The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • Again, this ghost of a worker

    Again, this ghost of a worker

    • Yet another fairy tale as Federal Government supposedly exposes 45,000 ghosts on its payroll

     

    It would seem like sardonic humour to state that there are more ghosts in Nigeria’s civil service than real workers; but that is the picture being painted by the ghost-busting Ministry of Finance in the past few years. In fact, going by recent records, it could well be said that Nigeria is a ghost country where nothing is what it seems.

    Mid-February, the Federal Executive Council had emerged from its weekly meeting to announce with so much flourish that it had discovered 45,000 ghost workers in 251 ministries, departments and agencies, MDAs, where the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System, IPPIS, had been deployed as at January this year. There are 321 MDAs under the federal service scheme yet to be audited. A simple extrapolation would paint a scary picture of a landscape brimming with multitudinous ghosts feeding from the treasury. It is also noteworthy that ghosts and tales of flitting wraiths abound across all the states and local council services. A keen enquirer needs only to poke a pointed stick at the payroll of any government establishment and these strange fellows would crawl out of the walls.

    The tale of ghosts cohabiting with civil servants in Nigeria dates back a long time but the Federal Ministry of Finance took up the task of exterminating this unseen vampire since 2006 through what was termed biometric capture of the Federal Government’s workers. But apart from big headlines of saddening discoveries and huge sums expended in the ghost trail, no economic purpose seems to have been served so far. In mid-2011, early in the life of this administration, the Federal Ministry of Finance had made a song about unearthing about 100,000 ghost workers in a few MDAs in a renewed biometric exercise designed to reduce the burgeoning recurrent expenditure in the federal budget which stood at 75 per cent.

    The ghost worker syndrome in Nigeria is disgraceful enough and must be rare in other climes; that the Ministry of Finance under its current leadership seems to mire what would have been a most laudable reform option is particularly troubling. In more serious societies, blatant criminal activities of this magnitude would have been confronted with the required zest and stamped out long ago. But here, criminals in the system who fleece the country of billions of naira monthly are accommodated and treated with such levity suggesting that their activity might well be an orchestrated scam in which everyone is a partaker.

    The practice was that the Civil Service Commission and the Ministry of Establishment were the custodians of service personnel records, movements, remuneration schemes and salary structures. Where were these bodies when the service became ghost-infested? Who cross-checks, authorises and approves monthly salary payouts to thousands of non-existent workers? Who are the auditors and accounting officers of affected MDAs?

    It must be noted that this annual ghost story has become very wearisome and there is no gainsaying that it impacts negatively on the country’s image. We urge the government, if it truly seeks to exorcise the ghosts, to adopt some drastic actions like summary dismissals and prosecution of the top brass of any ghost-infested MDA. It must also revive the service procedures for tracking employment, keeping records and verifying pay rolls.

    Above all, the Federal Government must move quickly to put an end to this ingrained corruption, this shameful saga termed ghost workers, by fast-tracking and concluding the biometric capture of all civil servants as well as fully and expeditiously deploying the IPPIS in all MDAs.

  • Naval incapacity

    Naval incapacity

    • How can the Navy perform if it is underfunded?

    OIL thieves who exploit the country’s territorial waters may continue to enjoy business as usual, based on the premise that the Nigerian Navy is allegedly incapacitated by underfunding.

    This is the distressing deduction to be made from the observation of Senator Chris Anyanwu, on why the naval force cannot prevent oil theft. Anyawu is Chairman, Senate Committee on Navy.

    The lawmaker who represents Imo East in the Senate told reporters that the navy needs more funds to police the country’s territorial waters and effectively combat oil thieves.

    According to her, “You need to have the right vessels to give them a chase. We have to be present and dominate every inch of our territorial waters, and this is massive, one third of our landmass. It will take a lot of money to equip our navy.”

    It is shameful that the navy is reportedly ill-equipped for its statutory maritime security responsibility, which must raise questions about how much the force gets for its activities and how the funds are spent. That the navy is badly underfunded sounds astonishing and deserves clarification from the authorities, considering the fact that government agencies are known to have made huge maritime security deals with some former Niger Delta militia leaders. It is ridiculous that these individuals were given priority over the navy.

    These include the controversial partnership between Global West Vessel Specialist Agency (GWVSA), headed by ex-militiaman Government Ekpemukpolo, alias Tompolo, and Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA). It was called “Strategic Concessioning”, and was defended by the government against public criticism that it threatened to undermine the navy. The official defence was that Tompolo’s company would only provide platforms, security boats, equipment and expertise to help in securing the country’s waterways and thereby raise revenue; and its staff will not bear arms.

    Also, some prominent ex-militiamen, including Tompolo, enjoyed multi-billion naira pipeline surveillance contracts with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). These dubious arrangements have since been exposed for what they are.

    The government’s contentious efforts to mollify the ex-militia leaders amounts to short-changing the navy, and constituted a disservice to national security. Obviously, it would have made far more sense, and would have been more productive, to spend all that money to improve the navy, rather than enriching some individuals.

    For an important oil-producing country that depends substantially on earnings from the sale of the natural resource, it is objectionable that Nigeria continues to record significant loss of revenue as a result of oil theft, with negative consequences for socio-economic development.

    Senator Anyanwu brought a historical perspective to the issue, making it even more worrying. She said: “The issue of oil bunkering, oil theft and pipeline vandalism is not a new development. As a correspondent with the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), I did a special documentary on bunkering. I remember a scene when I went to Port Harcourt and they took me to some waters and showed me men in canoes drilling holes in the pipeline to draw crude oil or refined oil. That was in the ‘80’s. These things have been there, growing incrementally.”

    Since the navy’s reported incapacity to tackle oil-theft is not a fresh development, it would be rather simplistic to overlook the possibility of collusion and official corruption. However, the authorities should provide the wherewithal that the navy needs to successfully perform its marine security function comprehensively.

  • Petroleum tax

    Petroleum tax

    • Fashola is right in insisting that this belongs to the states

    The day was Tuesday, February 19. The venue was the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Victoria Island, Lagos. The occasion was the 80th birthday anniversary of foremost legal luminary, prominent Lagosian, statesman and Federal Commissioner of Works and Housing in the General Yakubu Gowon regime, Alhaji Femi Okunnu.

    It was certainly a most apposite opportunity for the Governor of Lagos State, Mr.Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN), who delivered a public lecture at the event, to reflect on critical issues affecting the practice of federalism in the country, and the place of Lagos in the Nigerian federation. In his lecture titled “The essence of patriot and federalist”, Governor Fashola gave notice of his administration’s determination to resist any plan by the Federal Government to tax the purchase of petrol at pump price as provided for in the Federal Road Maintenance Agency (FERMA) Act.

    Describing the collection of any such levy by the Federal Government as unconstitutional, the governor argued, and rightly so, that the proposed levy is a consumption tax, which ought to be collected by the state within which the commodity is consumed. Governor Fashola buttressed his argument by pointing out that Lagos State has 592 state roads, 8,402 local government roads and 25 federal roads, with the state having to bear the burden of the attendant heavy vehicular tonnage on this vast road network.

    Surely, his argument that any petroleum tax at pump price must be rightly collected by the state to maintain the roads is unimpeachable. We fully identify with the governor’s strong denunciation of the country’s defective fiscal federalism when he declared that “The Federal Government is already collecting royalties on extraction of crude oil, taxing the profits of oil companies at about 30 per cent, taking 52.68 percent of the national revenues and leaving 36 states and 774 local governments with 26.72 per cent and 20.60 per cent, respectively. We will not lie at ease and watch a further encroachment”.

    This skewed fiscal arrangement in favour of the centre is one reason why most states are unviable and rely substantially on monthly allocation from the centre. Yet, the states and local governments are where the vast majority of Nigerians who must be provided with infrastructure, jobs and social services live. The implication of the current situation is that the entire country is virtually dependent on oil revenues of the Niger Delta to the detriment of that region. This is because the Federal Government monopolises most sources of revenue, including solid minerals with which many states are richly blessed and from which they should benefit.

    It is noteworthy, as Governor Fashola said, that Lagos State is currently in court over the Value Added Tax (VAT), another consumption tax that is centrally collected rather than left to each state in accordance with the principles of derivation and federalism. According to the governor: “The same applies to the attempt to encroach on the power of states to raise revenues in their territories from lotteries, hotel licensing and other areas of residual authority of the state … Beyond the registration of hotel as a company from which the Federal Government has collected revenues through the Corporate Affairs Commission, what more service does it render to hotels in the various states of the federation?”

    As the country’s most populous state as well as commercial and industrial nerve-centre, Lagos contributes substantial revenues to the national treasury but gets only a pittance in return to meet its obligations. But the struggle to remedy this warped fiscal structure cannot be left to Lagos alone. All states will benefit from a more just fiscal arrangement, which will also help curb the current obscene profligacy at the centre.

  • Dollar for naira?

    Dollar for naira?

    LAST week, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) rejected the resolution of the House of Representatives urging it to ban the use of foreign currencies in local transactions. The House had premised the resolution, passed on February 14, on the rising trend by major hotels, elite schools and supermarkets to dollarise domestic transactions. The House, rightly, saw the development as undermining the role of the naira, particularly as store of value.

    The CBN Deputy Governor (Operations), Tunde Lemo, gave two reasons for rejecting the House resolution. First, he argued that the bank lacked the capacity to impose the ban; and second, that the apex bank was not a law enforcement agency. As if these were not confounding enough, he added a most astonishing statement of abdication: the N5,000 note proposed by the apex bank last year, suspended following public outcry, would have addressed the challenges posed by the dollarisation of the economy.

    We share in the concerns of the House. If we may put things in perspective, the concerns spring from the yawning inadequacies in the current framework of foreign exchange management, particularly the nation’s mindless embrace of globalisation. But more importantly, it calls to question, the bank’s appreciation of what the trend forebode for the naira under the current regime of abdication.

    We see the issues involved as two-fold. The first is legal – the position of the law on the use of foreign currencies for local transactions; the other, the authority to enforce the applicable laws.

    On the first, the CBN is unequivocal: “the country’s legal tender is the naira and it is therefore illegal to pay for goods and services in Nigeria in foreign currency”. This position, of course, tallies with that of the House; hence it seems settled.

    On the second, whereas the House believes that the apex bank has the duty to enforce compliance, the apex bank prefers to locate the responsibility elsewhere.

    Of course, we find the claim by the apex bank that it lacked police powers and hence its feigning of helplessness ingenious and inexplicable. The issue, in our view, is not much one of capacity but one of a lack of resolve. We observe that nowhere in the resolution did the House remotely suggest that the apex bank assume police powers. What it sought was to put the bank in the driver’s seat in the search for solution to the problem. This is why it comes as disappointing that the apex bank failed to grasp the import of the resolution – which it uncharitably linked to Nigerians’ rejection of its rather curious plan to introduce N5,000 note.

    We do not seek to understate the dollarisation challenge; we understand that the push to halt its use in local transactions will prove herculean not just in the context of the pressures of globalisation, but even more so in the all-comers foreign exchange environment currently in place. But that cannot be an excuse for doing nothing, more so when the implication of doing nothing comes at great costs to the naira. As we noted in a previous editorial, a good way to start is to overhaul the current framework of forex management.

    And, if we may make the point again, nowhere, except Nigeria, are foreign currencies hawked in street corners. We expect the CBN to give a thought to that in dealing with the latest scourge of currency trafficking.

    At any rate, what is the function of the apex monetary authority if not to promote and defend the use of the naira as medium of exchange and as store of value?

     

  • Salutary and symbolic

    Salutary and symbolic

    THE judgment of Justice Lambi Akanbi of the Federal High Court that awarded damages against the Federal Government for the military invasion of Odi town, in Bayelsa State in 1999, is salutary and symbolic. The judgment nestles on one of the major foundations of democracy, as provided in section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 constitution: the prerogative of the courts to arbitrate in disputes between governments and individuals. Also, the people of Odi, and indeed most Nigerians, will be gratified by the punitive powers of the courts against the executive, otherwise government powers will be absolute, and absolute powers corrupt absolutely.

    Justice Akanbi awarded the sum of N37.6 billion as general and specific damages against the Federal Government, which ordered the military to invade Odi, following the killing of 12 policemen on duty in the town by armed gangs on November 4 and 5, 1999. The judge was thoroughly piqued by the conduct of the Federal Government. He said: “the destruction of Odi was comprehensive and complete; no aspect of the community was spared by what I saw in the pictures showed here”. He went further: “the respondents violated the fundamental human rights of the people of Odi, by the massacre. The people are entitled to fundamental rights to life, dignity and fair play.”

    While we strongly deprecate the killing of security personnel sent to maintain peace in the community; it is rather unfortunate that a civilian government could seek to punish a terrorist act by terrorising an entire community. Unfortunately, former President Olusegun Obasanjo gloats over the massacre as an equitable response to a breach of national security by the miscreants who killed the policemen in Odi community. On his part, President Goodluck Jonathan, then a deputy Governor of Bayelsa State claims that: “only innocent people, including women, children and the very weak that could not escape were killed in Odi”. Interestingly, the latter assertion was quoted by the judge, to underscore the award of damages.

    We recall also that under President Obasanjo, the people of Zaki-Biam suffered similar destruction, following the killing of soldiers sent to maintain peace between warring communities. In far away South Africa, a protest by coal miners demanding an increase in salary last year turned bloody, and in retaliation, the police descended on the strikers and murdered many of them. These and similar high-handed reactions usually put governments on the spot, as to what amounts to a reasonable force to quell civil disobedience. Where excessive force is used as held by the high court in the case of Odi, the issue of what amounts to a fair restitution becomes the next challenge.

    Since life is irreplaceable, the option open to the court is to award damages, and where applicable hold the major actors personally responsible. Unfortunately in the Odi case, the state has not openly taken steps to hold the dramatis personae accountable. For instance, no efforts have been made to find out those actually responsible for killing the 12 policemen. Also, no enquiry was made to hold the troops sent to the town accountable to the rules of military engagement. If, as confirmed by the courts, the entire town was razed down, is it not proper to find out who gave instruction to the troops to act in such manner; or were they entitled to kill and maim as it pleased them?

    Regrettably, the civilian population has paid dearly for the conducts of probably small but significant members of our security agencies. Ranging from ‘accidental discharge’ to willful killings and abuses, some of our security personnel need to be weaned from their sense of superiority and invincibility anytime they are dealing with civilians.

    Unfortunately, the criminal act of those who murdered the policemen, the indiscretion of President Obasanjo and the excesses of the security personnel sent to Odi, will cost Nigeria’s tax payers N37.6 billion. This is in addition to the loss of innocent lives and properties of the Odi people.

  • Cooling the Tunisia crisis

    Cooling the Tunisia crisis

    TUNISIA WAS the first Arab country to overthrow its autocracy in 2011, and for much of the past two years it has had the most success in building a new political order. Now the country faces the worst crisis since the revolution. On Tuesday, the prime minister of the Islamist-led government resigned after his own party refused to allow the appointment of a new, nonpartisan cabinet in response to the assassination of an opposition political leader. Though the streets of Tunis remain relatively calm, the risk is growing that uncompromising leaders will plunge the country into turmoil.

    As in Egypt, where such turmoil is advancing, Tunisia’s population has become polarized between secular citizens, who fear that their liberties will be eroded by the new government, and the Islamists, who have been slow to seek accommodation with opponents or to control their most militant followers. The Ennahda party, which formed a coalition with a secular party following an October 2011 election, has a moderate platform, but it includes hard-line clerics in its ranks and is challenged by more militant Islamist groups outside of government. Secular parties, meanwhile, have fanned popular fears that the Islamists will ban alcohol, deprive women of their rights and drive away the Western tourists upon whom much of the economy depends.

    It’s still not known who was responsible for the Feb. 6 assassination of Chokri Belaid, a prominent secularist and government critic whose slaying triggered the largest street demonstrations since the revolution. But Hamadi Jebali, a top leader of the Ennahda party, was right as prime minister to respond by denouncing the killing as “an act of terrorism against the whole of Tunisia.” Mr. Jebali pledged to set up a new government of technocratic ministers to serve until a constituent assembly completes a new constitution and new elections can be held.

    Unfortunately, Mr. Jebali’s sensible course, which could have begun to bridge the dangerous secular-religious divide, was blocked by the Ennahda party, which refused to accept that its ministers would no longer manage key departments such as the interior ministry, which controls the police. Many Ennahda stalwarts appear to regard their first election victory as inviolable; they fail to understand that a successful democratic transition requires accommodating the reasonable demands of the minority.

    Ennahda leaders are saying they still would like Mr. Jebali to form a new cabinet, though other, more hard-line leaders reportedly are also under consideration. The ex-prime minister, for his part, said in a speech to the country that he would do so only if a new government enjoyed broad support, the constitution were quickly completed and a firm date were set for elections. Those are the right conditions: Agreement on a constitution all sides can accept and a fair and free vote are the best way to defuse Tunisia’s polarization. Ennahda should listen to Mr. Jebali, before it is too late.

    – Washington Post

  • A matter of honour

    A matter of honour

    It was a political bombshell by any scale and for good measure, it is bound to keep reverberating in the polity until the next presidential election begins mid next year. And the bearer of the high-octane message is not one to shy from a political bout; in fact, it is almost his nature to get in the fray of such rows. Babangida Aliyu, governor of Niger state, has told the world that President Goodluck Jonathan signed a pact with some governors of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to serve only one term in office. Aliyu who is a governor from the PDP platform and chairman of the Northern Governors Forum (NGF) made this claim during an interview with a Kaduna-based radio station, Liberty FM, penultimate Saturday. Aliyu has raised a pithy point. This singular remark has the power to change the course of Nigeria’s history. That is how serious it is.

    While the nation has been squirming under the seeming revelation, the Presidency has immediately denied the claim and of course denounced the bearer to boot. The Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters, Ahmed Gulak, responding, said, “President Jonathan did not sign any agreement with anybody to the best of my knowledge.” Gulak, living up to the status of the presidential hawk he is, would not let Aliyu go so easily. He introduced a diversionary twist to the story thus: “The alleged agreement only exists in the figment of the imagination of somebody with presidential ambition.” He also put a spin to it by reminding the governor that President Jonathan did not win in his Niger state in the last election.

    As has already emerged going by the presidential adviser’s tone and manner of response, this serious issue that affects the number one office in the land and borders on the honour and integrity of the number one citizen would soon veer into the realm of political gamesmanship, chicanery and even attention- diverting buffoonery. But nothing, absolutely nothing, will obliterate the germane question of honour that is inherent in this.

    For the purpose of clarity and posterity, some questions should be answered. Did a meeting of 20 out of 27 governors hold December 16, 2010 to discuss the issue under reference? Was it true that Jonathan’s assent to a one-term pact was required before the convening of the NEC meeting of the PDP? According to reports, President Jonathan described the governors as field commanders who should not be toyed with. Did the president say so?

    It must be stated upfront that President Goodluck Jonathan has not made any official declaration to run for a second term in 2015. It is significant that no PDP governor has denied or affirmed the Aliyu allegation. The issues are that first, he emerged under a peculiar circumstance. Second, the all-important question of presidential honour and integrity cannot be vitiated.

    President Jonathan is a child of circumstance having emerged as Acting President upon the demise of his boss, President Umaru Yar’Adua, in 2010. In a moment of national angst, the Senate had to concoct a special dispensation termed ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ to unction Jonathan onto the vacant seat and calm frayed nerves across sections of the polity. No sooner did Jonathan seize the reins of power than election time came. Would he run or would he not? Under the law and the constitution of the land, he was entitled to run but there were equally important ethical and political considerations that could not be ignored. His party, the PDP, has documented quota arrangement which he was privy to and which rendered him ineligible for the 2011 election. The nation was torn into two down the middle: he was the incumbent and his part of the country had been disadvantaged since independence but the North needed to complete its term in the prime office. The PDP bent its quota rules in favour of the incumbent, Jonathan. It was a bitter and hard-fought presidential primary in which everything allegedly was deployed including a bit of horse-trading, arm-twisting and even cash. It is under this circumstance that Jonathan wrung out a win.

    It is not unlikely that in the heat of all this and the desperation to win his prize, he may have penned some pact. For sure, there were a series of nocturnal meetings especially with the governors of the North who were under an especial pressure from their people not to bargain away what seemed like their inalienable right. If there was such a pact, it would have been yet again, another special dispensation in favour of Jonathan. It indeed required an element of particular forbearance for the political bigwigs of the North to have allowed Jonathan jump the queue and assume the high office.

    It is on this score that if perchance there was a pact – written or verbal – President Jonathan would do well to honour it regardless of how hurtful the proposition may seem. We state with vehemence that it is in the best interest of his person, the presidency, the polity, the values of a refined society and even the populace that he does not renege on such a pact. He should ignore the multitude of carpet-baggers, hawks and vultures egging on the president and dredging up reasons why he must run. The president must shun them and allow his better sense to prevail.

    We want him to consider how the world will probably stand still that remarkable day, that historic moment when he would make that unforgettable speech telling us that, on his honour, he would not run a second term because he promised not to do so. May we also remind him that it is never how long you sit on the throne but the impact you bring to bear on it. Examples abound: Nelson Mandela served only one term yet he remains the greatest man alive today and there are Nigerian leaders alive today who were president for two terms and more yet they do not have much regard in Nigeria and are actually scorned among the community of great leaders.

    Finally, greatness comes in different hues. Though a leader may not come in the mode of a great transformer and radical change agent, being honourable in dealing with his people, showing character in his actions and donning always the garb of the meek and humble would also earn such a leader his place in history. For Jonathan, history beckons.

     

     

  • Maina the fugitive

    Maina the fugitive

    •The Presidency should explain why, by its tardiness, the pension boss escaped

    It took the umbrage from the Senate for the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, to order the arrest of Mr. Abdulrasheed Maina, over his ignominious activities in the Pension Reform Task Team.

    Maina apparently exploited the president’s initial indifference to the matter; he was allowed to roam the streets and plot his escape during the Senate deliberations. Inspector-General of Police, Mohammed Abubakar, finally expressed helplessness on the floor of the Senate: Maina the wanted had become Maina the fugitive. He had escaped.

    The whole saga started in November, 2011, when the Senate mandated its Joint Committee on Establishment, Public Service and States and Local Governments to conduct a public investigation into pension administration and management in the country in the last five years. On June 20, 2012, the joint committee submitted its report to the Senate, stating among other findings and observations that Maina failed to appear before it to account for pension funds of the Customs, Immigration and Prisons Pensions Office (CIPPO) amounting to about N195 billion during the period. Maina spurned several other invitations to appear before the committee to respond to the grave allegations.

    Even after Senate President David Mark invoked the powers of the Senate to compel Maina’s presence at the public investigative hearing, the Pension Reform Task Force (PRTF) Chairman remained recalcitrant. Obviously pushed to the wall, the Senate President issued a warrant for his arrest – an order that the Inspector-General of Police inexplicably failed to carry out. Yet, Maina not only freely granted media interviews impugning the integrity of the Senate; he made futile bids to get court order preventing his arrest as ordered by the Senate President. It is against this background that the senators felt Maina was enjoying protection from high quarters.

    The presidency, which claims to launch a war on corruption, did not show any form of indignation to this act of public outrage.

    It must be put on record that Maina has been known to be cosy with the President, and has been seen on more than a few occasions with President Goodluck Jonathan at airports.

    Was that the reason for the tardiness from the President in ordering the IG to nab the suspect?

    That is why we find it unacceptable that presidential spokesman Reuben Abati, on the night of February 13, said it was only the office of the Head of Service that could discipline Maina if indeed he had breached any civil service rules. Yet, by Friday last week, the presidency was singing a different tune. Abati said that President Jonathan, having been briefed by the Inspector-General of Police, of Maina’s apparent abandonment of his official duties, had directed the Head of Service, Alhaji Isa Sali, “to act expeditiously on the disciplinary proceedings against Alhaji Maina and report back to him on actions taken”.

    This is a shameful contradiction that fails to save President Jonathan’s face. Maina may thus be disciplined for absconding from duty without leave, contrary to Public Service Rules No. 030301 to 030304. This scenario only underscores the degree of institutional decay in the country and the embarrassing impunity that has come to characterise the public service.

    Investigating the financial malfeasance is one thing, but allowing the man to be a fugitive when he should be in court answering questions on what he knows about the allegations betrays an executive branch out of sync with its duties and obligation to fight corruption.

     

    • Being a repeat of our editorial yesterday on pension boss, Abdulrasheed Maina. We regret the mix-ups in that edition.

     

  • Old wounds

    Old wounds

    The AIB’s report on previous air crashes does not encourage those who fly

    It is predictable that the report of the Accident Investigation Bureau (AIB) on the air crashes involving Bellview Airlines and Aviation Development Company (ADC) would reopen old wounds. What makes this consequence particularly foreseeable is that the report blames the airlines, and pilots, for the fatal accidents. On October 22, 2005, Bellview’s Boeing 737 airliner with 117 people on board crashed and caught fire in Lisa Village, Ogun State, shortly after take-off from Lagos. There was no survivor. A year later, on October 29, 2006, ADC’s Sokoto-bound Boeing 737-200 plane crash-landed a few minutes after take-off from Abuja Airport. Nine people survived out of 105 on board.

    To go by the dates of these crashes, it has taken AIB between six and seven years to investigate the cause of the tragedies. Was this fairly long timeframe a result of thoroughness of investigation, or what? If such inquiries took the aforementioned length of time, the implication is that the lessons to be learnt, if any, were delayed. This is dangerous in a safety-challenged aviation sector, such as we have in the country.

    It is remarkable that, despite its prolonged probe, AIB admitted that its findings were inconclusive because the investigators could not recover the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder from the wreckage of Bellview Flight 210. However, the examination, according to AIB, revealed “multiple defects” on the crashed airplane; it also showed that “the airplane should not have been dispatched for either the accident flight or earlier flights.” In addition, the report questioned the competence of the pilot in command as well as his physical condi-tion. On ADC, the investigating agency blamed “pilot error and lack of airline policy on how to operate a flight during adverse weather condition.” Inadequate regulatory oversight was also identified as a contributory factor in these disasters.

    It is perhaps unsurprising, given AIB’s apparent tentativeness, that its report has been challenged by Bellview Airlines, which alleged that the report was influenced by the bureau’s “internal politics”, and was not based on the facts of the accident. This is a significant disagreement as it calls into question the very authority of the report. If AIB’s findings are unreliable, as the airline claims, who then can speak on the cause of the crashes? Furthermore, by raising doubts about the credibility of AIB’s report, which it describes as “distorted”, the airline may have sent a signal that could be exploited by others. These conflicting positions on the Bellview tragedy must be puzzling to the public, and do nothing to redeem an industry that is battling with serious image issues.

    In the light of the dispute, the safety recommendations made by the bureau would appear, by implication, questionable. For, if the reasons given for the mishaps are unfounded, as Bellview argues, making recommendations based on them would amount to building something on nothing. It is, therefore, crucial that the authorities should bring sanity to the situation. It is hoped that this will help to bring about closure not only for those affected by the unfortunate events, but also the general public.

    How long it took to produce this report and the controversy it has generated are not encouraging signs that the ongoing investigation of the Dana Airline plane crash of June 3, 2012, in Iju- Ishaga, Lagos State, would not follow the same course. All 153 persons aboard the plane perished. It is in the public interest that this particular probe should not drag on unreasonably. Hopefully, this time, the findings also will be less divisive.

    It is a matter of immense importance that air crash investigations should be carried out promptly, and authoritatively. Also, the safety recommendations arising therefrom should be treated with utmost seriousness.

  • Bulgarian Lessons

    Bulgarian Lessons

    The resignation of Bulgaria’s government after violent protests is a warning for other European countries. Even amid signs that the worst of the eurozone problems and associated downturn may be past, in today’s low-growth Europe, social unrest can break out with sufficient force to topple governments even in countries not directly hit by crisis.

    The centre-right government of Boyko Borisov is seen as another casualty of “austerity”. Yet Bulgaria has not suffered especially severe austerity measures, in the sense of painful fiscal tightening. Unlike neighbours Greece, Romania and Serbia, it has not required an international rescue.

    Unemployment, though growing, is not high by standards elsewhere on the continent, at 12 per cent. Public finances, notes one market analyst, are “stellar”. The country until recently prided itself on being an island of relative economic stability in the Balkans.

    But it was the government’s failure to deliver growth, in output, and in wages that remain the EU’s lowest – coupled with rising prices, above all of heating – that sparked the recent mass protests. Underlying disillusionment with a political elite seen as cronyist and self-serving bubbled up as monthly household electricity bills hit €100 – against an average monthly wage of €387.

    Mr Borisov deserves credit for stepping aside without risking further violence. With early elections now likely, all parties should commit to staying strictly within the rules. The challenges to constitutional law and democracy that emerged in neighbouring Romania after protests forced a change of government last year must be avoided. With both main political forces in the electoral doldrums, however, the danger exists that radical parties will be the beneficiaries in a fragmented parliament.

    Finding ways of reducing energy costs will be a dominant election theme. But one lesson from the government’s implosion is that whoever takes power next must redouble efforts to stamp out corruption – which may have contributed to those high costs. Mr Borisov came to power in 2009 promising exactly that, but progress has been slow.

    Another is that for all the EU focus on fiscal discipline, growth matters. Bulgaria comfortably meets the Maastricht criteria for euro entry, has pegged its currency to the euro since 1997, and avoided crisis. But that does not win votes. It is a lesson that governments even in wealthier states may yet learn to their cost.

    – Financial Times