Category: Editorial

President Jonathan cannot use God as an excuse for incompetence

The disturbing tendency for President Goodluck Jonathan to utter statements which amount to a virtual abdication of responsibility made an unwelcome reappearance at the 2012 Holy Ghost Congress of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), where he announced that he had entrusted Nigeria to God’s care.

In addition, he reassured the congregation, comprising thousands of worshippers, public office-holders and prominent clerics that he would continue to ensure that his administration is transparent and expressed the conviction that the nation would overcome its challenges. He also attributed his victory at the 2011 elections to the RCCG’s respected General Overseer, Pastor Enoch Adeboye, and the support of the church’s teeming followers.

At first glance, it would seem that the President did not do anything out of the ordinary. National leaders routinely invoke the protection and blessings of God upon the countries they lead. Regular reassurances that a people will eventually overcome difficult times are a staple of committed governance in most participatory democracies. If the country in question is one in which strong religious beliefs are common, as is the case in Nigeria, the constant invocation of God’s name is certainly in order.

However, as is so often the case with President Jonathan, a virtue has become a vice. At the RCCG event, he appeared to have forgotten that while Nigerians fervently worship God, He was not on the ballot in 2011. The person they voted for was Goodluck Jonathan. The President did not remember that he made several promises on the campaign trail. He forgot that he swore a solemn oath to work for the upliftment of Nigeria and its people. Instead of taking responsibility for his extremely well-paid office, he sought to turn the burden of governing over to the Creator, while keeping the considerable perks of office for himself and his cronies.

Turning his presidential responsibilities over to God is only the latest in a continual stream of statements in which Jonathan has sought to dodge hard choices and avoid responsibility. When Abuja was bombed during the Independence Day celebrations of 2010, he claimed that terrorism was a global phenomenon and that it was now Nigeria’s turn to experience it. When the Boko Haram menace began to spread, he complained that the fundamentalist sect had infiltrated his government without giving any indication of what he was doing to resolve it. As disappointment with his policies became widespread, he told the nation in a recent media chat that he never promised to end poverty.

Far from reassuring a populace that is becoming increasingly sceptical about his capacity to lead, the President’s remarks at the RCCG convention simply increased growing doubts about his leadership. He spoke about a continuing commitment to transparency and to doing “what is right,” but has lamentably failed to demonstrate this commitment in practice.

Throughout 2012, a succession of scandals in pensions administration, the capital market and the oil subsidy programme provided Jonathan with golden opportunities to demonstrate his adherence to transparency, accountability and the rule of law. Instead of grasping them with both hands, he has shamefully failed to live up to expectation. As can now be seen, his main tactic is to deflect attention from the issues and play for time by setting up committees to investigate scandals, only to undermine them and thereby ensure that their findings are never implemented. It happened in the Dana crash report, the Lawan-Otedola subsidy bribe scandal, the privatisation of power stations and the Ribadu committee report.

To make matters worse, President Jonathan decided to turn a purely religious gathering into a political convention by his dubious references to the alleged support of Pastor Adeboye and the RCCG as a whole in his political campaign. Regardless of what he may think, neither Adeboye nor the RCCG is on record as having endorsed Jonathan’s presidential campaign; to imply that they did so is disingenuous and dishonest. His poor judgement is all the more amazing, given the tensions which currently characterise Nigeria as a multi-religious entity.

Such manipulations like this should serve as a warning to the nation’s religious leaders not to get too close to politicians, especially those holding public office. Such is their fixation on elections that they will use anybody whom they think can help them to achieve popularity. Nigeria’s clerics should follow the example of an individual like South Africa’s Bishop Desmond Tutu, whose commitment to political freedom and social justice was not tainted by any intimacy with those in power.

As for President Jonathan, he should realise that the citizenry is tired of promises, excuses, explanations and committees. He was elected in his own recognition to lead Nigeria to a brighter tomorrow of freedom and prosperity. It is time for him to start leading. God is a hard-working God and He has been playing His part in the country’s affairs; President Jonathan should play his.

It was a moral crusade carried too far for Rev. Olufunke Oladeojobi, Principal of Ajuwon Senior High School in Ifo Local Government Area, Ogun State, who has been quizzed by the police for allegedly conducting virginity tests on Senior Secondary School (SSS) 1 pupils. Those subjected to the bizarre examination were the first batch of 10 female students out of 38 who claimed to be virgins, among 300 in SSS1. Described as a “strict disciplinarian”, she reportedly called in a nurse with whom she carried out virginity tests on the students by dipping fingers into their genitals; one of them allegedly bled as a result of the crude penetration.

So preposterous was the exercise that even Oladeojobi could not justify it except to make a nebulous claim to the police that she was “trying to help” the students. According to the report, she had threatened to blacklist and suspend any pupil that failed the virginity test. A student who was discovered to have ‘lost her virginity’ was labelled “promiscuous” and had her name displayed on a notice board, and the principal made an issue of it on the assembly ground. Remarkably, however, she took no action on the 262 female students who didn’t claim virginity.

If, by any stretch of her imagination, she thought she could get away with such primitive conduct, the parents of the violated girls taught her a lesson by appropriately complaining to the police and getting her arrested for carrying out unauthorised tests on their children. It is inexcusable that she imposed such a test on the pupils without parental consent, and went way beyond her powers as a principal. The virginity test was not only an invasion of the students’ privacy, it clearly infringed on their private affairs.

What was her objective in devising such a test? If her aim was to address a perceived problem of promiscuity among the students, she obviously went about it in a wrong and unacceptable manner. Apart from the fact that she shunned the parents, the method she adopted for what was essentially a medical procedure was unscientific and unreliable. Even in the context of prevalent promiscuity among the youth, her action cannot be seen as a well-meaning attempt to be helpful. It is ironic that her moral campaign only made matters worse as she trampled on the very idea of morality in subjecting the girls to the test.

This discreditable incident once again exposes the underbelly of a patriarchal society where the rights of females are usually abused with impunity. Although the school involved is a mixed school, the principal, who ironically is a woman, didn’t see any need to find out how many boys were without sexual experience in SSS1. Even if she tried to do so, it would have been an impossible mission as there would have been no way to determine that, except to rely on undependable oral evidence. Why, then, must the girls be victims of such ill-conceived sexist examination simply because Mother Nature created them in a peculiar way that makes it possible to determine their virginity?

Oladeojobi deserves to be sanctioned for her behaviour, and it is good news that the police are considering charging her to court for sexual assault, although there are alleged technical hurdles to cross, including the fact that the matter was reported late and no medical examination was immediately carried out on the affected girls to use as proof in the law court. Notwithstanding the said legal challenges, severe penalties should be meted out to her by her employers, the public school management authorities in the state.

THE BUSHMASTER .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza carried into Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday is a frightful killing machine. Just take a look at the manufacturer’s catalogue for this best-selling firearm.“At home on the range and on patrol,” it boasts. “Take on the predators with devastating performance.”

The Bushmaster is known for a design that can be configured for hunting, police work, range shooting and more. But the last place on earth this weapon should have been was in an elementary school. On Friday, Mr. Lanza wielded a Bushmaster to kill 20 children ages 6 and 7 and six adults in a rampage at the school that lasted some 10 minutes. He carried high-capacity magazines allowing him to fire off 30 bullets before he had to reload. A coroner said most of the victims were hit with at least three bullets — and some with up to 11 — that exploded with devastating lethality, tearing them apart from inside. The Bushmaster was a juggernaut of death.

Obviously, something snapped in this young man that points to evil beyond comprehension. Yet the tragedy leads to an inescapable conclusion. There is no defensible reason for civilians to own a Bushmaster or other semiautomatic rifles, known more broadly as assault weapons. This is essentially a military weapon, a version of the M-16, capable in some cases of shooting bullets at more than 2,000 feet per second. It does not belong in private hands, any more than M-1 Abrams tanks belong on Rockville Pike or mortars in the backyard.

Gun-owner advocates who point out that violent crime has fallen in recent years, in the absence of new gun controls, are correct. The link between guns and violence is not always clear-cut. But the link between a certain kind of mass murder and a particular killing technology is clearer. It makes sense to reimpose strict limits on these assault weapons, including a ban on high-capacity magazines with more than 10 bullets each. These magazines have figured in several of the most heinous mass shootings in recent years, including the one that severely wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in 2011. The Bushmaster is also a source of grief for Mexico, where it has become a favorite weapon of warring drug cartels.

In his remarks in Newtown on Sunday, President Obama noted that this was the fourth time in his presidency he has consoled a community grief-stricken by a mass shooting. He made clear he no longer wants to be simply the consoler in chief.

“We can’t tolerate this anymore,” he said. “No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this.”

Yes, we can. We can start by locking up these killing machines. Mr. Obama endorsed an assault weapons ban when running for president in 2008, but in office he has been cautious. The loss of life in Connecticut demands a move from caution to action.

– Washington Post

The Bayelsa mishap, in which Governor Yakowa and Gen. Azazi died, was both a human and institutional tragedy

The December 15 Nigerian Navy helicopter crash, off the Nembe-Okoroba mangrove of Bayelsa State, which claimed Sir Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa, governor of Kaduna State, Gen. Andrew Owoye Azazi, former national security adviser (NSA) and four others, was a multi-layered tragedy.

Other victims of the crash were Dauda Tsoho, reportedly a friend to late Governor Yakowa, Warrant Officer Mohammed Kamal, Gen. Azazi’s aide, Commander Murtala Mohammed Daba, the pilot and Navy Lt. Adeyemi O. Sowole, the co-pilot.

At the virtual eve of Yuletide, with the air light with gaiety and hopes high for a better new year after the rather grim leap year of 2012, our hearts must go out to the victims of that horrendous crash and the dear ones they left behind. With what this country has gone through this year, that crash was one too many. Still, it happened — and lamentably so. We must therefore spare a thought for the affected; and pray that God strengthens them to cope with the loss.

That said, however, there are hard questions to ask, on the free fall of basic propriety in governance. Governor Yakowa reportedly and rightly travelled to Bayelsa in a different chopper, with his aides. But since he reportedly had unfinished discourse with Gen. Azazi, he joined him in the military chopper that crashed and claimed the duo.

As governor, Yakowa was covered by the state. So, riding in a military aircraft was legally and legitimately part of his privileges as governor. But not so, Mr. Tsoho, his friend and private citizen. And maybe not so too, Gen. Azazi himself, except if it could be proved that the position of NSA or Chief of Army Staff and Chief of Defence Staff, positions Gen. Azazi had held before, came with life-long privileges to state security facilities.

But the more glaring scandal: because a not-too-major aide of the president was giving his father his last honour, the Presidency had to deploy security aircraft to convey private citizens to a private ceremony. This is culpable naivety at best; or wilful systemic subversion, at worst. It is salute to lack of standards and woeful failure of institutions that, had this particular event not gone awry, nobody would perhaps see the impropriety of it all. Yet, for the country to develop, there must be the basic discipline – nay duty – of separating personal from official privileges.

There have been a lot of conspiracy theories concerning the unfortunate crash. Some allege sabotage, adducing as “proof” that the crashed Navy Agusta Westland chopper had earlier been deployed to oil surveillance work; suggesting oil thieves might have sabotaged the machine.

Others claimed it might have been shot shortly after take-off – whatever for. Yet, others claimed it caught fire, shortly after take-off, because, they claimed, it had been over-stressed by too many sorties, dropping dignitaries off at the Okoroba event and going back to pick some more.

Still, the military authorities maintain the aircraft was in good shape. For starters, it joined the Navy’s fleet in 2004, direct, according to naval sources, from the manufacturing lines. Its last check and maintenance regime was completed on November 10, had flown 1,704 flight hours but still had 80 flight hours to spare to its next check, before the crash. So, what caused the crash?

That is the question that must be answered with all seriousness. The dead cannot be recalled. But a good, open and transparent probe would at least ensure hardly such crashes happen in the future. The military authorities have opted for a multi-disciplinary probe. That must be followed to the letter. Negligence has claimed too many lives. We must put such wanton wastes behind us.

Connecticut tragedy: Time for the US to take another look at its gun laws 

Last Friday, a lone gun man in the state of Connecticut plunged the United States of America into mourning. That day, 20-year-old Ryan Lanza, took an assault rifle belonging to his mother, killed her at home, went to a school where she was a teacher and killed 20 school children and six others before taking his own life. The mass killing was at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton City of Connecticut. The motive for one of the worst mass shootings in the United States remains unknown.

The attack was possible because the young man had easy access to an assault weapon at home. President Barack Obama, while mourning the victims, said ‘our hearts are broken’. We can only add that our hearts are joined with the parents and citizens of America in mourning. Obama also urged Americans to take necessary steps to avoid similar tragedy again, as he has become more of Mourner-in-Chief, than a Commander-in-Chief. To stem the tide, he chose his deputy, Joe Biden, to help push to formulate gun policies in the country.

As America grapples with this shocking and unexplainable act of barbarity, we urge the United States to get more civilised. The horrendous result of a constitutional provision allowing unrestrained access to dangerous weapons needs a reexamination. Their country, while allowing unlimited access to all kinds of assault weapons as against defence weapons, has shown a lack of capacity to be proactive in crime prevention. It may be noted that the Sandy shooting was the second in the United States in the last week, and the latest in a series of mass shootings in the United States within the year. This frequent descent into barbarism is contrary to the United States’ advancement in other areas of endeavour.

Unfortunately, America has not been able to measure up in terms of effective control of the use of the guns in the hands of its citizens, as in other countries where there is liberal access to gun. For instance, in Switzerland, a gun at home must have a gun lock in place, and as such a third party will not have access to use it as the young Lanza did with his mother’s gun. So, despite the access to gun, Switzerland remains one of the highest crime-free countries. Even Norway where a similar tragedy of a young man running crazy and mercilessly murdering even younger people for a misguided or no reason at all, has better records than the United States in this regard.

It is heartwarming, however, that the National Rifle Association which has a strong lobby against gun control has indicated its willingness to work with government to curtail this recurring tragedy. We hope the Connecticut tragedy will effectively moderate their extreme partisan interest against gun control, and make them stop using their political influence to work against legislation to control access to dangerous weapons. President Obama, with a fresh electoral mandate, must seize the momentum to once and for all help the United States deal with one of its few crises of liberalism.

We also hope that Nigeria will learn a few lessons from this unfortunate incident. The quantum of unlawful weapons in the hands of private citizens in Nigeria is scary, and there is need for a concerted state action to check the trend. Unlike in the United States, such weapons have no records, and as such remain untraceable when used to commit crime.

Barack Obama must now act boldly on gun control

Primary schools, cinema halls, campuses and churches – no place, it seems, is immune to America’s epidemic of mass shootings. Yet none so far have prompted Washington to adopt even the most minor of new gun controls. If Friday’s unimaginably distressing classroom slaughter of 20 young children and six teachers does not jolt Washington to act, nothing will. Like Columbine before it, and so many other school shootings, the name Sandy Hook will be forever associated with a horror no society should tolerate. It should also be the starting point of an era of genuine gun control in the US.

The onus must begin with Barack Obama. Since the late 1990s, Democrats have shied away from gun control for fear of alienating the National Rifle Association, one of the country’s most powerful lobby groups. The brief flurry of laws enacted during the 1990s, including the ban on semi-automatic weapons, have mostly lapsed. As much as anyone, Mr Obama is responsible for failing to try to put anything in their place. On Saturday, he said that Sandy Hook should prompt “meaningful action”. The president said something similar after the cinema massacre in Aurora in July. However, his administration has failed to adopt even the lightest of Department of Justice recommendations to tighten up background checks.

Yet the carnage at Sandy Hook illustrates why gun control must go much further than merely tightening up on screening. Even had strict checks been in place, and even were other agencies required to feed names into the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s database, Sandy Hook would still have happened. Nor would a ban on semi-automatic weapons have been enough. The killer, Adam Lanza, stole a range of guns from his mother, whom he first murdered. Although Lanza had a history of instability, his mother did not. No screening system could anticipate this. Nor would tighter background checks prevent “straw buyers” from purchasing on behalf of others.

If Mr Obama wants gun control to be meaningful, he must push to ban private ownership of whole classes of weapons. Advocates of the right to carry arms say that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Presumably the same applies to nuclear weapons. It is well past time to stand up to this nonsense. If Lanza had possessed only a knife, it is doubtful he would have gone near the school. For the sake of America’s children, Mr Obama must act boldly and lead. Well meant though it is, pious talk about national healing is no substitute.

– Financial Times