The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • Pay up!

    Pay up!

    ON June 21, the Tax Appeal Tribunal, Lagos Zone, ordered Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited to pay its education tax bill of $83.4 million (N13 billion) for 2008, as assessed by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS). Mobil had dragged the FIRS before the tribunal on May 5, 2011, on the ground that the assessment breached the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the company with the Federal Government and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) in 2000. The MoU, it claimed, allowed it to deduct all amounts it incurred in paying taxes and levies to the federal, state and other agencies of government in computing its education tax liability.

    While contesting Mobil’s claim, the FIRS insisted that the 2000 MoU was for a three-year term, with a terminal date of January 1, 2003; it supported its claim with a letter from the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) showing that the MoU has indeed expired even as it maintained that the applicable legislation at the time of assessment was the Petroleum Profits Tax Act (PPTA), which it argued “cannot be subordinated to the mere contemplations of the MoU”.

    In upholding FIRS’s claims, the tribunal held that the MoU was only for a three-year term. Specifically, the tribunal observed that Mobil failed to exercise the “option to renew” in clause 7.1 of the MoU, exercisable at the joint instance of all the parties. The tribunal would observe further: “this option was never exercised, and thus no renewal or extension was triggered”. In effect, the company was no longer entitled to make deductions allowed under the 2000 MoU, in calculating its education tax.

    A number of issues appear to have been provoked by the judgment. The first is that the MoU had actually lapsed as far back as 2003 whereas the disputed assessment is in respect of 2008. Are we to believe that there are no assessments for the years’ 2004-2007? And what happens to the subsequent years’ 2009-2012 considering that the order in respect of 2008 is already five years in arrears?

    No doubt, it is tempting to see the dispute merely as one borne of differences between the company and the tax authorities over interpretation of legitimate incentives. But the issue is certainly deeper. The development provokes troubling questions about the activities of multinational companies, particularly their perception of their tax and other corporate obligations in their host countries. The truth of the matter is that our multinationals’ love for the Nigerian gravy is already too well known to be disputed; so is their near infinite capacity to manipulate the rules to their advantage.

    On the one hand, our typically weak institutional environment ensures that they can literally get away with murder; on the other, our officials, ever too easily compromised, ensure that they are never brought to book.

    Mobil may have been caught out; it is highly unlikely to be alone in such practices. Both the NNPC and DPR must consider themselves as no less complicit in creating the loopholes under which the operators have been known to take shelter. We consider it unimaginable that NNPC which drafted the MoU will keep FIRS, the body charged with tax matters, in the dark about the terms of the MoU in question. But even more worrisome is that FIRS needed five years to issue the disputed assessment. The development does not speak well of the synergy between them.

    We expect Mobil to respect the judgment by paying promptly.

  • Again, pension scam

    Again, pension scam

    THE regularity of scams in the pension sector in the country is turning epidemic. Hardly does a week pass without the federal authorities galling us with tales of unbelievable criminality against one of the most vulnerable groups of people in the society – the elderly and mostly infirm members. Last week, it was reported that the Federal Government, through the Office of the Head of Service, Alhaji Goni Aji, has closed 36 bank accounts used to pay pensions, following discoveries that they were used to siphon the pensions meant for genuine pensioners.

    Despite this stomach churning criminality, the attitude of federal agencies in bringing the culprits to justice is, at best, lackadaisical. For, if government officials can claim to be helpless that ghosts have taken missing funds; we ask whether ghosts can also open bank accounts, to cash illegitimate pension funds? In the report on the scam in one of the national dailies, it was alleged that before the dissolution of the Presidential Pension Reform Task Force, 32 persons and corporate organisations had over 140 indictments against them. Again, it was claimed that over 13, 874 cheque leaflets were used by pension criminals to siphon billions of the funds meant for pensioners. The reports talked of how 30 cheques were drawn in a day, while over N250 million was being withdrawn weekly by pension officials.

    Despite this alleged criminality in the federal pensions, the attempt to bring the culpable officials to justice has, at best, been laughable. The recent report is one such bizarre reaction of the federal authorities to serious crimes. For, we are not aware that law enforcement officers have been to the banks responsible for the alleged scams to ask for documents that could give clues to the beneficiaries of the stolen funds. There has also been no report that those officials of the pension agencies allegedly making the illegal withdrawals have been brought in for questioning by the police. The impression from the reaction of the government officials is that the closure of accounts and harmonisation of the banks for pension payment to only four banks is enough action by the authorities.

    We think it a tragedy that a wicked younger generation is mismanaging the life-saving entitlements of an older generation. What is even more disheartening is that each time a new set of persons is asked to stem the rot, and effect necessary changes; it appears they turn out worse than those they have been asked to scrutinise. As we write, nobody is sure what has become of the accusations and counter-accusations over bare-knuckle criminality made by the legislature against the former chairman of the Pension Task force, Alhaji Abdulrasheed Maina and his team. While the man has allegedly gone underground following the order that he should be arrested, he nevertheless let out even a sourer tale of collusion, by high officials of government as the reasons for his being witch-hunted.

    While all these are going on, the elderly Nigerians whose lives are dependent on the stipends that their pensions have become, in the face of inflation, are left very vulnerable. To show that our federal authorities are at least conniving to perpetuate the sufferings of the senior citizens, they continuously engage in one bogus reform after another. Indeed, as if those responsible for the welfare of the pensioners are not human beings themselves, they keep asking the old men and women to go for unending documentations. Yet, despite the several reforms and the wasted resources, the stealing of the pensions of our senior citizens appears a hot spot for pension criminals.

  • Seeking compromise, not chaos, in Egypt

    Seeking compromise, not chaos, in Egypt

    AFTER A YEAR of misrule by its first democratically elected government, Egypt is hurtling toward a potentially catastrophic political conflict. It’s a confrontation that is unlikely to benefit either the Islamist government or its mostly secular opposition, but it could destroy Egypt’s hopes for consolidating a stable democracy or addressing its profound economic problems.

    The Tamarod or “rebel” movement called on Egyptians to take to the streets Sunday, the anniversary of President Mohamed Morsi’s government, in order to force it from office. The movement claims to have collected more than 15 million signatures on a petition calling for new presidential elections. The problem with this agenda is that there is no legal or constitutional mechanism for carrying it out; Tamarod’s leaders are hoping for what would amount to a new revolution or perhaps a military coup.

    The Morsi government has done much to generate this ill-advised militancy. Breaking promises to seek consensus with secular and opposition forces, it forced through a new constitution and has been trying to impose its control over the judiciary, media and civil society groups. It has devised laws that would tilt future elections in its favor and passed up opportunities to strike deals with moderate opponents.

    Perhaps more significantly, the government has infuriated average Egyptians with its poor management. Cities are plagued with power outages and fuel shortages, inflation and unemployment are growing and investment is dormant. A long-promised deal with the International Monetary Fund has never been completed, and only bailouts from Qatar and Libya have kept Egypt from exhausting its reserves of hard currency.

    As we have written previously, there are substantial grounds for concern that Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood movement are seeking to monopolize power. But the opposition’s undemocratic answer offers little prospect of a good outcome. If mass protests succeed in prompting the government’s downfall or a military coup, any future elected government will be subject to the same tactics. And no administration will be able to tackle Egypt’s economic dysfunction, which will require painful reform measures, as long as the country remains polarized.

    The only workable way forward is a bargain in which Mr. Morsi agrees to major compromises with the opposition, including constitutional reforms, the withdrawal of harmful legislation concerning the judiciary and nongovernmental organizations and an end to the prosecution of opponents. In exchange, opposition leaders should stop trying to overthrow the government and begin working to win the next election.

    The United States has tried to push the sides toward such a compromise, but weakly. It has held back from using its economic leverage to curb Mr. Morsi’s excesses and even from speaking up against them forcefully, thereby convincing many Egyptians that it is propping up the Islamist government.

    U.S. relations with the Egyptian military, which has walled itself off from the government, remain strong, which offers another opportunity. Last Sunday the armed forces commander declared that the military has “the obligation to intervene to stop Egypt from plunging into a dark tunnel of civil fighting and killing or sectarianism or the collapse of state institutions.” Washington should make clear that while the military may have a role in preventing bloodshed and pushing for compromise, a forcible interruption of constitutional order is unacceptable.

     

    • Washington Post

  • Presidential ill-grace

    Presidential ill-grace

    The Amaechi-led NGF chose the high road to avoid a crude power show from Aso Rock

    The so-called coincidence of meetings presaged a showdown. The President, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, had scheduled a dinner to hold at the time the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) had set its inaugural meeting after the election that reaffirmed Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi as the chairman.

    It set off a hubbub of a partisan flavour. Who was going to attend the meeting called by the governor and who was going to honour the President’s invitation? But it turned out to be a non-event to the extent that the expected clash of schedules was nullified by the attendance of some governors who met briefly and decided to honour the President’s invitation to a dinner.

    If it was a non-event because the clash did not generate headline, it told a loftier story. The governors of the forum chose the high road. They decided to deprive the president the low gloating of a fight. The governors were not invited to the dinner until about two days to the event whereas the event had long been planned. Foreign guests like the Malawian President Joyce Banda and Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, attended. It is obvious those foreign dignitaries were not served their invitation a fortnight before the event the way the governors were served via text messages. Why were they served an invitation after the governors had set a date for their meeting? No such collision of schedule happened when Governor Jonah Jang called his team of renegade losers for a meeting.

    It is obvious the clash was choreographed by the president and his team as a show of power. This is patently unpresidential. Secondly, it continues the malicious saga of the president in his role in the clash already going on in the NGF between governors loyal to the president and the others who are clearly sticking to the independence of the body.

    We also learned on good authority that when the so-called opposition governors arrived, they did not have seats waiting for them. They had to search for seats. Some of the top officers of the Jonathan presidency vacated their seats in embarrassed fashion for the governors. More embarrassing was that some of them sat in the back row with journalists. Obviously, the presidency did not expect the governors to attend.

    We know now that the invitation of governors to the dinner was an afterthought emanating from an obnoxious desire to display presidential brawn. The president has been showing in vicarious fashion his displeasure with the Governor of Rivers State. Only last week, his wife, Dame Patience Jonathan, defied all decorum and acted like an officer of state when she visited Port Harcourt, and breached the governor’s protocol in a show of unconstitutional power. She played the impostor. She also attended a wedding that she converted into a platform for uncouth mouthing and vituperations of an elected governor. It reinforces the lack of class that the president has displayed since the face-off with the Rivers State Governor started.

    It is the same lack of grace that encouraged the commissioner of police, Mbu Joseph Mbu, to bar local leaders from paying visits to the governor. It was a crude behaviour that defies all decorum and principles of the rule of law. We cannot defend the president for not calling both his wife and the commissioner of police to order. This shows that the president has embraced this lack of finesse and his presidential actions and inactions have endorsed them.

    For instance, his spokesmen said they did not take sides in the recently concluded NGF election. But the president, never one with the subtlety to disguise his mischief, endorsed Governor Jang, the renegade leader of the forum. This shameless contradiction has become a staple of a presidency now crippled by a lack of moral high ground.

    When the governors showed up at the dinner, Governor Amaechi decided, out of courtesy, to walk for a handshake with President Jonathan. He received a curt rebuff from his security aides. The reason? It was out of sync with protocol. Since when was it out of protocol to say hello to the president at a public event? This has happened several times. Lesser mortals have been shown on national television to go through the so-called impregnable protocol wall with the chief security officer and ADC to pump hands with the head of state. We have seen governors do that as well. Why was it different in the story of Amaechi?

    The president has failed to recognise that the office, once elections are over, is not a partisan haven. It is the seat of the nation’s integrity. The higher spirits of the land – pride, honour, truth, fairness, balance, justice, empathy – should exude from its cathedral pores.

    Rather, what we have seen is a serial disregard for justice and even the rudiments of dignity. We commend the governors for lightening the tension by putting off their meeting to another day. But the president needs to be cautioned against turning the same body that buoyed him to power into a theatre of division, fuss, malicious ill-grace and vengeance.

  • To Russia with whores

    To Russia with whores

    The wave of Nigerian prostitutes takes a new dimension

    Desperation is the name of the game and its guiding principle. Ironically, though, this is a most unprincipled way of going about the business of living; that is, speaking about a new trend, the trafficking of Nigerian girls to Russia for prostitution. However, the corrupt ones are not only the traffickers; the girls who yield as well as their backers are equally tainted.

    This alarming development publicised by Nigeria’s ambassador to Russia, Asam Asam, betrays the increasing surrender to base motives by the country’s citizens. Speaking with the Europe Correspondent of the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Berlin, Germany, Asam lamented, “The major consular challenge we face in Moscow is the influx of trafficked persons from Nigeria.”  According to him, “No fewer than 200 girls are trafficked every month, and we have many of them exposed to danger…We have deported over 240 girls since 2012. You will be shocked at the extent of resistance from the girls.”

     No doubt, Asam’s comments are statistically significant and should be of concern to the government. The information not only highlights a new dimension to sex-trade travellers originating from the country; it also raises unavoidable questions.  Who could these girls be, in terms of ethnicity, educational background and socio-economic situation? Why would they succumb to the temptation to make money as sex workers in Russia, despite the hurdles and risks? Or were they innocently lured to that country?

    More puzzling was Asam’s clarification. He said: “These girls are not tourists, students or government officials, yet they are given visas from the Russian Embassy in Abuja.”  Evidently, to go by this oddity, there must be a protection racket in place, which is highly deplorable.  Of course, the most effective strategy to arrest such undesirable exit is to stop the would-be travellers at the departure stage and break the trafficking rings. In this context, the National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons (NAPTIP) has its work well defined and should make every effort to fulfill its objectives.

    It is remarkable that Russia is now seen as the new destination by these desperadoes, marking a shift from Western Europe, which has reportedly witnessed a welcome decline in human trafficking from Nigeria, following strict laws on illegal migration and joint efforts by Nigeria and the governments of countries in the region to curb the crime. This current swing to Eastern Europe must not be tolerated, and all the parties concerned at the governmental level must move urgently to address the situation.

    This is certainly the kind of export that Nigeria does not need; it not only attracts negative publicity, it also gives a wrong image of the country and its citizens. It is heart-warming, though, Asam’s observation that there were a good number of other Nigerians living in Russia as students and professionals in various fields.   However, although this cannot be a justification, there is no denying the fact that tough socio-economic policies and conditions in the country play a significant role in human trafficking, particularly for sex-trade purposes. In the specific context, it represents an odious submission of body and soul, which presumably can only be motivated by dire conditions. It is a shame that some of these girls who go abroad for sex-work have parental backing, according to Asam. He said: “I spoke to the mother of one of the girls and she said her daughter should remain in Moscow and survive the ordeal.”

    While the citizens, no doubt, have a personal duty to live on the right side of public morality, it goes without saying that government cannot abandon the responsibility to create a space for decent living for the people.

  • Okiro as PSC boss

    Okiro as PSC boss

    Since his appointment is unfortunately a fait accompli, we expect him to rise up to the challenge

    Senate President David Mark made the appropriate remark when he asked the chairman of the Senate Committee on Police Affairs, Senator Paulinus Nwagwu, what he thought former Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Mr Mike Okiro could do to improve the police force as a Police Service Commission (PSC) boss, that he had no opportunity of doing when he was IGP. This should be the spirit; unfortunately, the Senate eventually confirmed Okiro’s appointment for the police service commission without satisfactorily answering this question. Okiro was IGP from 2007 to 2009.

    President Goodluck Jonathan had in May forwarded the names of nominees of the seven-member PSC to the Senate for consideration, and the Senate, in turn, referred the matter to its committee on police affairs for screening. Five other nominees, namely the retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Yakubu Mohammed representing North West Zone; Hon. Justice Olufunke Adekeye (South West); Aisha Larai Tukur (North East); Mrs. Comfort Obi (South East) and Chief Torngee Gem Toranyiin (North Central) were also confirmed as members of the commission. The only person whose nomination was rejected by the Senate was Dr Otive Igbuzor, a human rights activist representing the South South geo-political zone.

    From proceedings at the screening, it would appear that the senators were swayed by Nwagwu’s assertion that Okiro would bring his experience to bear on the commission whereas they should have been more persuaded by Senator Mark’s question that they left unanswered. When we talk of experience, we talk of it as if it is something esoteric. The point is; it is not a question of how long but how well. If therefore we are talking of experience, we should be talking in the context of the value that a person in position of authority added to the system while in office.

    We wonder why our senators behave this way when it comes to confirming appointments into very important positions and institutions. Sadly, such shoddy manner of ratifying appointments did not start with Okiro, it has been like that for long and it is part of the reasons why Nigerians have not felt the impact of the democratic government as they should in the last 14 years. It could not have been better when senators merely ask people who should have been thoroughly grilled for public offices to ‘take a bow and leave’.

    In the case of Mr. Okiro, there are sundry allegations, some bordering on corruption. Not only that, contrary to constitutional provisions that a member of certain bodies, including the PSC, “shall not be required to belong to a political party,” it cannot be denied that Okiro is a member of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP), having once sought the party’s senatorial ticket for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Moreover, he had chaired the security committee at the party’s convention and is also a former security adviser to the PDP national chairman. Given these foggy circumstances, and perhaps more that we cannot recollect immediately, we would have expected the Senate to grill him to determine his qualification, both in character and in competence, for the position of PSC chairman.

    However, now that President Jonathan has characteristically foisted Mr. Okiro on the nation, in cahoots with the Senate, the least we can do is to admonish him not to repeat his lackluster performance as inspector-general in the PSC. The police need at this point in time not an establishment man but someone who is pragmatic, full of ideas and is ready to run the commission in a business unusual manner. There are so many challenges besetting the police and, considering the security issues we presently have in the country, only a proactive police service commission that is ready to break completely from the past can bring about the needed changes in the police force.

  • Obama can’t skirt tough issues in Africa

    Obama can’t skirt tough issues in Africa

    PRESIDENT OBAMA’S tour of Africa this week has been defined as much by the countries he is skipping as those he is visiting. Among those excluded from the itinerary are Kenya, the homeland of Mr. Obama’s father, where the newly elected president and vice president are under indictment by the International Criminal Court; and Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country, which recently was accused by the State Department of “gross human rights violations” in its campaign against Islamic extremists.

    Mr. Obama instead is visiting South Africa, whose iconic leader Nelson Mandela appears near death; and two small, untroubled nations, Senegal and Tanzania. That’s in keeping with the themes of the trip outlined by the White House: the promotion of U.S. trade and investment in a continent where economic growth is picking up and support for democratic institutions. Mr. Obama also wants to encourage a new generation of African leaders, though he may find himself eulogizing, in Mr. Mandela, one of the greats of the past.

    As African leaders frequently note, the president’s outreach is overdue. It has been four years since his previous, 20-hour visit to Africa as president, a stretch during which he has made multiple visits to Asia and Latin America. During that time China has made a major push to extend its influence in Africa and, in some important ways, has succeeded: At $200 billion, its annual trade with the continent is twice that of the United States. During regular visits by its presidents, including one by new leader Xi Jinping in March, Beijing has been showering governments with billions in aid, with no apparent political strings.

    Mr. Obama can’t match that largesse, but he could, directly or otherwise, draw distinctions between the forms of engagement offered by China and the United States. The president will hold an interactive town hall meeting in South Africa, something Mr. Xi would never hazard. Mr. Obama’s support for democracy offers an opportunity for contrast with China’s unqualified backing for strongmen like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Omar Hassan al-Bashir in Sudan.

    What the president should not do is use his tame schedule to dodge the continent’s toughest problems. These include not only lingering dictatorships but the rise of Islamic terrorist groups in northern Africa and continuing conflicts in Sudan and the Congo, which Mr. Xi visited. In an interview earlier this year, Mr. Obama wondered why the United States should consider intervention in Syria, rather than Congo. Since then, his administration successfully co-sponsored a U.N. Security Council resolution that mandated the dispatch of a 3,000-strong U.N. “intervention brigade,” including troops from South Africa and Tanzania, to carry out offensive operations against Congolese rebels. That was the right call. Perhaps Mr. Obama can now explain why he believes such outside intervention is merited in Congo, but not in Syria.

    – Washington Post

  • Undiplomatic discrimination

    Undiplomatic discrimination

    The bond pre-condition for British visa is condemnable but we caused it too

    Except diplomatic wisdom prevails, Britain seems to have concluded the plan to attach cash bond to bind prospective first-time visitors from specified countries seeking her visa. Nigeria is slated as target of the pilot scheme that would commence in November. Other countries considered as “high risk” for their perceived immigration abuses are India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Ghana. Nationals of these nations of 18 years and above would be compelled to pay a bond of £3,000 (N750, 000) to obtain a six-month visit visa to Britain.

    Britain reportedly came up with this obviously bigoted policy to deter visitors’ overstay and to recover incurred costs if a foreign national used her public services during such visits. The bond is expected to be forfeited if they allow their visa to expire before leaving Britain.

    We have no grudge against the free will of any country, not the least Britain; to come up with a policy that Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party believes will show its seriousness about cutting immigration and abuses of the system.

    Britain’s government is reportedly planning an annual net migration cut down of below 100,000 by 2015. Theresa May, Britain’s Home Secretary puts it frankly: “This is the next step in making sure our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain.” But why must the policy be selective, more so against Nigeria? Even if Nigeria and these other countries have what she calls “the most significant risk of abuse,” the fact remains that this policy runs contrary to the spirit of the Commonwealth family.

    Despite Britain being home to 752 of the deplorable 9,000 Nigerians in prisons around the world, this policy cannot be justified because nationals of other countries outside the affected Commonwealth six had also reportedly abused the system in Britain in the past. Since 1985 when Britain stopped, without cogent reasons, Nigerians’ free movement into her territory without visa, this last policy of cash-bond marks another diplomatic pummelling geared towards impeding the historical and waning cultural ties between the two countries.

    We are happy that Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru, Minister of Foreign Affairs had summoned Mr. Andrew Pocock, British High Commissioner in the country to intimate him of government’s exasperation against the inimical diplomatic policy against Nigerians. Save for a retrace of steps by Britain, the Nigerian government should not hesitate, consequent upon receipt of official communication of the policy, to promptly repay her back in her own coin. No country, not even Britain, should feel that the interests of Nigerians can be impeded with impunity.

    All said however, the hullabaloo over this draconian diplomatic policy would have been unnecessary if successive leaders in the country have made it liveable and conducive for Nigerians. If this had been done, the incessant influx of Nigerians to Britain and other countries would have ceased. We note that Nigerian emigrants do not necessarily love Britain or other overseas countries but for the unpardonably avoidable bad situation at home that compels them to seek succour in foreign lands.  Will British citizens have been bothered if Nigerian government comes up with a similar policy? This is unlikely because the system over there works.

    This British policy should remind us of the need for the country to talk to itself. The alacrity with which the National Assembly and the presidency reacted to this policy is confounding. Perhaps most of the country’s problems would have been solved if they had received such timely official attention.

  • Benedict Odiase’s exit

    His story reminds us of the disconnect between us and our anthem

    In the context of the ongoing public debate about Nigeria’s nationhood, the death of Benedict Odiase, 79, who composed the country’s current National Anthem, is an event for contemplation. It is noteworthy that he departed in his sleep 35 years after his May 1978 composition that became the new national hymn from October, that year.  Also interesting is the fact that he belonged to the police force, which remains heavily challenged in terms of professional integrity and patriotic orientation. Odiase, who joined the Nigeria Police Force in 1954, retired in 1992 as a Deputy Commissioner of Police and was a former Director of Music, Nigeria Police Band.

    His exit in Lagos on June 11, apart from its relevance to the question of nationhood, also prompted emotionally charged discussions in various quarters concerning the appropriateness of the change that produced the present anthem. It is remarkable that a good number of Nigerians still cling to the old anthem, Nigeria, We Hail Thee, which was in use from the country’s Independence from the British in 1960, and was regarded as an inappropriate colonial inheritance by the ruling military government. At the psychological level, therefore, this understated absence of a general acceptance of the new anthem has subtle implications for citizen connection.

    Unfortunately, there is no doubt that the country is yet to come to terms with the noble vision encapsulated in the National Anthem, Arise O Compatriots. The sense of unity, patriotism and good citizenship that the anthem seeks to promote has yet to manifest effectively in the country’s affairs. The reigning schisms across social, political, economic and religious spaces, threatening to tear the country apart, certainly could not have been the intention of the anthem.

    By its very essence, a national anthem encodes a country’s finest aspirations; it is an inspirational statement that should be moving in text and tune.  Against this background, it is disappointing and a sad commentary on the state of the nation that large numbers of citizens view the lyrics of its anthem as just a song, and the tune as mere beats. If the country’s anthem is treated as uninspiring, it reveals a disturbing disconnect between the people and the hymn that is meant to provide a sense of national identity. This is a huge blow to the concept of nationhood.

    However, it is to Odiase’s credit as a music composer that he created the tune to go with the lyrics of the anthem which came from the shortlisted entries of five people in a nationwide contest, namely, John A. Ilechukwu, Eme Etim Akpan, B.A.Ogunnaike, Sota Omoigui and P. O Aderibigbe.  Odiase’s composition was, interestingly, rated above entries from perhaps better known composers, Laz  Ekwueme and Akin Euba.

    It is heart-warming and motivating that Odiase, who in 2001 was eventually honoured with a national award, Member of the Order of the Niger (MON), also enjoyed the fruits of his creative labour before the end.  In an interview that coincided with the country’s independence anniversary celebration last year, Odiase said, “I have transferred my intellectual/copyright interest in the work, Arise O Compatriots, being used as the Nigerian National Anthem to the Musical Copyright Society Nigeria (MCSN) from the Performing Rights Society of United Kingdom, for protection since 1998.” He added, “This decision to accede my rights to MCSN has paid off handsomely as the society has protected my work and paid royalties to me in hard currencies from the exploitation of my composition around the world and locally.”

    Indeed, Odiase earned his place in the gallery of national icons. His contribution to the Nigerian dream is a historical reality that will remain in the collective memory for generations.

  • The right to remain silent is still golden

    The right to remain silent is still golden

    – Despite bashing by conservatives, the 50-year-old Miranda warning for crime suspects serves us well.

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak with me?”

    Those words are uttered thousands of times a day in this country, and one hardly needs to have been arrested to recognize them. They are a staple of police dramas from “Dragnet” to “CSI.” They are a ubiquitous part of American culture, as familiar as the Pledge of Allegiance. They are, of course, the Miranda warning, which suspects have been read ever since the United States Supreme Court in 1966 mandated it.

    Written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, who began his public career as a prosecutor in Northern California, Miranda recognized the coercive nature of police interrogations and sought to ensure that the constitutional rights of suspects in custody were protected. Moreover, it was an expression of the court’s egalitarianism: Sophisticated suspects already knew to ask for a lawyer or to remain silent, so those who tended to incriminate themselves under police questioning were more likely to be poor and uneducated.

    Since its inception, Miranda has stood as a hallmark of judicial overreach in the minds of conservatives. They like to note that the warning does not appear in the Constitution. And even though the rights it enumerates are explicitly mentioned — the right to remain silent is guaranteed by the 5th Amendment, the right to counsel is protected by the 6th — critics complained at the time of Miranda that informing suspects of those rights would cause them to clam up and thwart law enforcement. It would, the claim went, empty the prisons.

    Well, it didn’t. Miranda is now nearly 50 years old, and the prisons are full of criminals who were convicted despite it. Some were read the warning and talked anyway; others got the warning, demanded lawyers and were convicted on the evidence. Indeed, one of the striking things about Miranda today is that the law enforcement establishment no longer objects to it. The warning is simple and easy for officers to deliver. It gives them clarity, and it rarely interferes with an investigation. When Miranda faced a direct challenge in 2000, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who criticized the original ruling, voted to uphold it, in part because of that clarity and in part because it had become such an established piece of police practice.

    Yet Miranda continues to agitate. Just last week, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Texas man who was being questioned by police before his arrest but who then refused to answer when police asked whether shells from his gun would match those found at the scene of a homicide. Rather than respond, he looked at the floor, clenched his hands and bit his lip. Prosecutors told the jury those details, and Genevevo Salinas was convicted of murder. A divided court concluded that because it was his actions, not words, that were presented to the jury — and because the exchange occurred before his arrest — his Miranda rights were not violated even though he had not been issued the warning.

    And it was just two months ago that the surviving brother of the two Boston bombing suspects was taken into custody, and conservatives loudly argued that he should somehow be treated differently from any other criminal suspect and denied a reading of his Miranda rights. The shoddy reasoning in that instance is that somehow terrorism is different — as if planting a bomb is a crime outside constitutional law while shooting a gun would not be. He was eventually read his rights and stopped talking, but no one seems to have much doubt about the strength of the evidence against him.

    The strange state of Miranda as it approaches 50, then, is that it no longer poses the threat that police and others once feared it would, but it remains a source of political irritation to conservatives. That’s hardly the only example of people putting ideology over common sense in today’s America, but it’s a particularly noxious one. Today’s conservatives would be wise to follow Rehnquist’s lead and acknowledge Miranda for what it is: an intelligent, workable doctrine that helps police and protects the rights of those in custody.

    Los Angeles Times