The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • Plot against Amaechi

    Plot against Amaechi

    •President Jonathan must wade into the Rivers State allegation of plot to kill the governor and others

    The rumbling in Rivers State has jumped up many decibels. Otelemaba Amachree, speaker of the state House of Assembly and a prime actor in the squabble, recently raised an alarm. He claimed to have uncovered an alleged plot to assassinate some leading indigenes of that state. The plot, according to him, is allegedly targeted at Governor Chibuike Amaechi, some lawmakers and prominent government officials in the state. Because of this, Amachree is not just sitting with arms akimbo; he chose to write an open letter to President Goodluck Jonathan, urging him to come to their rescue so as to prevent the alleged planned assassination, reportedly being hatched in a neighbouring state and Abuja.

    Amachree gave a graphic picture of the modus of the plot when he wrote: “… there are strong indications that the Governor, Amaechi, some legislators and prominent government officials have been marked for assassination, following series of reported nocturnal meetings held in a neighbouring state and Abuja. The situation is exacerbated with the planned release, from detention, of 18 notable robbery and kidnap kingpins currently in custody, to carry out this planned mayhem on government officials, innocent citizens and residents of the state.’’

    He equally stated in the open memo that he is aware of ‘planned withdrawal of security personnel attached to various Rivers State Government establishments and officials, especially that of Governor Amaechi, the Rivers State House of Assembly, the ministries and the local government areas.’

    This open declaration for help by the speaker from the president should not be dismissed as the ranting of an inconsequential figure. Amachree, by virtue of his exalted position, is not expected to make frivolous allegations -especially of such weighty magnitude. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed the allegation as frivolous, but our experience dictates otherwise. We have had instances like this in the past that came to pass.

    So, without any prompting, we expect President Jonathan to look into the matter in view of the on-going altercations between the presidency and the governor over the proprietary of the state’s acquired aircraft on the one hand, and between the state’s chapter of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Governor Amaechi-cum-majority members of the state House of Assembly, on the other. Amachree’s allegations give room for serious concern because Joseph Mbu, the state commissioner of police, is equally accused of taking sides in the matter.

    A situation where a man that is expected to maintain peace and security in a state is seen to be supporting a section of feuding parties is condemnable. The command’s denial of plan to “withdraw police protection from the governor or any government establishment or even any government personnel entitled to it” looks like an afterthought by its leadership. The police chief’s ability to dutifully do his job has been questioned in that state.

    The presidency should do everything to prevent bloodbath in Rivers State. Nigeria, in recent times, has had enough shedding of innocent blood emanating from the condemnable acts of the Boko Haram Islamic sect and some notorious cultists, especially in the northern part of the country. The president cannot afford to have another flashpoint now, especially in the aftermath of his declared emergency rule in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states.

  • Jonathan’s last card

    Jonathan’s last card

    Emergency must be made to work because it is the ultimate action in the terror war

    If the declaration of emergency in three states is President Jonathan’s end-game, will it be the end of the mayhem in the north?

    In a poignant irony that bespoke defiance, signalling that the latest presidential move against terror may not automatically guarantee victory, Rev. Faye Pama Musa, Secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in Borno State, was murdered in his Maiduguri home by gunmen suspected to belong to Boko Haram, the Islamist terror militia on the rampage in the northern part of the country. Faye, the head pastor of a Pentecostal church in Maiduguri, the state capital, was reportedly shot at close range by two assailants at about 7.30pm.

    Remarkably, only 15 minutes earlier, President Goodluck Jonathan, in a nation-wide broadcast, had declared a state of emergency in three Northeast states, including Borno, which had been under a mindless reign of terror and senseless killings by Boko Haram insurgents. The two other states under focus are Yobe and Adamawa.

    Emergency rule, in an official sense, had always been a rational possibility in the beleaguered states which continued to experience escalated violence against the people by a rebellious group bent on enthroning sharia, an impossible mission in a country founded on secularism. In effect, therefore, there was already an environment of virtual emergency in these states before the presidential intervention of May 14. Consequently, Jonathan’s imposition of emergency rule has merely acknowledged the mind-boggling scale of the crisis and further stamped governmental visibility on the process of a resolution, wisdom that perhaps should have been demonstrated much earlier.

    In his business-like 15-minute address to the nation, Jonathan captured the sheer grotesqueness of the challenge facing his administration in the context of the terror war. He said: “Already, some northern parts of Borno State have been taken over by groups whose allegiance is to different flags and ideologies. These terrorists and insurgents seem determined to establish control and authority over parts of our beloved nation and to progressively overwhelm the rest of the country. In many places, they have destroyed the Nigerian flag and other symbols of state authority and in their place, hoisted strange flags suggesting the exercise of alternative sovereignty.”

    He built up his argument for the necessity for a different approach to resolving the urgent situation, saying, “They have attacked government buildings and facilities. They have murdered innocent citizens and state officials. They have set houses ablaze, and taken women and children as hostages. These actions amount to a declaration of war and a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the Nigerian state and threaten her territorial integrity. As a responsible government, we will not tolerate this.”

    Potent words, but, sadly, they betray impotence. Correct logic, but that is inadequate. There is a simple question for Mr. President, beyond his understandably sentimentalised premises. How and why did things degenerate so dangerously? It is inexcusable that the government was a passive spectator as the adversarial contempt worsened. The two-year-old Jonathan presidency seems to have just experienced an awakening; and it would likely have a tough time tackling such a whammy, which it allowed to get out of hand before introducing the emergency.

    Even for an administration that seems to have come to terms with the gravity of the challenge, there is a strong element of pussyfooting in its reaction, which is perhaps understandable in the context of political balancing. Did Jonathan take into consideration the fact that two of the affected states, Borno and Yobe, are governed by an opposition party, All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP), and, therefore, mellowed in order to escape the charge of victimisation? In other words, was there an opportunistic angle to the development?

    This is a real possibility because the declared state of emergency is respectful of democratic institutions, allowing the continuance of elected executive and legislative structures. It is pertinent to note that this apparent restraint is in contrast to previous examples in the country. In the past, although triggered by different circumstances, the imposition of emergency rule in parts of the country had been accompanied by the suspension of democratic structures, namely, in the defunct Western Region in the 60’s; in Plateau State in 2004; and in Ekiti State in 2006.

    His explanation of how the emergency will operate is reassuring for its emphasis on self-discipline in connection with the conduct of the enforcers. It is hoped that his cautionary words will be taken seriously and adhered to by the troops that will be responsible for quelling the terrorists and normalising the abnormality. According to Jonathan, “The troops and other security agencies have orders to take all necessary action, within the ambit of their rules of engagement, to put an end to the impunity of insurgents and terrorists. He added: “This will include the authority to arrest and detain suspects, the taking of any building or structure used for terrorist purposes, the lock-down of any area of terrorist operation, the conduct of searches, and the apprehension of persons in illegal possession of weapons.”

    It is important to highlight the fact that intelligence gathering will be critical to the success of the campaign. Ironically, the sore apparently festered for lack of effective intelligence. Undeniably, the failure of intelligence that has so far characterised the terror war cannot be divorced from citizen cynicism and a regrettable disconnect between the government and the people. The enforcers of the emergency will need to win the confidence and trust of the populace in the affected areas; this is a sine qua non for success. First, confidence works. Intelligence follows; and, ultimately, force. We have flipped the cards. We still need the three in that order.

    The government’s resort to this show of muscle, obviously, has implications for its earlier consideration of amnesty for the terror champions. With the resurgence of violence in the Niger Delta, the pardon approach has been exposed for its policy and moral inadequacies. It suggests that the government has realised the futility of the forgiveness-approach. However, it is unlikely that the employment of force, though seemingly necessary, will be sufficient in attaining the desired peace. Even while the emergency lasts, the authorities will need to engage in lateral thinking that will accommodate complementary solutions to the problem.

    We cannot escape the point that Boko Haram rampage derives from the failure of government at all levels. Ironically, the rage and devastations of the group have immiserated the people further and crippled the capacity for meaningful governance. That explains the need for this effort to work, or else we shall be at a vulnerable place as a people.

    This shows that we must address the structure of this country in a sovereign sense in order to frame the terms of engagements among the various peoples. Otherwise, this sort of ferment of discontent will serially inflame the land.

    Although the crisis in the affected states demands urgent action, this should not distract the government from the picture of general insecurity across the country. It is a disturbing fact that the country is at an all-time low in terms of security, and the people are nonplussed. The government cannot afford to alienate the people, and must not only address the terror war but also the various manifestations of insecurity across the land.

    It remains to be seen how the terrorists will react to the introduction of greater force. The possibility that they might relocate to surrounding states in the area is a major reason the government must not concentrate on the affected states to the detriment of the larger society. The authorities must not only ensure the shrinking of their operational space but must also decisively cripple their activities.

    Evidently, this is Jonathan’s last card, and he cannot afford to fail. For, emergency rule is the ultimate; and it is difficult to imagine what next. In his address, he spoke of “a return to normalcy within the shortest possible time.” Nigerians are waiting and watching.

  • Damage to press freedom likely outweighs national security gain

    Damage to press freedom likely outweighs national security gain

    WHEN THE Justice Department launched its investigation of alleged leaks of national security information by the Obama administration a year ago, we were skeptical. The history of such probes is mainly a tale of dead ends and unintended negative consequences. That this effort to criminalize a leak was launched amid an election-year uproar seemed especially inauspicious.

    Our forebodings have been borne out with the revelation that federal prosecutors have undertaken a broad sweep of the Associated Press’s phone records. Whatever national-security enhancement this was intended to achieve seems likely to be outweighed by the damage to press freedom and governmental transparency.

    The Justice Department’s apparent purpose is to track down the person or persons who told AP about the Central Intelligence Agency’s disruption of a Yemen-based terrorism plot. Federal prosecutors subpoenaed records for 20 separate office, home and cellular phone lines belonging to the AP and its reporters or editors. The subpoenas covered a two-month period in the first half of 2012. Crucially, they did not follow the usual Justice Department policy, which is to give news organizations a chance to negotiate or contest such a subpoena ahead of time.

    That policy is rooted in sound respect for the First Amendment. It’s not legally binding — in part because the Justice Department and the press have recognized a mutual interest in resolving such matters without potentially counterproductive Congressional or judicial intervention.

    In a letter to AP President and CEO Gary B. Pruitt, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole explained that the department had no alternative means of gathering essential information. He also intimated that Justice had kept AP in the dark until a few days ago so as to avoid “a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who recused himself from the investigation after he was interviewed by the FBI, fleshed that assertion out at a press conference Tuesday, saying at issue is one of “the top two or three most serious leaks that I have ever seen” which “put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole.”

    Perhaps that’s so — we have no independent means of verifying Mr. Holder’s claim, though we hope reporters are working on it. As Mr. Pruitt responded Tuesday, “We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed. Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.”The usual reason for keeping a subpoena secret is that the target would otherwise try to destroy documents. In this case, AP could not have done so even if it wanted to, since the relevant records were in the possession of its phone service providers. Without even giving AP a chance to weigh in, we don’t see how the department could intelligently weigh its prosecutorial needs against this broad subpoena’s chilling effect on reporters and their sources

    Of course, if Justice Department officials are overreacting, they aren’t alone. The investigation of AP began in response to Republican outrage about the purported fact that White House officials were leaking secret information and spinning it to make President Obama look good for reelection purposes. In response, the Obama administration launched the present investigation, on top of the six (mostly unsuccessful) ones it had attempted previously — which, judging on costs and benefits visible to date, was probably six too many.

    – Washington Post

  • Tinted trouble

    Tinted trouble

    • We need to take another look at our law on vehicles with tinted glasses 

    For the third time since his appointment, Mohammed Dahiru Abubakar, Inspector-General of Police (IGP), has shown unalloyed resolve to abolish or control the use of partial/shaded or fully tinted glass on vehicles in the country. His decision is ostensibly hinged on the need to checkmate the security challenges facing the nation. According to the police, vehicles with opaque glasses are used mostly to move, unnoticed across the nation, arms, ammunition, explosives and other incriminating materials. The police want tinted glass users to obtain permit after obligatory payment of N30, 000 to their coffers.

    The pronouncement has created hullabaloo in the public, especially among vehicle users. But the IGP remains adamant, claiming his order is in accordance with Motor Vehicles (Prohibition of Tinted Glass) Act, CAP M21 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (formerly Decree No. 6 of 1991) and the National Road Traffic Regulations (NRTR) (1997). The former Act in Section 1 (1) says that except with the permission of the ‘appropriate authority’ and for ‘good cause’, “no person shall cause any glass fitted to a vehicle to be tinted, shaded, coloured lightly or thickly, darkened or treated in any way so as to render obscure or invisible persons or objects inside the car”.

    The importers/owners of such cars in its section 3 are availed 14 days grace, from the date of the purchase of the car or the date of arrival of the car in Nigeria, within which to either remove the tinted glasses or obtain tinted glass permit. The Act prescribes a fine of N2, 000 or an imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both fine and imprisonment.

    However, the NRTR (1997) in regulation 66(2) provides: ‘All glasses fitted to a vehicle shall be clear and transparent to enable persons outside the vehicle see whoever is inside the vehicle and the glasses shall in no way be tinted except as may be approved by the Inspector-General of Police for security reasons.’

    What is amusing about these laws is why the police find them more convenient to dust from the shelf at this point. After all, highly placed military men, security personnel, politicians, legislators and affluent members of the public including traditional rulers, among others, before now violated with impunity previous bans on use of opaque tinted glass with glee. Yet the police could not do anything to these categories of people.

    The police ought to realise that contemporary vehicle manufacturers across the world mildly tint practically all cars to protect vehicle upholstery, especially leather seats, and to shield occupants against harsh sun rays, among other salient safety reasons. What should generally concern the police in the discharge of their security functions against acts of terrorism and robberies should be opaque tints and not transparent factory tint. The current generalisation of tints is superfluous, for it shows the motive of the police as more tilted to deploying such to embark on revenue generation spree and not driven by any security imperative.

    In the United States, the United Kingdom and even India, there are cases of terrorism acts but tinted glass with certain degree of transparency by car manufacturers is allowed. Why should Nigeria be different when over 80 per cent of cars imported into the country have varying degrees of factory tint? The target of the police should be Nigerian vehicle users that went the extra mile to paste reflective material like cellophane paper to shield their vehicles from prying eyes of the public. For the purpose of clarity, it is this type of opaque glasses that block vision from the outside.

    There is the need to check arbitrariness in this regard, if only for the sake of genuine security. But if the law must serve its essence of being an instrument of social engineering, the two laws above cannot serve the good of any civilisation. They should be amended to suit contemporary reality in the automobile industry or repealed outright.

     

  • Probing Baga killings

    Probing Baga killings

    •The United Nations should be allowed to probe the killings and provide the right statistics

    There has been a vociferous argument about the actual number of people massacred in Baga, Borno State, when Boko Haram insurgents and Nigerian military clashed on April 16 and 17. The figures in the media range from 185-210, but the Federal Government said it was between 26 and 35. However, the US-based Human Rights Watch has accused the Nigerian military of killing over 185 people in Baga and destroying thousands of houses there, thereby rendering many people homeless.

    On his own part, the Nigerian Ambassador to the US, Prof. Ade Adefuye, denied this figure, saying that satellite pictures released by human rights organisations were insufficient to determine the number of casualties, and who were responsible for the carnage. He also made it clear to the US team which visited Nigeria that the claims about the casualties have been “excessively exaggerated”.

    Amidst these confusing scenarios The Empowered Newswire reported that the US officials were in a dilemma over which of the different accounts to believe. It is precisely this dilemma that prompted the US team’s visit to Nigeria for the purpose of “probing” the Baga killings.

    There is no doubt that, irrespective of the number of casualties in the Baga carnage, Nigerians and the international community have the right to know the correct picture of the killings as well as the circumstances that led to this tragic episode. For instance, who were involved; who gave the order, and for what reasons? We surely have the right to know exactly how many people were killed, especially as human civilisation has gone beyond jungle justice and indiscriminate termination of human lives.

    Unfortunately, the Nigerian government is yet to determine the exact number of casualties involved in the killings. And once again, it would seem the government has found it difficult to tell the truth about this notorious massacre. Even very few people have faith in the probe that the government has instituted on the matter.

    But these do not in any way justify the US intervention in its attempt to “probe” another sovereign country. Although the US may have military agreement with Nigeria on matters of this nature, and may even be sufficiently concerned about what use the country is putting whatever arms and ammunition that Nigeria is getting from America, yet, Nigeria is a sovereign country and, for this reason, the US cannot unilaterally send a team to “probe” the Baga killings in Nigeria.

    As Nigerians, we feel sufficiently concerned about the unnecessary loss of lives in the tragic incident. Yes, there is no agreement on the number of lives lost there, we should be concerned, as we indeed are, that even if only one innocent person died as a result of the crisis, it should still give cause for worry.

    But if we are to unravel the knotty issue, the United Nations is in a better and legitimate position to conduct a probe into the killings in order to determine the actual number of casualties as well as the circumstances surrounding the act. The US government, like Nigeria, is only one sovereign country among the other sovereign countries that make up the United Nations.

  • Long overdue bill

    Long overdue bill

    • It is time for the National Assembly to give Lagos a special status

    The proposed bill for a special status for Lagos to be presented to the National Assembly is long overdue. The bill, reportedly the handiwork of Senators Ganiyu Solomon, Oluremi Tinubu and Gbenga Ashafa representing Lagos West, Lagos Central and Lagos East, respectively, should be pursued to a logical conclusion.

    Before the latest attempt to give the demand a legal garb, notable indigenes of the state have in the past 14 years been in the forefront of the agitation for a special status for Lagos State. Former Governor Bola Tinubu, Alhaji Femi Okunnu (SAN), an elder statesman and former Federal Commissioner for Works, as well as Oba Rilwan Akiolu, the Oba of Lagos, have been unrelenting in their calls on this issue.

    More importantly, Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN) has shown unwavering resolve at every opportune time to demand this special status for the state. He stated unambiguously during last November’s Senate constitution review public hearing for the South-West geo-political zone at the Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja: “If Lagos does not prosper, prosperity will be difficult for other parts of Nigeria.”

    Since 1976 when the Justice Akinola Aguda committee recommended Abuja as the future Federal Capital Territory (FCT), successive federal administrations immediately placed high premium on the new FCT, to the detriment of Lagos. By December 12, 1991 when the seat of federal power moved and Abuja officially gained its status as the capital of Nigeria, Lagos was completely abandoned by succeeding governments at the centre.

    The Federal Government seems to have forgotten that Lagos will for long remain Nigeria’s economic focal point, generating a significant portion of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Furthermore, most commercial and financial businesses are still carried out in the state’s Central Business Districts on the island and Ikeja, where leading banks and numerous major corporations and business concerns have their headquarters.

    More interestingly, Lagos remains a repository of the nation’s diversities. The state witnesses, on a daily basis, the influx of the rich, poor, educated and un-educated, and of mostly the youths seeking greener pasture, from different parts of the country. This is because though the FCT might be the centre of gravity for policy formulations and decision making, including contract awards, the nation’s main industrial and commercial activities and the people have stayed back in Lagos because of its strategic location.

    For sure, the demand for special status for Lagos is not gormless. Despite Lagos’ astronomically increasing population since the movement of the seat of power, the state’s successive administrations have been sustaining this ever-increasing population. The implication is that over time, the infrastructural facilities have become inadequate because the state government alone cannot cater to the needs of the people in the state. How can it, with Lagos remaining an attraction and host to over 85 per cent of ambitious youths; over 80 per cent of the country’s intelligentsia and above 85 per cent of the country’s critical industrial and commercial hub? There is no doubt that the state inevitably deserves the special status now more than ever before.

    Therefore, the Lagos special status bill must be supported by all Nigerians who truly want the country to develop economically and industrially, irrespective of ethnic or tribal affiliations. The National Assembly members must not dilly-dally once the bill is presented before it. It is in our collective interest to get this status for Lagos.

     

  • CBN’s unanswered questions

    CBN’s unanswered questions

    •If the apex bank cannot account for its expenses, we are in deep trouble

    THE encounter between officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Representatives as reported in the media last week is intriguing. According to the reports, the committee had summoned officials of the bank to explain a number of audit queries raised against the Central Bank by the office of the Auditor-General of the Federation. The committee wondered how the CBN could expend N2.8 billion to renovate its Port Harcourt branch. It also demanded answers to the conflicting sums of N23 million and N50 million quoted as cost of renovating the residence of the Governor of the bank.

    The audit raised a number of other reckless and unaccountable expenditures, which the bank officials were unable to defend. Unfortunately, the media reports failed to name the Governor/s under whose tenure those reckless expenditures were incurred, as it covered several years audit of the apex bank. Indeed, the bank’s deputy governor, corporate services, Mr. Suleiman Barau, while promising to search for the documents to back the expenditures, claimed that he had not joined the bank when the expenditures were incurred. The director of procurement, Mr. I.O. Gbadamosi, on the other hand, reportedly claimed that if the documents were more than five years old, then they must have been destroyed, as the bank usually clears its shelves every five years.

    We recall the gratuitous battles that top officials of the bank waged last year to stop the legislators from amending the Central Bank Act, to make the bank accountable to the legislature. In their reaction to that controversy, many informed commentators had insisted that the bank needed its autonomy to guide the national monetary policy. While we support that the bank’s operational autonomy should be maintained, we call on the National Assembly to quickly put in place laws to ensure administrative oversight of the bank. As we had argued in the past, the legislature has overriding power of oversight on all incomes and expenditures made on behalf of the country.

    To show their indignation, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Solomon Olamilekan Adeola had insisted that the pattern of expenditure and the absence of documents gave indication that due process was not followed. While berating the officials of the bank, he asked them to either produce the requested documents or the legislature will demand that all the expended sums be refunded into the coffers of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.

    We have no doubt that many Nigerians will be shocked and dismayed that its Central Bank is also accused of operating in the cesspit of corruption. Indeed, it should be unheard off that a country’s apex bank is unable to answer routine audit queries; and is reasonably accused of engaging in mindless expenses of the very national resources it is constitutionally empowered to guide and protect.

    While the legislative enquiry is going on, it is also necessary that law enforcement agencies wade in to find out the officials of the bank responsible for bringing the country to this miserable disrepute. If officials of our central bank cannot keep an account of the outrageous sums it claims to have expended to renovate the residence of its Governor, among other disgusting inaccuracies, many will genuinely doubt their capacity to keep appropriate account of the reckless infringements by the commercial banks under their supervision. We note the CBN’s denial of salient aspects of the committee’s proceedings. We can only hope the bank would be able to produce the appropriate documents at the committee’s next sitting.

     

  • NNPC’s house of stench

    NNPC’s house of stench

    Nigerians are yet to be told the whole truth about oil mining leases to Atlantic Energy

    IN an industry where sleaze is the rule rather than the exception, the protest by representatives of oil producing communities over alleged fraudulent allocations of some marginal oil fields has merely opened a fresh can of worms.

    On April 25, the protesters, drawn from the ethnic nationalities of Ijaw, Itsekiri, Urhobo, Isoko and Ndokwa in Delta State had stormed the National Assembly where they accused Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison- Madueke and the Nigerian Petroleum Development Company, NPDC, of secretly transferring the Oil Mining Leases OMLs 26, 30, 34, and 42 to Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Limited.

    The minister was specifically accused of violating the procurement act as well as breaching extant regulations governing the allocation of the blocks, particularly the requirement of open and competitive bidding. The exercise, they alleged, cost the nation billions in lost revenue. The protesters claimed only $50 million went into the coffers of the Federal Government as against $800 million that ought to have been paid were the bid process to be competitive.

    Group Managing Director, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, GMD-NNPC, Andrew Yakubu, has since responded to the allegations.

    In a letter to the Senate, the corporation denied any award of acreage or a divestment of any of the oil blocks by its subsidiary, the NPDC. It claimed that the arrangement was a “Strategic Alliance Agreement, SAA between NPDC and Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Limited, with the understanding that the latter would provide funds for the operations of the blocks.”

    Although he would not disclose how much the reserves in the OMLs came to, he also denied that they came near the five billion barrels quoted by the petitioners. And as for alleged loss of revenue, he was emphatic that “the actual revenue… due to the Federal Government remains unchanged and has not been eroded as royalty and tax accruable to the federation account will be paid based on production”.

    He clarified the issue of “entrance fee” paid by Atlantic Energy. He claimed that it was “aimed at acquiring the right to fund and not payment for the acquisition of participating interest in the leases”. The SAA, he claimed was “an alternative funding agreement” to meet NPDC’s cash call obligations and hence does not fall within the purview of the Public Procurement Act.

    Merely from the foregoing, a number of questions natural arise. First is the nature of the SAA under which a public company could claim to seek funds outside of the strictures of the Public Procurement Act. The second is the choice of Atlantic Energy; what is the firm’s pedigree and how did NPDC and, by extension, the minister arrive at its choice for the SAA among many other companies? Third is the company’s claim to have paid “significantly higher value than the “mere $50 million” peddled in the media”. By how much? How did the two parties arrive at the amount paid, particularly as the process was not competitive, having been deemed outside of the purview of the procurement act?

    Most puzzling of all is what is touted as the role of Atlantic Energy in the development of the leases. The firm claimed in a newspaper advertisement last week that the agreement covered the provision of technical capacity to NPDC, funds for share of operations, and technical training to NPDC staff. It seems to us as unimaginable that a clearly nondescript player would pay “significantly higher value than the “mere $50 million” to a technically –savvy oil prospecting subsidiary of the national oil corporation. Does anyone smell rent? And what is the firm getting in return?

    Obviously, the nation has not been told the whole truth about the affair. Just as the truth deserves to be in the open, it seems that only the National Assembly can help remove the lid on it. We expect they will very soon.

  • Sheer escapism

    Sheer escapism

    SHORTLY after his assumption of office in 2011, President Goodluck Jonathan had caused a national uproar when, during his first media chat he proposed an amendment to the constitution to replace the current two-term tenure of four years for the executive, with a single term tenure of seven years. The President argued that this was the panacea to the excessive competition, confusion, tension, and distractions attendant on conducting elections every four years. In his words on that occasion, “The issue is that in Africa, elections create social unrest and we need to manage this. … Every four years you conduct elections, you create so much tension in the political environment. As we are talking, some people are busy holding meetings for the 2015 elections”.

    Despite his strong avowals that he would not be a beneficiary of the proposal, many Nigerians opposed it because they believed, from our experience, that President Jonathan had a hidden agenda of wanting to extend his tenure. Yet, there were also several others who argued that the suggestion was not really the panacea to the problems identified by the President.

    Surprisingly, the issue has once again come on the front burner of public discourse with the Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution suggesting a single tenure of six years for the President, Vice-President, Governors, and Deputy Governors, commencing from 2015. It has been speculated that a key reason for this proposal is to prevent President Jonathan and incumbent Governors from contesting the 2015 elections.

    We do not believe that the constitution of a country should be so casually amended simply to target specific individuals. Such a serious exercise must rather be informed by general principles and the public good.

    In any case, the incumbent President and Governors were in 2011 elected for a four-year renewable tenure and it is immoral and arbitrary to seek to change the rules mid-stream. However, the House of Representatives has said that it would stand by the decision of majority of participants at its public hearings who opposed the proposed single tenure. Even then, the decision of selected participants in the National Assembly constitutional amendment public hearings cannot be equated with that of the generality of Nigerians. That is why we favour a more comprehensive approach to constitutional amendment involving an elected constituent assembly and a national referendum.

    In any case, the single tenure proposal will not necessarily resolve the problems it is designed to address. Elections will still be intensely contested. In fact, an elongated tenure of one term will only make the competition for the affected offices even fiercer, with increased possibilities of violence and sharp practices. Again, the proposal assumes that the incumbent, after the expiration of one term, will have no interest in whom his or her successor will be or which party will come to power. This is unrealistic. The power of incumbency will thus still be as potent and prone to be unethically manipulated as ever.

    There is still no alternative to the conduct of free and fair elections in which all stakeholders – the electoral umpire, security agencies, political parties and the electorate – play according to the rules of the game. There is no way we can run away from elections even if we have single- term tenure. The alternative would be to ban elections, which would be absurd and antithetical to democracy. The proposal amounts to sheer escapism and should be jettisoned by the National Assembly. There are more pressing issues for our law makers to address; tenure elongation in whatever guise is definitely not one of them.

  • Heart of darkness inside the Congo

    Heart of darkness inside the Congo

    Annan report shows the true cost of opaque mining deals

    Mineral deposits ought to be a blessing for the country in which they are found. More often they are a curse. When citizens do not know how much their governments are paid for minerals, they cannot ensure that the revenues are well spent, or that their countries are even getting a fair deal.

    Kofi Annan’s Africa Progress Panel has delivered a timely reminder of the real cost of murkiness. In a report, the organisation has singled out deals involving two large UK-listed companies, Eurasian Natural Resources Corp and Glencore, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the world’s poorest countries.

    The report calculates that five deals concluded between 2010 and 2012 collectively cost DRC $1.4bn in foregone value – equivalent to 7 per cent of national income, or twice the country’s national education budget. While Mr Annan offers no evidence of wrongdoing, stupendous gains were in effect handed to secretive offshore vehicles controlled by Dan Gertler, an Israeli businessmen close to DRC president Joseph Kabila, to which the assets were sold by state companies at low prices.

    ENRC’s involvement stems from the fact that in three cases the Kazakh mining group subsequently purchased concessions controlled by Mr Gertler at far higher prices than those he paid. Glencore figures because it lent money to Mr Gertler to finance at least one other deal.

    The US Congress and the European Commission have rightly been striving to bring more scrutiny to bear on opaque deals of this sort. Both jurisdictions will soon require mining companies to report publicly their payments to host governments.

    The case for openness is clear. Mineral resources hold back the development of states that possess them as much as they promote it. Publicity about what governments are paid for minerals may not ensure those resources are managed better. But it is necessary.

    Mr Annan’s findings should focus attention on the activities of Mr Gertler and his relationship with the DRC government. They also raise questions about the conduct of both the UK-listed companies, in particular ENRC, which is already under investigation from the Serious Fraud Office over corruption allegations.

    Western governments have come out against the unfair exploitation of mineral resources in poor countries. In taking seriously the allegations made by Mr Annan, they can show that their stand amounts to more than just words.

    – Financial Times