and Techno as among the companies that the National Assembly indicted, but which has found their way back as official importers of fuel.

    In her off-handed denial to the press after a meeting between the Presidency and the Nigeria Bar Association, the petroleum minister merely stated that such development was impossible without specifically denying the inclusion of those companies named by the media. She also did not explain why the number of importers has increased, or the criteria used in choosing those on the list.

    The Petroleum Products Pricing and Regulatory Agency (PPPRA), under the minister’s watch gave out humongous contracts for the importation of petroleum products to companies without any experience in the industry; and in some cases companies that were a few weeks old in the register of companies and with very minimal share capital. So, it will not be out of place to insinuate that another round of swindle is in the offing, unless the PPPRA and the ministry can explain this seeming recourse to the same old path. The least we expect from the authorities is the publication of the names of the approved importers for public scrutiny.

    We also hope that the National Assembly and the police will show interest now, to ensure that any of the indicted companies trying to swindle the country a second time is stopped in its track. In sieving out those to be blacklisted, it is important that the names of the shareholders and directors are noted so that the promoters of the blacklisted companies are not allowed to use new companies to continue their criminal enterprise.

    The PPPRA and other concerned agencies must also ensure that all the necessary verifications have been completed before subsidies are paid. It will be most unfair to again allow billions of tax-payers’ money to be fraudulently paid to racketeers, after which further huge sums are expended to try to recover the stolen money.

    Meanwhile, what has become of those that stole the alleged $6 billion dollars in the last three years? Is it that they have all been exonerated or that they have proved too smart for our criminal justice system? Or, is it also possible that the public officials have connived to make it impossible for the stolen public funds to be recovered? We must however warn that Nigerians will not accept the removal of the so-called subsidy as the answer for the glaring failure of governance.

     

  • Again, Nigerians say ‘No’

    Again, Nigerians say ‘No’

    WHAT on earth would make the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) seek to exhume the plan to redesign the naira so soon after Nigerians resoundingly rejected it? The pull of exigency or the lure of institutional hubris? Whichever it is, the attempt by the CBN to revisit the naira redesign issue at this time is both inexplicable and wrong.

    Ten months ago, precisely on September 20, 2012, President Goodluck Jonathan had, in the height of the opposition to the measure ordered the apex bank to halt its earlier announced currency restructuring to allow for further “enlightenment and consultation”. We consider it unimaginable that the CBN would, in less than one year, seek to upturn the order. Worse however is that the apex bank has remained far less convincing on a project expected to gulp billions of taxpayers’ funds now than it was 10 months ago.

    We consider it worrisome that Sanusi Lamido Sanusi’s CBN wants the naira redesign project so bad – so bad it would go against the grain of public opinion as it is wont to do. Clearly, this is the only way to make sense of the statement credited to him while appearing before members of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency last week that “one of the reasons we wanted to have a restructuring of the redesign of the currency a few months ago was because many of our notes had been in existence for upward of eight or even 10 years… the best practice is that within a period of five to eight years you redesign the currency, after which counterfeiters tend to catch up”. That was hubris at best.

    Why are Nigerians opposed to the idea of wholesale redesign of the naira? This, unfortunately, is where the CBN chooses to misrepresent the argument. Just as nobody questions the exercise as the prerogative of the CBN; the issue is the apex bank’s unconvincing statement on the relationship between the cost of the exercise and the benefits. Aside being a drain on the public till, it promises to be a major source of capital flight. We do not see anything of the so-called best practices argument as obviating these facts. Indeed, we suspect that the only reason the idea keeps popping up is because the CBN has inexhaustible funds to play with.

    Shouldn’t the nation by now have learnt enough from such costly experimentations? The lesson of the nation’s romance with Securency International, manufacturer of polymer notes scandal is still fresh. A bribe of N750 million was said to have been paid to some Nigerian officials by the Australian firm. Whereas their foreign counterparts have been convicted, their Nigerian accomplices are walking free. That is not even all; only recently it was revealed that the polymer was a far poorer alternative to what was previously in use.

    Is someone again attempting to lead the nation by the nose?

    The point is that the CBN admits that only a fraction of the processed notes in circulation is fake. It’s percentage of fake notes processed was given as 3.9 per cent in 2007, six percent in 2008, 8.4 percent in 2009, 7.4 per cent in 2010, 5.4 per cent in 2011 and 8.4 percent in 2012. If this is the case, why go the whole hog of redesign?

    Shouldn’t the addition of extra security features have sufficed if it is about curbing the menace of counterfeiting? Wouldn’t that be far less costly?

    At this time, Nigerians ought to worry about the apex bank’s fixation with currency restructuring. Redesigning the naira seems to us as the least of the problems that the CBN has to contend with; if the apex bank is in doubt of where to start, a good place is the current out-of-reach cost of funds.

  • Inexplicable negligence

    Inexplicable negligence

    IT was a million dollar question. “Could someone please explain why you don’t have refineries in Nigeria?” The query came from Mitchel Rivers, co-President of the African, Caribbean, Pacific and European Union parliaments (ACP-EU), who was briefing the press at the end of the organisation’s three-day meeting in Abuja.

    One of the main issues on the agenda of the meeting was the alarming scale of theft of Nigeria’s oil and Rivers’ felt, quite rightly, that this problem would most likely not have arisen if the country had functional refineries. The Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, recently revealed that Nigeria loses 400,000 barrels of oil daily, the equivalent of N7.3 million a day, to oil thieves.

    The communique issued at the end of the ACP-EU parley reflected the seriousness attached to this issue by the organisation. It reads in part: “Members expressed concern at the high rates of oil theft, wastage and illegal bunkering which lead to substantial revenue losses and degradation. Members called on the Nigerian government to put in place appropriate mechanisms and measures to fight this organised syndicate”. To tackle this challenge, Rivers disclosed that it was decided that the European Parliament take steps to stop the purchase in Europe of oil stolen from Nigeria. Consequently, any crude oil for sale in the European market must now be accompanied with a certificate of origin.

    Explaining the rationale for this decision, Rivers said “We want to ban European refineries from buying un-certificated Nigerian oil; 400,000 barrels of oil a day is a huge loss. We need to get traceability of oil to avoid theft. The oil companies are involved in this and everybody is making big money. The bunkering tankers are better equipped than the Nigerian Navy. This is a huge international organised crime. We did it with diamond; we can do it with oil”. It is most unfortunate that Nigeria has become the spoilt child of the international community, passing unto others a responsibility that ought to be its.

    Not only is the country incapable of refining the bulk of her crude oil locally, it manifests inexplicable negligence in securing her shores and protecting her oil. If the vessels manned by oil thieves are better armed than those of the Nigerian Navy, we wonder how the humongous allocations to security over the years have been expended. By the same token, what benefit is the country deriving from the billion Naira contracts awarded to ex-militants in the Niger Delta to protect the oil pipelines? It would appear that the outside world loves us more than we love ourselves. For, ordinarily, it should be no business of theirs if we do not have the good sense to effectively protect a commodity that is the lifeline of the country’s economy. If the oil is prevented from being stolen in the first place, the issue of its being bought would not arise.

    However, it is not just the oil companies that are complicit in this sordid affair. Oil bunkering is most certainly a complex operation. The vessels involved are huge and anchored on the high seas. It would require an intricate network not just to burst the pipelines and steal the oil but also to transport the stolen commodity from the shore to the high sea. This will necessarily entail the cooperation of local chiefs, community leaders, the military and even government officials.

    If that is so, what is the guarantee that vessels carrying stolen oil will not be armed with valid certificates, thereby negating the lofty aim of the EU? The Federal Government should act decisively to check this menace. A state that cannot protect the commodity on which its existence substantially depends cannot but be a laughing stock.

  • U.S. needs to push for sanctions on Rwanda to help Congo

    U.S. needs to push for sanctions on Rwanda to help Congo

    BACK IN January, President Obama rationalized his refusal to act in Syria in part by asking, in an interview with the New Republic, “How do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?” Since then, his administration has supported a vigorous campaign of diplomacy and military intervention to stop the bloodshed in . . . Congo. This worthy effort now faces its first serious test.

    A United Nations-sponsored conference in February produced a peace framework; in March the U.N. Security Council authorized a 3,000-strong “intervention brigade,” the first in U.N. history, to carry out offensive operations against armed groups. The force, composed of troops from South Africa, Malawi and Tanzania, is due to be fully deployed by next month — and it appears that its services will soon be needed. This month fighting has erupted between the Congolese army and a rebel group called M23 after months of relative calm. Thousands of people were forced to flee their homes in North Kivu province, where there are already nearly 1 million displaced civilians.

    The scale of recent bloodshed in Congo is in no way comparable to that in Syria, but it stems from a chronic conflict that has repeatedly convulsed Africa’s Great Lakes region. With the Congolese government in faraway Kinshasa unable to control the region, neighboring countries — beginning with Rwanda — have repeatedly intervened. Rwanda originally sought to protect itself from Hutu militias that fled its territory after carrying out a 1994 genocide, but over the years it has developed economic interests in Congo and close ties with Congolese Tutsis.

    According to a new report by Human Rights Watch, Rwanda is backing M23 despite its commitment at the February peace conference to stop sponsoring Congolese militias. The report says M23 has carried out scores of murders and rapes since March. It is not the only offender: Government troops are also guilty of abuses, as are smaller militias allied with one of the two sides. M23 may be trying to gain advantage ahead of the U.N. force’s deployment, which is why it’s important that the force begin to act on its mandate as soon as possible.

    The Obama administration continues to focus on the problem: Secretary of State John F. Kerry is due to lead a ministerial discussion on Congo at the United Nations on Thursday. Mr. Kerry can be expected to remonstrate in private with representatives of Rwanda — which unconvincingly denies links to M23 — but he ought to speak out publicly about the violations as well. The United States and European governments, longtime supporters of Rwanda, suspended some aid last year after M23 briefly seized the city of Goma. Now they need to threaten further sanctions, while also offering Rwanda incentives, including economic carrots, that will allow it to beat a face-saving retreat from Congo once and for all.

    – Washington Post

     

  • No cover for paedophiles

    No cover for paedophiles

     Senate must expunge section of the constitution seemingly encouraging underage marriage

    Prior to the decision of the Senate on section 29 (4) (b) of the Constitution on July 13, there was no controversy over the marriage age under Nigerian laws. It was generally believed that anyone under 18 could not legally contract marriage in any part of the country, and hardly had anyone misconstrued the section on renunciation of citizenship in the constitution as suggesting that a minor could be legitimately married under the extant laws.

    Even in the outcry over the marriage contracted by former Zamfara State Governor Ahmed Sani Yerima, no Muslim cleric came to his defence citing that section of the law. The denunciation came from all sides of the religious divide in the country.

    However, when the former governor called for a revisit of an earlier decision of the upper legislative chamber to delete the ‘offending’ section, an unwary Senate danced to the tune called by the Zamfara West senator, apparently beclouded by selfish interest. Senate President David Mark and his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, have attributed the decision to blackmail by Yerima and his cohorts, promising to revisit the resolution.

    Yerima found support from Danjuma Goje, a former senator of Gombe State who contended that the section offered a cover for Muslims who may choose to get married to girls under the age of 18. The subsection states that, “Any woman who married shall be deemed to be of full age.”

    Explaining what happened, Senator Mark said: “We wanted to remove it but it failed, we were a total of 101 Senators, 85 voted and I think about six or so abstained. There was hardly any dissenting vote but once it got mixed up with so many other issues, it didn’t get the required 73 votes anymore.

    “So, first of all, I think the castigation outside is done out of misunderstanding, but because a religious connotation was brought into it, which is a very sensitive issue and you must agree with me that in this country, we try as much as possible not to bring issues that involve faith to the floor of the Senate and indeed the chamber, we keep religion completely out of it because what is good for a Christian is also good for a Muslim.

    It is unfortunate that such an important institution of state could make such a shocking confession. How mature are the men and women elected to perform the task of making laws for the entire country? Why would they be so easily blackmailed by a senator whose interest is hardly disguised? How does the rigmarole- the deletion, restoration and the promised revisit portray the “distinguished” senators?

    It is cold comfort to argue that the amendment would not affect the status of existing laws on the agreed marriage age, safeguard of the girl child and protection of Nigerian children. Yerima had a game plan and got his colleagues who were aware of the plot to support him; otherwise, how did a Senate that realised that the subsection was superfluous get persuaded to overturn a popular decision?

    The uproar created by that cruel action is welcome. It took a visit to the Senate President by Minister of Women Affairs Zainab Maina, head of the National Human Rights Commission Professor Chidi Odinkalu, Mrs. Maryam Uwais and Dr. Obiageli Ezekwesili, to extract the promise that the lid had not been put on the unacceptable resolution.

    It is however interesting that the people of Ondo Central whose representative voted for the iniquitous reinstatement of the section have called Senator Ayo Akinyelure to order. As they berated the senator for acting against cherished values of the people, he reportedly wept and apologised for his action, pleading that he was misled. This is the way forward for our fledgling democracy. Representatives in the legislative houses must regularly give account of their stewardship. Akinyelure now knows that his constituents are following his actions in the Senate and will not hesitate to invoke the relevant sections of the constitution to recall him in the event that he betrays the cause and joins in doing violence to the interest of the nation. It is not enough that the weeping senator has been called to order; he should be made to give a full account of what transpired in the Senate that day. His people deserve to know what the issues were, how he got converted to what obviously is the scheme of a paedophile and what he intends to do now to undo the vile deed. Only then would he deserve a pardon and told to “go and sin no more”.

    At a time when violation of minors is on the increase in our country and all over the world, we frown at the action of the Senate and call for immediate removal of the section. By the debate, action and inaction of the upper legislative house, the phrase has lost its innocence and has made the position of the law on such an important issue ambiguous and thus negates the good of the society.

    The constitution must be rid of offending sections, subsections, provisos and phrases in the ongoing amendment process.

  • Good trip, bad destination

    Good trip, bad destination

    The five governors’ tour to save democracy is good. But it is targeted at wrong persons

    The tour of the five northern governors, to save democracy in the country, is a very good initiative. For one, in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) crisis in Rivers State, President Goodluck Jonathan is literally setting fire to his own hut – and he does not seem to particularly care.

    For another, aside from general insecurity in the country and a declining economy, the Abuja-backed devil-may-care assault on the rule of law, which emboldened five legislators to attempt to remove the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, that resulted in the affray in the hallowed chambers, has generated avoidable tension in the state. This has naturally driven up insecurity and exposed the clear and dangerous disconnect between the political class and society.

    These are worrying signs because, from our experience, democracy often stumbled when a reckless centre tried to illegally annex the right of a constituent unit. The resultant repulsion of such evil often led to chaos.

    From the benefit of hindsight therefore, the five northern governors: Rabiu Kwakwanso (Kano), Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Sule Lamido (Jigawa), Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu (Niger) and Aliyu Wamako (Sokoto) have acted patriotically in reaching out to personalities they felt are elder statesmen who, in their thinking, have the clout and the wisdom to help save the situation.

    They have therefore visited former President Olusegun Obasanjo, General Ibrahim Babangida and Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar, all former military heads of state.

    On the face of it, this is a patriotic initiative. There is no doubt that the country is drifting. Even then, the Abuja-backed forces in Rivers State do not seem deterred from launching more assaults. A newspaper has reported an alleged plot, a so-called “final plan” to commit further constitutional crimes in the state, with the report hinting at assured massive security cover from an already suborned Nigeria Police.

    If the approached personages can help prevent avoidable disaster therefore, the five northern governors must be praised for their initiative and Nigerians must support their efforts. But can they?

    To start with, there is the grand irony of approaching three former soldiers, who ruled as military overlords because democracy was killed, to help save democracy. Though as a general principle that apparent contradiction in terms inspires little faith, it could well be argued the three gentlemen have been exposed to statecraft.

    Still, approaching the three comes with serious doubts. Rightly or wrongly, they are perceived as part of the genesis of the problem – not the Rivers crisis per se, but the crisis of democracy in Nigeria.

    Gen. Abubakar with Gen. Babangida played a crucial role in Gen. Obasanjo’s emergence as first president of the Fourth Republic, even with his all too obvious gruff temper, hardly suited for a country transiting from decades of military rule. But for reasons known to them and the eerie power configuration that is always Nigeria’s Achilles heels, Obasanjo was their Hobson’s choice.

    Obasanjo himself went on to shape the new republic in his own image and temper, such that whatever constitutional outrage is today being done in Goodluck Jonathan’s name could well be out of the Obasanjo manual of political rascality. Besides Obasanjo, who never forgets a slight, has a score to settle with his estranged political godson, the president. So, how could he possibly be a part of the solution to Jonathan’s problem?

    As laudable as the governors’ initiative should have been, the attempt shows the futility of running to those who are part of the problem to help solve it. That is unlikely to happen. Besides, it is the Nigerian penchant to go around in circles, because there is no political will to solve the problem.

    The Rivers crisis, fuelled by a misguided Presidency, is the latest indication that Nigeria’s federalism faces basic dissonance that gives every president the delusion that it could subvert the constitution and get away with it. That can be solved through rigorous political restructuring and not by fleeing to a triumvirate that is part of the problem.

  • NERC’s tariff hike

    NERC’s tariff hike

    Was this commision set up merely to punish Nigerians with incessant charges?

    For understandable reasons, Nigerians have been united in outrage at the decision by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, NERC to hike the fixed charge on electricity usage from N500 to N700/N800. Coming at a time when supply continues to dip on daily basis, even when things are supposed to be looking up, the anger would seem perfectly justifiable. NERC obviously assumed that Nigerians have become so inured to the warped consumerism under which they are coerced to pay for services neither supplied nor delivered, to the point of losing their capacity to protest their arbitrariness. This time, it appears they were mistaken.

    Nobody here suggests that the increase is anything outside of the framework of the Multi-Year-Tariff Order (MYTO) which lays out the framework for such reviews. And, no one disputes the existence of the regulation which allows such periodic reviews. In other words, the issue is not so much about the fixed charge, an in-built cost element charged to recover some of the capital costs for producing and supplying electricity. Rather, the question on the lips of Nigerians is whether it makes sense to persuade frustrated citizens to bear further tariff increases in the circumstances that the government itself admits that very little progress has been made, measured against set targets and against its earlier declared commitments.

    NERC may be right to argue that the current N700 fixed charge for R2 customers actually covers only a small fraction of the actual fixed cost of supply.

    That is not the issue. What is at issue is the justification of any hike at all given NERC’s admission that “the quality of service has not seen significant improvement, especially in the area of metering and accurate billing of customers”?

    The statement by NERC chairman, Sam Amadi, that “the distribution companies have not been very committed to meeting their obligations in the MYTO” comes as particularly instructive here. Shouldn’t Nigerians protest the MYTO that is so clearly skewed against them – a mechanism which seeks to reward non-performance? Shouldn’t there be some form of respite for the power-starved electricity consumers for once? These are the issues.

    NERC may in its wisdom consider the increase modest; we say it is untimely and unjustifiable; and therefore wrong.

    We agree with the NERC boss when he says that “Our expectation for significant and sustained improvement in electricity supply and quality service lies in the expected takeover by the privatisation preferred bidders, who have better incentives and commitment, and have made enforceable promises to invest continuously in providing better services to consumers”.

    No one argues at this time that this is the way to go. The issue is the apparent lack of seriousness on the part of the Federal Government to make this realisable at the shortest possible time. Today, the issues of severance package for disengaged Power Holdings Company of Nigeria (PHCN) staff remains largely unresolved; we also saw how avoidable controversies and tardiness nearly botched the takeover of the transmission sector by Manitoba Hydroelectric of Canada. Even the government had to change gear on the issue of pre-paid meters; now it is the consumer that is being called upon to pay for meters as against government’s initial plan to supply them free to the consumers.

    We must insist on making the point that we are not opposed to any tariff review that is reflective of the dynamics of costs. Much as the Nigerian electricity consumer appreciates the need for the investors to recover their costs, what they resist is the extortionate practice of levying them at every turn, all in the name of tariff reviews.