The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • State of the Nation Address

    State of the Nation Address

    Rather than foot-drag on the bill, the President should see it as God-sent to showcase his achievements 

    The altercation between the Presidency and the National Assembly over the bill on the State of the Nation Address 2013 that proposes to compel the president to present, annually, his scorecard before a joint session of the federal lawmakers is gratuitous. The Senate has threatened to over-ride the president’s veto if President Goodluck Jonathan refuses to sign the bill into law before the July date that he is expected to make the maiden edition of the address.

    The Senate and the House of Representatives in May passed the State of the Nation Address Bill 2013 into law and immediately transmitted it to the Presidency for the required assent to meet their projected first week of July date for this year’s maiden edition. Ita Enang, Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Business expressed the frustration of the upper legislative house regarding the perceived foot-dragging in presidential assent despite the fact that the president is still within the 30 days required to study the bill and append his signature or send it back to them. He said: “…. by the time we shall be resuming from the two-week recess, the 30 days must have elapsed and if by that time the bill has not been assented to, we are most likely to override him by way of veto, since the bill emanated from us in the first place, in the interest of the nation.”

    President Jonathan should endeavour not to unnecessarily delay this bill. He does not have to wait for the expiration of constitutional timeframe before signing it. If he has any objection (since he is allowed to have reasoned objections to aspects of any bill), he should do that in concert with his retinue of aides in diverse areas of specialisation in good time; and not necessarily wait for the cessation of the constitutional 30 days. The president can alter the bill’s modalities since there is nothing sacrosanct about the July date set by the National Assembly, but he cannot reject such an important bill. This Bill on State of the Nation Address is one that should have been in existence a long time ago.

    In our view, there is nothing wrong if the president is legally compelled every year to come before our law makers, foremost government functionaries in the executive and the judiciary and, more importantly, a big crowd of other credible Nigerians, to give account of his stewardship. To foster true democracy, the need to provide a platform to engender accountability, probity and transparency in governance is non-negotiable. Such a forum, to a large extent, will dissuade dangerous speculations within the polity because the needed light would have been shed on cloudy aspects of governance that Nigerians have misgivings about.

    At any point, the public should be certain of what is officially being done to fight corruption, minimise unemployment or ensure that elusive electricity is made constant, and whether the right steps are being taken to provide Infrastructure. At such crucial moments, the president can be challenged for not leading by example. More fundamental is the need for Nigerians to be more apprised of steps taken to nip insecurity in the bud.

    What the National Assembly is urging the president to do through this annual address of the entire country, using the instrumentality of the law, is good. It is a tradition that has endured in well established democracies. It should not be politicised or turned into an instrument of ego tripping by the executive and the federal legislature. We want the president to see the bill as one that is capable of goading the government to see social justice and preservation of fundamental rights of citizens as one salient ingredient of democracy. Former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, deployed the State of the Union Address to convince the Congress and the American public. President Barack Obama is using it to rally the American people round his presidency while Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom is doing same before the House of Commons.

    President Jonathan should sign the bill and grab the opportunity presented by it to enlighten Nigerians on his plans and programmes for them and to boost his approval ratings through his well touted but invisible transformation agenda. Otherwise, the National Assembly should go ahead to over-ride the President on this bill if he does not assent to it within the 30 days that he is expected to do that.

  • Extra-judicial justice?

    Extra-judicial justice?

    Thorough investigation needed to unravel how UNIBEN student was killed

    Such is the promotional catchphrase that says “ Police is your friend”, which sounds like a bad joke in the light of developments in the controversy surrounding the death of Ibrahim Momodu, a final-year student of Science Laboratory Technology at University of Benin (UNIBEN). Following the exhumation of his corpse, which was allegedly hurriedly buried by policemen in a cover-up, there are indications that he was killed extra-judicially, contrary to the police account that he died from gunshot wounds inflicted on him to ease his arrest.

    Examination of Momodu’s body reportedly revealed that he was shot thrice on his back, exposing the falsehood publicised by the police that he was shot in the legs. This chilling discovery, suggesting that the deceased was shot from behind, suddenly and unexpectedly, stamped a huge question mark on the modus operandi of the police. In the circumstances, it seemed a function of conscience, even if repressed, that the police statement presented a distorted version of events that left its operatives blameless. It was a predictable projection of innocence, but the evidence points towards the opposite. If there was nothing to hide, why did the police hastily bury Momodu , rather than rationally exploiting the evidence of his body to prove the allegation that he was a dangerous robber?

    Where was conscience when Momodu was shot?  According to the Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO), Moses Eguavoen, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), “On May 27, 2013 about 8.20pm, operatives at Ogida Division led by the DPO, while on routine patrol within the area intercepted a cyclist and another with an unregistered motorcycle at Obayuwana Junction on Siluko Road, Benin City.” He said further in a statement, “The suspect immediately brought out a Russian made cut-to-size double barrel gun, but the policemen, noticing his action, responded swiftly and shot the suspect later known as Ibrahim Momodu who died on his way to the hospital.”

    At the centre of the shooting was Mrs Carol Afegbua, a Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP) and the Divisional Police Officer (DPO) of Ogida Police Station, Benin, who allegedly shot Momodu. It is worth noting that she apparently defended her action and continued the calumniation of the dead on her Facebook page, saying, “ Does this portray the image of a student…guns and riding of an unregistered motorcycle at 22:30hrs, attempting to shoot a policeman, a new syllabus for university students?” It is fascinating to observe that Afegbua’s femininity failed to mediate throughout the encounter with Momodu.

    It is curious that there is a marked temporal inconsistency in these police angles; the times of occurrence given by Eguavoen and Afegbua do not agree. Also, these accounts imply that what happened was an on-the-spot prosecution and summary judgment against Momodu, well beyond the framework of the law. Whatever happened to the principle of fairness, by which a suspect is regarded as innocent until found guilty within a legal context? On the part of the police, contempt for the rule of law, which defines separate roles for the organs of government, is an inescapable charge in this incident.

    There are other deeply disturbing dimensions to this matter, considering the unmistakable brutality and arbitrariness on the part of the police. When the force, which is expected to uphold the law, becomes symbolic of lawlessness, such ironic criminality can do society no good; in addition, it compounds the negative image of the force and spoils its case that institutional redemption is possible.

    As things stand now, with protests over Momodu’s death conflicting with the justificatory police position, there is a clear and urgent need for an independent and thorough probe into the dark incident. What happened that night? Did the police act properly and fairly? Was the cause of justice pursued within the ambit of the law? These questions are begging for answers.

  • Commendable act

    Commendable act

    WAEC has set a standard in staff welfare

    The decision of the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) not only to promptly pay the benefits of its staff caught in the Borno mayhem, but offer automatic employment to their widows deserves commendation. In a country where employers find it difficult to settle the emoluments of serving staff, governments wait for employees to go on strike before they implement signed agreements, and pensioners are subjected to unimaginable punishments before receiving their dues, it is a refreshingly welcome development that WAEC decided to go beyond the welfare code in offering succour to the widows.

    The two staff, Peter Gwalasha (47) and Boniface Emmanuel (47), accompanied by Daniel Alexander (43) a police corporal), were on their way from the Yola branch office of the examination body to the Maiduguri zonal office when they were waylaid and killed by terrorists at Damboa in Borno State. They were conveying scripts of candidates from Taraba and Adamawa states for processing in the Borno State capital when the incident took place.

    The promptness of WAEC’s action is deserving of emulation by other bodies, private employers and governments. At a commendation service held in Lagos, the Head of the Nigerian National Office of WAEC, Dr. Charles Eguridu, made the offer as a contribution to wiping the tears of the dependants. It also serves the purpose of assuring other staff that, were they to meet with the unexpected in the course of their official duties, their next-of-kin would not be made to suffer unduly.

    It is also soothing to staff who are not faced with such calamity that the organisation would be willing at all times to cater for their interests and live up to expectations and best international standards.

    The fear being raised by some that the widows might not be suitable for the positions of their husbands does not arise as the organisation did not promise to engage them in the same positions occupied by their late husbands. This would have been difficult to sustain since all employments are done in accordance with educational qualifications and cognate experience. What cannot be denied is that a body as large and solid as WAEC would have positions at the top, middle and junior cadres to offer in this circumstance.

    It is traditional and conventional in Africa for the most vulnerable to receive attention from the well heeled. The religions also teach that the downtrodden and depressed be raised by those who have received grace from the Almighty. WAEC’s attitude is a call for return to these values.

    The Federal Government should, as a first step, take a cue from this action of WAEC by offering employment to the widows of the Boko Haram insurrection as succour from the permanent damage done to the families. It is equally desirable that the children who lost their fathers are granted scholarships in a bid to make them useful citizens.

    To build a just social order and raise the moral foundation of a society, victims of a pernicious system deserve full support. In the battle to save Nigeria from the ravages of sectarian strife in different parts of the country and strikes by fundamentalists, victims should be assured that the society is ever willing to protect the weak. It is not enough to promise amnesty or set up a committee to negotiate with insurrectionists and terrorists; orphans, widows and the displaced deserve structured help.

    WAEC has blazed a trail. It has reminded us of our common humanity and the need to wipe tears from others. We call on Nigerians, bodies and institutions to follow this lead.

  • The government should loosen Google’s gag

    The government should loosen Google’s gag

    OVER SINCE Edward Snowden leaked a couple of top-secret documents about government phone and Internet data-gathering, Google has pushed back. It is not a participant, willing or no, in a broad data dragnet, the company insisted. No one at the National Security Agency (NSA) has any kind of direct or open-ended access to its servers. It was “very surprised,” in fact, to learn that the NSA is apparently collecting the “metadata” of every phone call placed within, to or from the United States.

    On Tuesday the tech firm asked the Justice Department that it be allowed to prove its claims.

    At question are orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court meets in secret to vet government data demands, and the instruments issued under its supervision come with a gag order attached, forbidding recipient companies such as Google from revealing anything to the public. But Google wants permission to say more about them — without revealing their contents: How many FISA orders does it get in a year? How many Google users are implicated in those orders?

    Google recently got the government’s okay to release that sort of information about so-called national security letters (NSLs), another kind of secret information request. The company’s latest transparency report noted that the government sent it fewer than 1,000 NSLs last year, and that those data demands related to between 1,000 and 1,999 accounts. To anyone concerned about the government’s reach, and particularly the use of warrantless information requests, this material is pretty useful — not only giving a small glimpse into how much the government is exercising one of its authorities to combat terrorism but also allowing the public to track the government’s use of that authority over time.

    The Obama administration should allow Google and other tech firms to say a little more about their relationship with the government. But the transparency should not stop there. The revelation that so surprised Google — that the NSA is collecting all that phone metadata — apparently relies on a novel interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, a provision that allows the government to obtain business records relevant to national security investigations. We don’t see why the program itself had to be a secret, and we don’t see why the legal rationale for it shouldn’t be released, as well.

    Since Mr. Snowden’s leaks, government officials — including President Obama — have warned that revealing too much information about the government’s intelligence-gathering could hamper the collection of critically important information. We won’t argue with that. But if the government is to live up to its responsibilities to the public — and if it is to maintain support for its intelligence-gathering techniques — the public must know as much as possible about how it is interpreting and applying the law.

    – Washington Post

  • Avoidable accident

    Avoidable accident

    The June 6 Lagos auto crash, which claimed at least one life and paralysed traffic for most of that day, was absolutely avoidable

    It was distinctly Nigerian: so avoidable, yet so tragic! On June 6, in Ikeja, Lagos, a container-bearing articulated trailer crushed a meat van, and one Samuel Ogunnaike, a work-bound innocent citizen. Unconfirmed reports claim the driver of the crushed meat van died later at the hospital. May God receive the souls of the dead; and comfort the distraught they left behind.

    This tragedy was needless, from the accounts of eye witnesses. It all reportedly started with the police in hot chase of a recalcitrant Okada (commercial bike) rider, in brazen violation of the Lagos State Road Traffic Law of 2012, which restricts Okada from plying that category of roads, the Lagos-Abeokuta Expressway, near the Ile Zik Bus Stop, at Ikeja.

    The meat van reportedly slowed down to avoid running over the fleeing Okada rider, who clearly was driving against the traffic. The trailer, in high speed, and hooting in panic, swerved so as not to hit the meat van, only to disgorge its container, thus flattering the van. But for the fact that Kayode Opeifa, Lagos State Cmmissioner for Transport confirmed that the container was strapped to the truck’s flat bed, perhaps the accident could have claimed more lives.

    Why an Okada man would flout the law can only be explained by the mass culture of impunity that has seized the land. Even with that, how the police proceed to curb this impunity, with more emotive brainlessness, beggars belief. If the police had been more scientific and less emotional, the accident, and the resulting traffic gridlock, could have been averted.

    Though the police had, as always, denied being party to the disaster, it is open secret that the eye witnesses’ testimonies are credible, as they ring true of the police normal operational behaviour. The police should reform their ways, instead of lapsing into comical denials anytime they create untold havoc, in a bid to enforce the law. The police in hot chase of Okada, against the traffic on an expressway, should never be an option.

    That said, the government should support the police with adequate infrastructure. A case has been made for mounted cameras to record traffic infractions. But such a system needs biometric information of road users, such that whoever broke traffic laws, whether or not the police were there, paid the price. The government should work towards such scientific ways of curbing traffic offences.

    Such a system could be futuristic, yes. But not so the rigorous enforcement of regulations. The truck involved in this accident had its container strapped. That cannot be said for most of the trailers plying our roads. The general attitude is that strapping is optional, because it attracts more costs. That should not be an option. Authorities must ensure every container-bearing truck on our roads has its cargo strapped. That would reduce, if not completely eliminate, containers falling off, and sending hapless citizens to early graves.

    Besides, it is a big scandal that far too many container-bearing trailers, and even auto-petrol tankers, ply our roads. That is a direct result of the failure of the rail system. The government should therefore more vigorously address building a modern rail system.

    Back to enforcing laws. By the Lagos Traffic Law of 2012, the trailer involved in the accident was not supposed to be on the road at daytime. Is the government not enforcing this part of the law?

    But beyond laws and enforcement, there is urgent need for mass enlightenment of truck drivers and allied personnel. As a group, they appear to be a disgruntled lot who don’t seem to care about their lives; and even care less about the lives of other road users.

    A deliberate and systematic enlightenment campaign should be put in place to better train them and curb their suicidal tendencies.

  • Breaking Boko Haram

    Breaking Boko Haram

    New efforts to deal with the Islamist insurgency are in order

    After years of dithering and double-speak, the Nigerian and American governments have finally decided to move decisively against the problem of Islamic extremism in the country. While the Federal Government has banned Jamaatu Ahlis-Sunna Liddaawati Wal Jihad, better known as Boko Haram, and Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan, more commonly known as Ansar, the U.S. Government has placed a reward of U.S. $7 million on the head of Abubakar Shekau, the leader of the Boko Haram sect.

    Taken together, the proscription and the reward both demonstrate an understanding that the lack of clarity which was a major feature of previous anti-terrorism policy had hindered effective attempts to combat it. The Jonathan administration kept on vacillating between talking to Boko Haram and launching a full-scale onslaught against it. For its part, the U.S. administration persisted in sending mixed signals about the reasons behind the insurgency, especially when it claimed that social inequality and exclusion had triggered the rise in terrorism in northern Nigeria.

    Boko Haram has waged a murderous campaign against institutions and individuals that have resulted in the loss of thousands of lives. Its bombing of churches and assassination of prominent Nigerians and ordinary folks is particularly reprehensible. It has steadfastly resisted all attempts to make its grievances known through more legitimate means, and has responded arrogantly to recent offers of amnesty. The economic life of some parts of the north has ground to a halt in the wake of the Islamic insurgency and the resulting crackdown by the Joint Task Force (JTF).

    It is vital that the banning of the two extremist organisations is not done in isolation of other anti-terrorism measures. Their proscription must be accompanied by an overhaul of the government’s entire strategy, from the trial of apprehended suspects to the JTF’s field operations. Too many of the trials of terrorism suspects are bogged down in procedural issues. The high-handedness of the JTF could alienate the host population whose cooperation and assistance are vital to its success, and also drive people into the arms of the terrorist groups.

    Even as it seeks to ramp up its actions against these insurgent groups, the Federal Government would do well to heed warnings about the constitutionality of its proscription order. Section 5(1) of the Order prescribes a minimum of 20 years imprisonment for “any person who knowingly, in any manner, directly or indirectly, solicits or renders support for the commission of an act of terrorism or to a terrorist group.” It is felt that the definition of “support” is so loosely-worded that it breaches constitutional provisions on freedom of speech and the protection of civil liberties.

    Given the recent harassment of media organisations in the name of security breaches, and the high-handed treatment of perceived opponents of President Goodluck Jonathan, such fears are well-founded. The temptation to use expanded authority and increased powers to hound those who do not see eye-to-eye with the Federal Government may prove to be too much for some overzealous government officials. The inflammatory statements made by several individuals in the run-up to the 2015 general elections simply enhance these misgivings.

    America’s $7 million reward for information leading to the capture of Shekau signals a new preparedness by the U.S. to confront Islamic extremism in Nigeria more directly. It should be accompanied by increased assistance in the form of intelligence, logistics and training, as well as robust diplomatic backing. The comprehensive defeat of the terrorist scourge in Nigeria is as much a desirable outcome for the international community as it is for the country itself.

  • Surveillance: A threat to democracy

    Surveillance: A threat to democracy

    New Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll found that a majority of Americans are untroubled by revelations about the National Security Agency’s dragnet collection of the phone records of millions of citizens, without any individual suspicion and regardless of any connection to a counterterrorism investigation.

    Perhaps the lack of a broader sense of alarm is not all that surprising when President Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, and intelligence officials insist that such surveillance is crucial to the nation’s antiterrorism efforts.

    But Americans should not be fooled by political leaders putting forward a false choice. The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. Far too little has been said on this question by the White House or Congress in their defense of the N.S.A.’s dragnet.

    The surreptitious collection of “metadata” — every bit of information about every phone call except the word-by-word content of conversations — fundamentally alters the relationship between individuals and their government.

    Tracking whom Americans are calling, for how long they speak, and from where, can reveal deeply personal information about an individual. Using such data, the government can discover intimate details about a person’s lifestyle and beliefs — political leanings and associations, medical issues, sexual orientation, habits of religious worship, and even marital infidelities. Daniel Solove, a professor at George Washington University Law School and a privacy expert, likens this program to a Seurat painting. A single dot may seem like no big deal, but many together create a nuanced portrait.

    The effect is to undermine constitutional principles of personal privacy and freedom from constant government monitoring. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, challenging the program’s constitutionality, and it was right to do so.

    The government’s capacity to build extensive, secret digital dossiers on such a mass scale is totally at odds with the vision and intention of the nation’s framers who crafted the Fourth Amendment precisely to outlaw indiscriminate searches that cast a wide net to see what can be caught. It also attacks First Amendment values of free speech and association.

    In a democracy, people are entitled to know what techniques are being used by the government to spy on them, how the records are being held and for how long, who will have access to them, and the safeguards in place to prevent abuse. Only then can they evaluate official claims that the correct balance between fighting terrorism and preserving individual liberty has been struck, and decide if they are willing to accept diminished privacy and liberty. If Americans have been slow to recognize the dangerous overreach of the N.S.A.’s phone surveillance, it is largely because they have scant information to judge the government’s conduct.

    Even if most Americans trust President Obama not to abuse their personal data, no one knows who will occupy the White House or lead intelligence operations in the future. The government’s capacity to assemble, keep and share information on its citizens has grown exponentially since the days when J. Edgar Hoover, as director of the F.B.I., collected files on political leaders and activists to enhance his own power and chill dissent. Protections against different abuses in this digital age of genuine terrorist threats need to catch up.

    – New York Times

  • June 12: 20 years after

    June 12: 20 years after

    • The date remains at once a watershed and a mockery of Nigeria’s quest for democracy

     

    It was a day that was; a day for the history books and all the elements were in concert to hand it a landmark role in the annals of Nigeria. June 12 was a mere presidential election date that grew to become war song, a rallying call, a democratic ethos and a milestone from which Nigeria’s quest for popular rule must take its bearing. June 12 must pass for the very first affirmation that Nigeria may well be more than a geographical expression; it was the first attestation that the entity christened Nigeria has some chance under the blaze of the African sun to shine forth and blossom into a preeminent giant of a country ; the pride of all coloured peoples of the world. That is the power and symbolism of the date, June 12, 1993.

    Saturday, June 12, 1993 was the day of the great Presidential Election between Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), and Alhaji Bashir Tofa of the National Republican Convention (NRC). The road to June 12 was itself a journey lined with landmines and treachery. Prior to June 12, 1993, the incumbent leader of the era, a serving army general who styled himself a president, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) had held Nigeria under the jackboot for nearly eight years, using every trick and machination in the books to hang on to power. That June 12, 1993 had a reckoning at all in history must be put down to a combination of the divine, the desire of Nigerians to do away with military rule in line with the global trend of the time and, more important, the sheer charisma, political savvy and wide acceptability of a certain man called M.K.O. Abiola.

    June 12, 1993 was a culmination of an interminable and deceitful transition programme instituted by General Babangida, which was never meant to yield any fruit ab initio. In 1992, he had unilaterally cancelled a presidential primary election organised by his administration for spurious reason he called, “bad conduct” by politicians. June 12 could be said to have literally defied Babangida’s gun boats and tricksters, including a midnight court ruling the night before, orchestrated by the regime to stop the election. Instead, it rode on a momentum that even a military dictatorship could not comprehend. June 12 became Babangida’s waterloo.

    The National Electoral Commission, NEC, headed by a certain Professor Humphrey Nwosu went ahead with the election in spite of not-so-covert efforts to arm-twist him into calling off the election at the last minute. Remarkably, Nwosu’s NEC adopted what it called Option A-4 which required voters to queue behind the candidate of their choice. By this method, it was obvious that Abiola was going to win what was a free and fair election. Already, in a clear lead after 14 states had been counted, the military government inexplicably halted the counting, collation and announcement of the rest of the election results and kept Prof. Nwosu under house arrest. Ten days later, on June 23, 1993, the June 12 election was annulled by the Babangida administration.

    Addressing a bemused nation in a long-winded speech on June 26, 1993, General Babangida said; “There were allegations of irregularities and other acts of bad conduct levelled against the presidential candidates but NEC went ahead and cleared them. There were proofs as well as documented evidence of widespread use of money during the party primaries as well as the presidential election. These were the same bad conduct for which the party presidential primaries of 1992 were cancelled.”

    It was obvious that General Babangida was merely prevaricating and full of equivocation. Naturally, the country was set on a tailspin as Nigerians who voted Abiola across the country and across ethnic and religious divides continued to agitate for the election to be brought to its logical conclusion and the results announced. Babangida had promised to keep faith with his August 27, 1993 exit date by organising another election. But that was not to be as the pressure from home and abroad forced him to hurriedly flee from office on that date, leaving behind a contraption he called Interim National Government, ING, headed by a stooge, Chief Ernest Shonekan. On November 10, 1993, a Lagos High Court ruled the ING to be a sham and the mess was dislodged by Babangida’s life-long shadow, General Sani Abacha on November 17, 1993 in a ‘soft’ coup.

    Abacha, the goggled ogre rolled out the tanks against Nigerians seeking the validation of their vote; drove members of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), the then symbol of mass resistance to military rule, out of town. Many Nigerians who protested the annulment of the election were killed and many others maimed. Abacha grabbed Chief Abiola who kept insisting on his mandate and clamped him into detention where he died on July 12, 1998. Before he died, his activist wife, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola had been assassinated in broad daylight in Lagos by Abacha’s killer squad and his businesses had floundered. Many others were killed by the squad. For four years during which Abacha held sway, Nigeria was a pariah among the comity of nations, was prostrate and comatose until his demise in 1998. General Abdulsalami Abubakar mounted the saddle, organised an election which ushered in a former General Olusegun Obasanjo, in 1999.

    Sadly, the story of the June 12, 1993 debacle has become Nigeria’s narrative for two decades. Her democracy founded on a fault line, has remained askew since then. Elections are still her very albatross as witnessed in the crisis that has engulfed the recent Nigeria Governors Forum, NGF, election and democracy has merely wobbled on, lacking any roots. It is remarkable that ethno-religious crises in Nigeria which the Abiola mandate would have curtailed are even more alive and well today, ravaging the country now more than ever. Democratic space has continued to constrict over these decades with successive governments ignoring the basic tenets and conveniently neglecting to build institutions that would enhance civil rule and orderly conduct of governance.

    Perhaps most important is the fact that no lessons have been learnt from the missed opportunity that was June 12. Some of the chief protagonists and villains of that sad epoch, like General Babangida and Chief Tony Anenih, to name just two, are still playing the field, oblivious of the havoc their actions of two decades ago have brought upon the country.

    Nigeria needs to make atonement for June 12 and that may begin with the key actors coming clean and telling the truth about that election. Then, we need to properly situate that historic election, recognise and honour the winner even post-humously. That is the way to rest the spirit of June 12 once and for all.

     

  • Augean stable

    Augean stable

    •Different strokes: CJN battles corruption; minister laments its prevalence 

    CHIEF Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Muktar, and the Minister of Education, Professor Ruquayattu Rufa’I Bala Mohammed have both condemned the corruption in the country. However, while the former has initiated measures that will deal with some of the causes of corruption in courts, the latter has to go beyond rhetoric in clearing the Augean stable in her ministry.

    Miffed by the long time spent in settling criminal cases involving corruption, terrorism, rape, kidnapping, money laundering, human trafficking and related matters, the chief justice has initiated changes that could bring sanity into the country’s judiciary. She has developed a model of new practice directions for all courts to fast-track trial of these offences. The CJN is working with chief judges of states’ high courts, the Abuja high court, the Federal High Court and the presiding justices of the various divisions of the court of appeal to put in place an “efficient system” that will eliminate delays in the trial of criminal cases.

    Highlights of the new Practice Directions for the Supreme Court include: elimination of unnecessary delays in the transmission and conduct of appeals and reducing the expense and time spent on appeals; fast-tracking the hearing and determination of appeals in respect of cases pertaining to corruption, terrorism, kidnapping, etc; minimising undue adjournments and delays occasioned by counsel; reducing the excesses of lawyers and the tactics they often employ to frustrate criminal trials.

    The new rules also abridge the time within which records must be complied with and transmitted to appellate courts while parties in criminal cases will no longer be allowed to amend their notices of appeal more than twice. The Supreme Court will invariably give priority to appeals involving corruption and related cases and, where possible, hear such appeals on a day- to- day basis until final determination of the appeals.

    It is obvious that corruption underlies all the criminal offences stated above. That is why we commend the chief justice for her boldness and sincerity of purpose. Justice Muktar’s changes, if well implemented, will bring sanity to the Nigerian judiciary.

    Prof. Rufai’s lamentation on corruption took place at the public presentation of the ‘Teachers Guide for Teaching of National Values Curriculum in Basic Education’ held at the headquarters of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) in Abuja. Represented by Ahmed Rakaya, a director in her ministry, the minister stated that “the most veritable way of tackling corruption head-on and at all levels in Nigeria is to educate the masses on national values, path of the truth and the knowledge of the truth”.

    She added that they were trying to reduce corruption to the barest minimum in the education sector, and would spare nobody found guilty of corruption in the system. But she neither told us how nor mention cases of people in court or those already punished for corrupt practices. In the case of the chief justice, we have seen some judges sacked for corruption. That the education minister even congratulated her ministry over the recent Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) in which over 16,000 results were cancelled as a result of alleged corrupt practices and other offences was good, but that is not the only area in the sector where corruption thrives.

    Reports of corrupt practices abound in our tertiary institutions, public and private, where accreditation of courses is allegedly riddled with corruption. If proper investigations are conducted into how some universities were accredited, how and why certain private universities got licenses, the issue of corruption in our educational system would be better exposed. Neither can we commend the ministry on the activities and performances of UTME, National Examinations Council (NECO), etc. Unlike in the judiciary, the Minister of Education has done the usual thing: promise that something would be done about corruption. But what we want to see are concrete actions that will send corrupt elements in the education sector to prison after court trials, not rhetoric or mere promises of intention.

  • Exit of a workaholic

    Exit of a workaholic

    •Mamman Kontagora (1944-2013)

    DESPITE reservations about the military incursion in the nation’s governance, General Mamman Kontagora, through dint of hard work and steadfast sincerity to public service, stood out in the crowd of military generals. His death on May 29 at the National Hospital, Abuja, was a loss to the depleting firmament of model public servants. Whether at different times as former Minister of Works and Housing in the Babangida administration, or Military Administrator of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in the Abubakar administration, he won the admiration of most Nigerians through commitment to duty.

    His concern for the environment led to his issuing in 1991 of regulations on pollution abatement and effluent limitations covering all industries, with heavy fines for non-compliance. This drastically reduced infractions in that regard. The menacing oil pollution in especially the Niger-Delta would have been curbed if his proposal in 1991on guidelines to control oil pollution was tenaciously pursued by successive administrations in the country.

    The sour point in his public life came when the Sani Abacha government appointed him sole administrator of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, in 1995, after a major conflict at the university. He was an alma mater of the institution where he graduated in 1972. He completed the task of restoring financial and administrative sanity in ABU in July 1998 with widespread applause that even made his successor to name the institution’s convocation square after him.

    Kontagora’s brief period of being in-charge of the FCT witnessed intense development of housing and infrastructure. He had an unsuccessful stint in politics when he was defeated in the senatorial primaries of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2003 elections. He also failed in his bid to win the PDP presidential nomination in 2007 when he lost to Umaru Yar’Adua that was eventually elected as president. Despite his failure in politics, his credentials as a courageous professional soldier and dutiful public servant stand him out any day. His type of Nigerians are exceptionally few in the nation’s murky political waters and are too honest to make any appreciable impact in elections where the political hawks dictate the tunes.

    Kontagora had inspiring reputation for hard work, unsoiled integrity and honesty. Until he breathed his last at age 69, he lived a diffident lifestyle that did not bespeak his vast piercing influence and connections.  He lived by example and not precept, especially in positions of public duties that he was privileged to have occupied. As minister of the Federal Republic, he had the reputation of prompt arrival in office before other staff and of always being the last to leave in line of duty to fatherland.

    Not many Nigerians can be impartial in matters of tribal affinity. But Kontagora proved to be one rare impartial umpire that even gave judgement against his ancestral people when saddled with the task of identifying the proper boundary between his own Kontagora local government and Bida in an area that generated acrimony between Alhaji Umaru Sanda Ndayako, late Etsu Nupe and Alhaji Sa’idu Namaska, Sarkin Sudan of Kontagora. He courageously ruled in Bida’s favour against his own local government.

    Kontagora in Nigeria’s highly politicised military will be remembered as an apolitical soldier publicly acknowledged not to have taken part in any military coup in the country. His involvement through unsolicited appointments in successive military administrations was purely based on his professional competence and honest antecedent. His last public duty was his appointment by the current administration as deputy chairman of Subsidy Re-Investment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P) Committee.

    We say adieu to this decent and above average soldier.