The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • SIM registration

    SIM registration

    • Now that this is over, we expect NCC to tackle the challenges of quality of service

    Finally, the much advertised grace period for the registration of mobile telephone lines, ended on June 30. Surprisingly, the regulatory agency, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) has disclosed that about 30 million lines will be de-activated, because the owners of the lines failed to register them before the expiration of the deadline.

    The reasons for such a large number of un-registered lines would vary. One, it could be that most of the operators, in an effort to outdo the other competitors, doled out more lines and incentives than they could sustain. Another could be the crisis that bedevilled the registration process.

    Whatever may have happened, the need for the registration is well appreciated, particularly its usefulness in maintaining security in the country. No doubt, communication has become very necessary in modern human activities, unfortunately, that includes criminality. Therefore the creation of the data base of the owners of telephone lines would enhance the capacity of security agencies to do their jobs. This is the practice in other countries; more so it is germane for our country with poor criminal records and capacity for criminal investigation. Such measure would also help the regulator have a more accurate number of operational lines in the country, to help it plan.

    The data base of the owners of the telephone lines is also important for commercial purposes. This will help Nigerians to know the exact number of functional lines in the country, so as to determine the sundry claims by the various operators to be the number one operator. Such information will also aid commercial decision for those who may have the need to rely on size for advertisement or other businesses. Such data base would also be useful for other various demographic needs. Nigerians and foreigners would henceforth be in a position to determine the teledensity in the country.

    The exercise could, if well managed, bring efficiency to the system. Many hitherto dormant numbers that may be causing congestion would be completely de-activated. Moreover, with the clear and reliable data open to the public, the unnecessary competition over size will be less strident and service efficiency may take over to determine the preferences of the users. This may even be further enhanced if the possibility of migrating to a more efficient service provider is efficiently assured by the regulator.

    All said, the NCC should be compelled to give an account of the over six billion naira that it received under the appropriation act for the exercise. This is because the same NCC had asked the operators to individually register the owners of the telephone lines. We also note that there was a lot of rancour and confusion at the beginning of the process, partly because of the grudge that while the NCC had received the resources for the exercise, it had passed on the responsibility to the operators, with threats if they should fail. The matter is made worse by the claim by some of those ad-hoc staff recruited to conduct the exercise that they were short-paid.

    We note that mobile telephony in Nigeria, at over 10 years, has come of age. While the challenges have been many, there have been reasons to celebrate. We therefore commend the major service providers for the enormous resources they have expended to help Nigeria make the quantum leap in telephony. There is, however, the need for them to work harder to improve their services. Indeed, this is what the regulator should focus more on now that the registration is over.

  • Mali shouldn’t rush its elections

    Mali shouldn’t rush its elections

    DON’T LOOK now, but the most recent Muslim country to experience a Western military intervention is confounding the pessimists — including a few in the Obama administration. Over the weekend, the north African state of Mali lifted a state of emergency so that three dozen candidates could begin campaigning in a presidential election scheduled for later this month. This came just six months after France deployed troops to prevent the takeover of the country by Islamic militants linked to al-Qaeda. Since then, the extremists have been routed and dispersed, a peace accord reached with a separatist movement and a U.N. peacekeeping force launched.

    Mali’s troubles are far from over, but France’s decision to disregard U.N. and U.S. advice to postpone any intervention is looking better and better. The country’s crisis began in 2012, when ethnic Tuareg separatists in the north joined with Islamic militants to take over several cities, including the ancient crossroads of Timbuktu. Their success prompted a military coup against the elected government, which in turn prompted a cutoff in aid from the United States. For months Western and African governments debated whether to intervene against the Islamists, even as the militants imposed a reign of terror in areas under their control. The U.N. Security Council authorized an intervention in late 2012, then fecklessly decided to postpone it until this fall.

    That prompted the Islamists to launch an offensive in January to capture the capital, which would have succeeded if not for the eleventh-hour arrival of French warplanes and troops. When the government of François Hollande asked the United States for help with refueling, the White House delayed its response, then asked to be reimbursed for any costs. Officials, meanwhile, disparaged the French mission, claiming that it would only make the crisis worse by alienating potentially reconciliable rebels, such as the Tuaregs.

    That’s not what happened. Instead Paris used a combination of force and diplomacy to retake the principal city occupied by Tuareg forces, Kidal. Months of negotiations led to a deal last month between the Malian government and Tuareg leaders, under which the latter agreed to give up their demand for a separate state in exchange for greater sovereignty. Last weekend the Malian army reentered Kidal, provoking demonstrations; though tensions remain high so far, violence has been limited to stone-throwing.

    France, which retains 3,000 troops in the country, plans to withdraw all but 1,000 after the presidential election. The U.N. peacekeeping force, which is being jump-started with African troops already in the country, will eventually grow to 12,000, including 500 from China. But the timetable may be a problem: Eager to be out, France has been pressing for the July 28 election date despite warnings from the electoral commission that it cannot properly prepare a voter registry and distribute ballots by then. One of the presidential candidates has petitioned the supreme court to delay the election by several months; nongovernmental experts agree, warning that an early vote will yield an unstable government. Having progressed this far, Malian authorities and their French allies would be wise to give the electoral process more time.

    – Washington Post

  • Simply Mr. Lecturers!

    •Ebonyi COE should review its recruitment process in view of startling
    revelations from the college

    The report that the Ebonyi State College of Education, Ikwo, demoted about 15 lecturers of the college for alleged certificate forgery is a cause for concern. According to the report, an investigative panel set up by the management of the college to look into the issue, discovered that the lecturers, who claimed to have doctorate and masters degree, only had genuine West African Examinations Council (WAEC) certificates with three and four credits, without mathematics and only a pass in English language.

    The panel also discovered that the study centres of the two foreign universities: Pacific Western University, Denver, Colorado, USA and Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA – located in Enugu and Owerri, where the affected lecturers claimed to have obtained their PhDs and Masters were not accredited universities in the US and were not approved by either the Federal Ministry of Education or the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE). As punishment for this grave infraction, the management of the college decided to slap them with a loaf of bread.

    Two senior lecturers who claimed to have PhDs: Ojiuzor Paulinus Elekwa and Ogbaga Fidelis, would be demoted to Administrative officer II and Assistant Clerical Officer II, respectively; also, Akpagu Cletus Ikechukwu, Nwigwe Valentine, Nwigwe Ellas; Nweke Joseph were directed to stop parading themselves as PhD holders and to withdraw from the positions of senior lecturers to lecturer 1; demoted from lecturer 1 to lecturer III; and were asked to refund all the financial benefits which accrued to them as lecturer I, effective from the date of their promotion to date. Those lecturers who claimed to have obtained masters degrees suffered a similar fate. They were demoted from lecturer I and II to lecturer III and assistant lecturers, respectively. They, too, are to refund salaries received as senior lecturers before the demotion.

    While it is tempting to want to commend the authorities of the college for having the courage to embark on this internal self-cleansing, we refuse to succumb to that temptation. These measures are at best half-hearted. They do not go far enough. As a matter of fact, certain questions beg for answers: How were these people recruited in the first place? Was the recruitment process thorough and transparent? What quality of knowledge have they been imparting on the poor students?

    Perhaps unknown to the university, what we are dealing with here could even be a criminal act. And criminal acts by their nature are crimes against the state. The authorities of the Ebonyi College of Education should do the proper thing: extend the inquiry into how their lecturers and other senior cadre employees were recruited. Were the lecturers aware that the institutions they claimed to have attended were not accredited? And with regard to their recruitment procedure, the institution also must determine whether those in charge of recruitment in the school were not complicit in this matter. Is it possible that they too were not aware that the affected lecturers are not products of accredited institutions?

    The possibility is that many of such people are earning undeserved pay in many of our higher institutions. And this is an indictment on the agency responsible for approving institutions that can have campuses in the country. Some years back, this was done to many institutions within the country and their satellite campuses shut down. If we can do this to schools within, why should it be possible for outsiders to just set up degree-awarding centres run by unaccredited universities in the country? The government has a duty to protect Nigerians from being fleeced by foreigners who are only interested in exploiting their quest for university or higher education.

     

  • Obama to the rescue?

    Obama to the rescue?

    •Perhaps the US President’s $7bn electrification package for Africa
    will break Nigeria’s electricity jinx

    On June 30 in South Africa, US President Barack Obama in South Africa during his three-country Africa swing, announced a $7 billion “Power Africa” initiative, spread over five years, benefiting seven countries: Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique, in the first wave.

    But a few days after Obama’s good news, Nigeria, one of the beneficiaries of the electrification aid, announced not-so-good news of its own. From an initial promise of attaining 10, 000 megawatts of electricity by December 2013, Prof. Chinedu Nebo, power minister, rolled the target back by one full year!

    The new promise is 10, 000 mw by December 2014 – and there are no guarantees that the projection would not be further rolled back. This is no cynical fear because by the original Obasanjo Presidency projection, 10, 000mw was to have been attained by December 2007. Now, if the 2014 new day holds, it would have been seven years late.

    The annoying thing about the minister’s latest target was not the failure to deliver on a promise on a critical sector of the economy, on which nearly everything in a modern economy rests. Bad as that recurrence was, it was not unexpected.

    It was rather in the ostrich-like, cavalier manner the minister announced his latest shift of the goal post, citing some so-called latest data from the field, and gifting himself the sanctimony of one defaulting for the very first time. That is not good enough; for it portrays the Jonathan Presidency, under which the minister serves, as not only without focus but unrepentantly so.

    Now, contrast this tardiness with the sure-footed philosophy that appeared to have inspired Mr. Obama’s five-year Africa electrification plan. “Access to electricity is fundamental to opportunity in this age,” the US president declared. “It’s the light that children study by, the energy that allows an idea to be transformed into a real business. It’s the lifeline for families to meet their most basic needs, and it’s the connection that’s needed to plug Africa into the grid of the global economy.”

    Like the proverbial Greek and his peculiar gifts, America’s latest electricity aid comes with its own baggage, ideological or otherwise. Broken down, the funding would come from the $1.5 billion US Overseas Private Investment Corporation and another $5 billion from the US Export-Import Bank. Even if the project succeeds as envisaged, it would have lit up the targeted part of Africa. But it would also have created jobs for American big businesses and expatriate experts.

    But even that enlightened self-interest could not vitiate America’s felt urgent need to improve the near-hopeless Africa power situation, which our own government, hence its criminal tardiness on its electrification project, could not even boast.

    Meanwhile, from the statistics the US president trotted out, Sub-Saharan Africa alone, where Nigeria is marooned, would need $300 billion to achieve electricity access for all its citizens by 2030. That means the $7 billion aid is no more than a tiny drop in the ocean.

    Yet it is clear the Jonathan Presidency, by its all-too-obvious parlous electricity record, is not gripped by any urgency; or rattled by the near-hopelessness of the power situation, particularly as it imposes structural poverty on an economy that is far from being competitive. This is clearly not good enough.

    For a programme that is continent-wide, the US intervention is a mere drop in the sea. Indeed, it is less than half of the $16 billion Nigeria has, since the Obasanjo presidency, committed to electricity, with pretty little to show.

    That just proves that lack of money is not Nigeria’s power problem. It is rather blind greed and corruption, which have fated resources committed to the sector to be no more than water pouring through basket. But perhaps Uncle Sam’s proposed intervention in Nigeria’s rural electrification would jerk the authorities awake to do the needful; and deliver on the all-important electricity promise.

  • No compensation?

    No compensation?

    •If govt is ready to pardon Boko Haram insurgents, equity demands that it pays the victims 

    Against calls for compensation for victims of Boko Haram insurgents, Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution on Security Challenges in the North, set up by President Goodluck Jonathan came up with a bombshell: he said there would be nothing of such for the victims. But, in a rather contradictory move, the committee chairman, Tanimu Turaki, said only security operatives who died in the course of fighting Boko Haram would be compensated. “Government cannot pay compensation but it will support victims. It will compensate military personnel that were affected by this insurgency”, he said.

    Turaki does not know how to compensate “somebody who lost family members; neither does he know how to compensate people battling with the psychological effects of the incidents”.

    Now, there are several ways in which Turaki’s statements are questionable. First, he said there would be no compensation for Boko Haram victims, yet went ahead to say that there would be compensation for some Boko Haram victims – the security operatives. This is a manifest contradiction. The security operatives and the civilians who were killed during the incidents were equally victims of the activities of the Boko Haram insurgents. So, where is the line of demarcation, and why the discriminatory attitude in a situation where no life is more precious than the other, and where survivors of the victims are mainly Nigerians who deserve to be compensated for the unnecessary loss of the lives of their dear ones?

    Secondly, we cannot understand what Turaki meant by saying government cannot compensate victims but it would support them. What precisely is the difference between “compensate” and “support? To compensate Boko Haram victims is to support them financially; or what kind of support does Turaki have in mind? Perhaps the chairman is confused over these matters. He also does not know how to compensate somebody who lost family members, yet he knows how to compensate the family members of the security operatives who lost their lives in the incidents.

    Thirdly, Turaki did not know how to compensate people suffering from psychological effects of the loss of their dear ones. While we cannot accurately quantify the psychological effects monetarily, there is usually a room for compensation for people like these. Even in the court of law, people are awarded heavy damages for incidents that affected them psychologically.

    All said, we believe that Turaki is aware of the amnesty being offered the killers. Surely, if people who perpetrated evil by killing and maiming innocent citizens are being offered amnesty, nothing should stop the government from compensating the innocent victims who knew nothing about Boko Haram insurgency and what the sect actually wants from Nigerians and the government.

    The government may be thinking of the problem of identifying the actual victims, and the logistic of compensating them financially in a country where funds for this kind of exercise might be stolen by officials. But then, this kind of corruption cannot be ruled out as it had always happened in cases like this in the past. The government cannot hide under its own incompetence in dealing with matters like this to rule out well deserved compensation for the Boko Haram victims. Such compensation would at least reduce the heavy losses to many people who lost their breadwinners and many of those who lost their entire life savings to the incidents. Payment of compensation for victims of Boko Haram should be non-negotiable, if only for the sake of equity.

  • Majesty of the law

    Majesty of the law

    •Court judgment declaring appointments of Service Chiefs illegal is good for democracy

    Could Service Chiefs of the military under this democratic dispensation be appointed by the presidency in violation of the constitution? The question was aptly answered through the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that nullified the appointment of all Service Chiefs of the federation on grounds that their appointments were carried out without deference to the nation’s grund norm.

    The suit, with No. FHC/ABJ/CS/611/2008, among others, sought the correct combined interpretation of provisions of Section 218 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Section 18 of the Armed Forces Act, Cap. A.20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. These have to do with whether the 1st defendant (the president) can appoint Service Chiefs of the Federation without the confirmation of the National Assembly and also: Whether Section 18 (1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act, Cap. A.20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 is not in conformity with the provision of the 1999 Constitution as to make it fall within the category of existing laws under Section 315 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria . The defendants in the suit are: President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation and all the Service Chiefs.

    Justice Adamu Bello, in tandem with the plaintiff’s demands, instructively concurred that President Goodluck Jonathan can only appoint Service Chiefs by first seeking and obtaining the concurrence of the Senate.

    In that commendable public-spirited litigation instituted since 2008 by Festus Keyamo, the judge courageously declared President Jonathan’s serving Service Chiefs, including Lt. General Azubuike Ihejirika, Chief of Army Staff; Vice Admiral Dele Ezeoba, Chief of Naval Staff and Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Alex Badeh, as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void. The cloud of doubts that hovers on Admiral Ola Sa’ad Ibrahim, the Chief of Defence Staff, because he was not listed as defendant, does not hold waters for as long as he remains one of the Service Chiefs in the land. After all, the judgment emanated from a court of competent jurisdiction.

    Sadly, all successive administrations under the on-going democratic dispensation appointed their Service Chiefs without consulting the Senate. Historically, only former President Shehu Shagari in the aborted Second Republic reportedly sought the consent of the National Assembly in the appointment of his Service Chiefs. The regrettable trend went through ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo’s tenure until the case came up during the era of the late President, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. It is sad that such an important case can take five excruciating years to determine.

    We expect the presidency to swiftly act on this salient judgment. By now, the Ministry of Justice, having received the judgment, should avail it of the next line of action. To prevent a mockery of the Temple of Justice, we call for initiation of a stay of execution pending the Presidency’s exercise of its right of appeal or outright implementation of the court judgment. The Presidency should realise that even if it forwards the names of incumbent Service Chiefs to the Senate for approval, it is not duty bound to approve all the names and this could create a complex situation.

    This judgment is good for democracy. Such would put an end to the era of impunity inherited from the military era by presidents in the country. The appointment into top military positions should not be at the whims and caprices of a single person. Top military men must live for the state and not vice versa.

    We commend Mr Keyamo for instituting the suit and urge that more people make themselves available to serve as conscience of the society. This is one of the ways by which we can clarify the position of the law on contentious issues and thus deepen the democratic process.

     

  • Impunity writ large

    Impunity writ large

    STRIPPED of any legal hair-splitting, it is hard to find a more befitting word than – self help – to describe the June 21 blockade of the premises of the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) by Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, NIMASA, over their long running tax dispute.

    NIMASA had reportedly stormed NLNG operational base in two boats, with 15 naval officers on board; in the course of the blockade, it prevented the company’s tankers from accessing their loading terminal in Bonny Island, Rivers State. That was three days after a Federal High Court granted NLNG an injunction.

    The development obviously marks a new phase in the lingering feud between the two organisations; it has also, in our view, introduced a dangerous dimension into the revenue collecting activities of the maritime agency.

    We must hasten to separate the two parts of the NIMASA/NLNG affair. The first part is the revenue which the maritime agency is mandated to collect under the NIMASA Act, which is legitimate. What is however not legitimate is the strong arm tactics under which the agency would seek to shut down the operations of an organisation when there are disputes over assessment, and only because it thinks it has the means to do so. This is wrong.

    We recall that it was in fact NIMASA that first took NLNG to court – although it later withdrew the case. It was after this that NLNG instituted its own. Part of the outcome of the latter is the ruling of Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos on June 18, in which he issued an injunction against the Attorney General of the Federation, Global West, and any other parties, including NIMASA “from charging, imposing, demanding or collecting the three percent gross freight earnings or any other sums further to Section 15(a) of NIMASA Act 2007 on all of NLNG’s international in-bound or out-bound cargo ships owned, contracted or subcontracted by it.”

    NIMASA claims to have a problem with the ruling which specifically named the Attorney General of the Federation and Global West as parties.

    Whether properly joined in the suit or not, it seems to us utterly untenable for NIMASA to scoff at the ruling the way it did on June 21. Why was the agency in a hurry to do things its own way? And whose interest is it serving? And couldn’t it have gone to court to ask to be joined or even ask for the discharge of the ex parte order?

    We must make the point that NIMASA as a creation of law cannot be seen to act in such ways as to suggest that it is above the law. In this particular matter, it seems to have acted both rashly and most indecorously.

    We find the role of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) in the matter no less deplorable. NLNG, we know, is a private entity but only to the extent that the Federal Government, through the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) owns the minority 49 percent equity. NIMASA on the other hand is owned 100 percent by the Federal Government. We would have expected the office of the AGF to have properly advised the two parties, not just on the relevant provisions of the applicable laws but the position of the government on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) at the heart of the dispute. We expected that this would have happened before things got to this stage.

    The Federal Government bears the ultimate responsibility to get NIMASA to act responsibly in future. No matter what it considers the rightness of its cause, NIMASA needs to appreciate that this can only be done within the ambits of the law. It seems the agency has a long way to go to appreciate this elementary fact.

  • Incessant strikes

    Incessant strikes

    THE rash of industrial actions that have disfigured the Nigerian landscape in recent times is yet another indication of the way in which the exception has become the norm. At present, both the Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics (ASUP) and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) are on strike. A three-day warning strike of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) was only recently called off.

    The reasons for these strikes are well-known. The most prominent one is the failure of the Federal Government to abide by agreements reached in previous negotiations with the unions. Other reasons include the lack of a conducive working environment due to dilapidated infrastructure, police harassment and victimisation by management.

    While there can be no doubt that the right to withhold labour is an accepted strategy of legally-recognised unions, the profusion and frequency of wide-ranging industrial actions is a worrying development. The disruption they cause is profound, and can lead to extensive inconvenience, suffering and even loss of life.

    The brief NUPENG strike, for example, led to lengthy queues in petrol stations all across the country, a sharp rise in transport costs, and a virtual shutting-down of cities like Abuja and Kaduna. In a similar fashion, the ten-week old ASUP strike has rendered thousands of students idle and thus more vulnerable to participation in anti-social activity. The recently-declared ASUU strike will only worsen this lamentable trend.

    While these strikes go on, Nigeria continues to miss opportunities, waste time and effort, and stagnate as vital sectors of national life are put on hold. The suspension of tertiary education as a result of the ASUP and ASUU strikes will result in the suspension of all teaching and a great deal of research and community service. Conferences, workshops and seminars that were previously planned will no longer take place. Staff and students will become more disillusioned and cynical, and therefore become more likely to cut corners.

    Given the enormous cost of industrial actions to the socio-economic wellbeing of the country, it is surprising that the Jonathan administration does not do more to ensure that they are reduced to the barest minimum. Almost all strikes follow the same depressing pattern: a union issues a strike warning, demanding that government meet with it to negotiate on crucial issues; government ignores both the invitation and the deadline, only to call for negotiations when the strike is in full swing.

    The pattern is so predictable that a few confidence-building measures would be sufficient to reverse the trend. Since negotiations with the unions are inevitable, it makes no sense for government to wait until its hand is forced. Indeed, such tactics smack of arrogance and insensitivity which only make the unions even more determined to press their case with all the weapons at their disposal.

    It is time for both the Federal Government and the unions to evolve a new paradigm to counteract the vicious cycle of strikes besetting the nation. One way is to draw up a code of conduct outlining the steps and procedures which must be followed by all parties. Once an industrial dispute is declared, there could be a specified number of days or weeks within which negotiations must be held. Another strategy might be the institution of a “cooling-off” period, in which all parties to the dispute must agree to maintain the status quo while the issues are being looked into. There could also be a mechanism for sanctioning government officials whose actions or statements exacerbate labour disputes. If ministers and civil servants realise that they have a stake in ensuring industrial peace, strikes might become a less prominent feature of Nigerian life.

  • U.S. must suspend aid after Egypt’s coup

    U.S. must suspend aid after Egypt’s coup

    THERE IS no ambiguity about what happened in Egypt on Wednesday: a military coup against a democratically elected government and the wrong response to the country’s problems. The armed forces forcibly removed and arrested President Mohamad Morsi, who won 51 percent of the vote in a free and fair election little more than a year ago. A constitution ratified by a two-thirds majority in another popular vote last December was suspended; dozens of leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have been arrested and a number of media outlets shut down. A little-known judge appointed as president and granted the power to rule by decree will be entirely dependent on the armed forces for his authority.

    Having not spoken up against the excesses of Mr. Morsi’s government, the Obama administration has, with equal fecklessness, failed to forthrightly oppose the military intervention. But there should be no question that under a law passed by Congress, U.S. aid to Egypt — including the $1.3 billion annual grant to the military — must be suspended.

    Some in the administration and Congress will try to avoid this step, because of the armed forces’ history as a U.S. ally and guarantor of peace with Israel. But the suspension of aid is the necessary first step in a U.S. policy that advances the aim Mr. Obama laid out in a Wednesday night statement: “to ensure the lasting restoration of Egypt’s democracy.”

    Following the removal from office of Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, military leaders promised — as they did again Wednesday — to ensure democratic rights and quickly move toward elections. They did neither. Liberal democratic leaders who had opposed Mr. Mubarak’s autocracy were singled out for repression; critical journalists and activists were prosecuted and jailed in military-run trials; and while elections were repeatedly postponed, a campaign was launched against civil society groups dedicated to promoting free elections and human rights, culminating in the arrest and prosecution of the staff of several U.S. nongovernmental organizations. The generals, meanwhile, insisted on constitutional provisions exempting the armed forces and its budget from civilian authority.

    The Obama administration should now make clear to the new military-backed regime that aid will be restored only if a genuinely democratic transition is pursued in the coming months. That means tolerance for all peaceful political forces, including the Muslim Brotherhood — whose leaders, including Mr. Morsi, should be immediately released. It means acceptance of free assembly and free media, including the Islamist broadcasters that have been shut down. Any changes to the constitution should be the result of a consensus among all political forces, without diktats by the military. And there must be a firm — and short — timetable for new parliamentary and presidential elections.

    Had the armed forces not intervened, democracy probably would have led to the defeat within months of the Muslim Brotherhood in legislative elections. If it does not provoke the eruption of violent conflict, this coup may well ensure that Islamist forces, including more radical groups, grow stronger. The United States must focus on preventing the worst outcomes in a vital Arab ally, including civil war or a new dictatorship. That means dropping its passivity and using the leverage of aid to insist on a democratic transition.

    – Washington Post

  • Akure prison bombing

    Akure prison bombing

    The invidious attack on the Olokuta Maximum Security Prison in Akure, the Ondo State capital, is an embarrassment to the nation. Coming at a time when insurgent activities, especially in the northern part of the country, are relentlessly high, this act of aggression against the Nigerian state deserves utmost official attention.

    The authorities of the prison were caught napping. The yet-to-be identified perpetrators of the crime sneaked into the area around 12.05 midnight and wreaked havoc of unimaginable proportions on the prison that was built in 1989. Many inmates were reportedly set free in the process; two civilians were killed and some prison staff and security men wounded.

    The devilish gun men obviously came to the scene well prepared and heavily armed with guns and explosives. They were not even deterred by the proximity of the headquarters of the 32 Artillery Brigade of the Nigerian Army, the Owena Barracks, just one kilometre away. The barracks was reportedly not spared as its fence was riddled with bullets.

    The prison yard and target of the attack still had the devastating imprints of explosives deployed to break the main gate and keys, and gun holes on walls leading to cells that occurred through sporadic gun shots purportedly meant to scare away prison officials on duty were still visible. Tunde Olayiwola, Prison Comptroller, puts the damage thus: “The unknown gunmen numbering over 20 came at about midnight into the Olokuta prison through the main gate after using dynamite… The gunmen shot and killed two people while trying to get in …”

    So far, there is no inkling about the identities of the criminals as the prison authorities and the police seem dumb-founded by the incident. What is still baffling is how such large scale attacks could be inflicted on such an important prison yard and no trace could be made of the attackers. Who are the criminals behind the heist? What could have been their motive? What is the possibility that they will not go after other prisons across the country?

    What happened in Olokuta Maximum Prison is nothing but failure of intelligence. The nation’s security agencies should have had a hint of the heinous plan before it was carried out. We are not surprised because the same intelligence failure has been the lot of security challenges currently facing the northern part of the country that the Boko Haram criminals have held captive.

    Though the police and the prison authorities have denied the possibility of involvement of the insidious Boko Haram, we condemn their hasty judgement of debunking that angle to the incident. Moreover, they claimed responsibility for the invasion of the Kogi State prison sometime ago. The security agencies should have waited till after investigation before coming to conclusions. Whatever it is, these two institutions should have waited for the outcome of a duly empanelled body of inquiry into the matter before passing their comments. More disdainful is the fact that the prison and police authorities gave no hint of where the condemnable acts came from.

    Despite the fact that 54 out of the reported 175 prisoners that escaped from the Olokuta prison have been re-arrested, the bitter truth is that prisons in the nation are not well secured. And this is contrary to what obtains in well-organised climes across the world. Apart from external threat, the prisons are also vulnerable to over-crowding. For instance, the Olokuta prison was built in 1989 to accommodate 150 inmates. But at the time of the attack, it had about 1,000 prisoners. This is scandalous.

    This despicable condition is sad and inhuman because, not even all the huge number of inmates would have, upon scrutiny, committed the offences they were accused of to warrant being put in prison sine die. Some of them would have been innocent of the offence for which they were put in custody while others have been awaiting trial for years due mainly to the porous criminal justice system in the land. This unjust situation has to be remedied.

    The nation is waiting to know, before too long, those behind the last prison bombing in Akure, and their motive. We can only hope that there would not be a repeat. Above all, we call for serious fortification of not only the Olokuta prison but other prisons in the country. Also, the issue of prison congestion needs to be tackled if only to realise the goal and essence of prison system which is to reform and not just to punish offenders unnecessarily.