Category: Editorial

Another policy flip flop

On a recent inspection tour of roads being constructed between the North and the South parts of Nigeria, the Minister of Works, Mr. Mike Onolemenmen, informed a surprised nation of the impending return of toll gates to the federal highways. According to the minister, this policy initiative is to guarantee regular maintenance and sustainability of roads nationwide. Expatiating, he said the move is to “generate funds to maintain these roads so that they would not go back to the sorry state we met it and similar others across the federation”.

Consequently, the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, currently being rehabilitated by both RCC and Julius Berger, following the recent termination of the Bi-Courtney contract for alleged non-performance, will be tolled as soon as they are completed.

Of course, the state of our public highways across the country has remained one of the major scandals of this political dispensation that commenced in 1999. Nigeria’s highways have remained death traps, routinely claiming hundreds of precious lives daily.

The much-talked-about East-West Road remains a mirage. The construction of the Second Niger Bridge has become a perennial pre-election promise. Yet, the aviation sector remains severely inefficient and underdeveloped, with the Nigerian elite now resorting to buying private jets. In the same vein, the government has been unable to link the country with a fast, modern rail transportation network. Millions of underprivileged Nigerians are thus condemned to making use of the horrendous public highways.

Yet, the scale of public corruption in the country, recently estimated at over N5trillion looted through various avenues under the watch of the current government, suggests that the country has sufficient funds for the construction of a modern transportation network. Aside from the outright theft of public funds, the conspicuous consumption and luxurious lifestyle of our leaders indicate that ours is simply a case of misplaced priorities.

The termination of the Bi-Courtney contract for the reconstruction of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway after the waste of so much valuable time only illustrates the complete lack of seriousness and thoroughness that characterise public policy in the country. Wouldn’t proper due diligence have shown that the company lacked the capacity for a job of that magnitude? Now, the hapless members of the public will be expected to pay tolls not for an expanded, reconstructed and modernised highway but only a rehabilitated one – whatever that means.

In any case, it was the Obasanjo Administration that woke up one day and suddenly destroyed toll gates across the country at huge public cost. It claimed then that the roads would be maintained by a special fuel tax to be imposed for the purpose. Now, scarce public funds will again be expended to rebuild the toll gates and there is no indication that the existing fuel tax has been lifted. Will that not be a case of double taxation?

Beyond this, when tolls were being collected on the roads, the proceeds simply largely disappeared into private pockets. The roads were still not maintained. What is there to convince us that anything has changed when the problem of corruption has even worsened in the country? In any case, for how long will our governments continue to behave as if the provision and maintenance of public infrastructure is not part of their social contract with the Nigerian people, despite the huge funds at their disposal?

There is certainly nothing to justify the planned re-introduction of toll gates on our high ways. And if they must, then there should be alternatives for people who do not want to take the tolled roads. Also, the fuel tax should be discontinued.

It is a dark day for the rule of law. Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system. They also have not charged any top HSBC banker in the case, though it boggles the mind that a bank could launder money as HSBC did without anyone in a position of authority making culpable decisions.

Clearly, the government has bought into the notion that too big to fail is too big to jail. When prosecutors choose not to prosecute to the full extent of the law in a case as egregious as this, the law itself is diminished. The deterrence that comes from the threat of criminal prosecution is weakened, if not lost.

In the HSBC case, prosecutors may want the public to focus on the $1.92 billion settlement, which includes forfeiture of $1.26 billion and other penalties, as well as requirements to improve its internal controls and submit to the oversight of an outside monitor for the next five years. But even large financial settlements are small compared with the size of international major banks. More important, once criminal sanctions are considered off limits, penalties and forfeitures become just another cost of doing business, a risk factor to consider on the road to profits.

There is no doubt that the wrongdoing at HSBC was serious and pervasive. Several foreign banks have been fined in recent years for flouting United States sanctions against transferring money through American subsidiaries on behalf of clients in countries like Iran, Sudan and Cuba. HSBC’s actions were even more egregious. According to several law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry, prosecutors found that, for years, HSBC had also moved tainted money from Mexican drug cartels and Saudi banks with ties to terrorist groups.

Those findings echo those of a Congressional report, issued in July, which said that between 2001 and 2010, HSBC exposed the American “financial system to money laundering and terrorist financing risks.” Prosecutors and Congressional investigators were also alarmed by indications that senior HSBC officials might have been complicit in the illegal activity and that the bank did not tighten its lax controls against money laundering even after repeated urgings from federal officials.

Yet government officials will argue that it is counterproductive to levy punishment so severe that a bank could be destroyed in the process. That may be true as far as it goes. But if banks operating at the center of the global economy cannot be held fully accountable, the solution is to reduce their size by breaking them up and restricting their activities — not shield them and their leaders from prosecution for illegal activities.

– New York Times

•Democracy suffers when officials of the Federal Republic bar journalists from doing their job

A few weeks ago, right there in one of the chambers of the National Assembly, the Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke, smashed the tape recorder of a reporter covering a joint hearing on her ministry. She simply refused to be put on tape by the journalists, and when they persisted, she reached out and swiped the tapes off the table with so much impertinence. Of course such grave acts went unsanctioned – not from the Federal Government or any journalism body.

Impunity unchecked will often breed even more impunity. This was exactly what happened last week during the aviation ministry’s budget defence before the Senate Committee on Aviation. According to report, before the proceedings commenced, the aviation minister, Ms Stella Oduah had requested that journalists be barred from the session. She was quoted to have told the chairman of the committee, Chief Hope Uzodinma: “Can you please, kindly allow me to present this budget behind closed doors and therefore, we shall need to ask the journalists to excuse us.” To this request, Uzodinma was said to have acceded without as much as a frown.

The first point that comes to mind is that this is a reflection of the quality of personnel occupying high offices in the country. This suggests that some of the public officials do not know the first thing about the role of the media as clearly enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic; that they are ignorant of the basic fundamentals of the democratic process and the basic right of the people to know. Were these public officials attuned to these rudimentary principles, the very thought of the minister’s action would have been a taboo, and to have the temerity to voice such before a Senate committee would have been unthinkable. In a place like the United States of America, this action would have cost the minister her job and the senator his seat.

What was it that Ms Oduah wanted to keep away from the purview of the people in the defence of her aviation budget? If the budget is for promoting the good of the people, why shroud it in secrecy? If the minister truly holds her office as a public trust, she ought to understand the sacred duty of transparency and accountability to the people. Needless to say that the Appropriation Bill under consideration is a public document and the people need to understand it in detail so that they can make meaningful contribution to the debate.

We wager that someday soon when Ms Oduah would have left office, she would be keen to know the details of Nigeria’s aviation budget and she would take umbrage if a sitting minister denied her that right, especially with a dash of impunity. We often tend to forget that a minister (or any public official for that matter) today, is an ordinary citizen tomorrow.

No doubt the Senate committee debased itself and made a charade of the exercise by so gleefully condoning the minister’s impertinence. The Senate is expected to be the last redoubt of Nigeria’s constitution and the touchstone of finer democratic practice. We are taken aback when the legislature allows violent breaches of this sacred document. Need we remind that our democracy is the victim of such flagrant impunity as demonstrated by Ms Oduah.

 Andrew finally “checks out’

The recent death of Mr. Enebeli Elebuwa is a devastating blow to the burgeoning entertainment industry in Nigeria. The veteran actor had suffered from several health challenges which required extensive hospital stays in the country before he was finally flown to India, courtesy of the Delta State Government. He died on December 5.

Elebuwa’s career is a testimony to the ups and downs of Nigerian life, and accurately charts the country’s emergence as a significant producer of artistic talent. His first movie role was in the 1974 celluloid film Dinner With the Devil, but he first came to national notice as one of the star actors who graced the much-loved The Village Headmaster, the television series which enraptured the nation in the 1970s. He truly came into his own with his incredibly realistic portrayal of ‘Andrew’, the desperate and frustrated Nigerian who was determined to abandon Nigeria to its fate, while he sought greener pastures. So convincing was his portrayal that he would subsequently be known by his memorable depiction of that unpatriotic individual. Unfortunately, Nigeria was far worse by the time ‘Andrew’ died, than in the ‘80s when he tried to ‘check out’.

When Nollywood, the local Nigerian film industry, took off in the early ‘90s, the visible and talented Elebuwa was in an excellent position to take full advantage of the opportunities that it offered. His wealth of experience in theatre and television made him the natural choice of many directors in a wide variety of films. Elebuwa is believed to have acted in no less than 130 films, including Domitilla (1996), Lost Kingdom 1 & 2 (1999), Take Me to Mama (2002), Together as One (2003), Expensive Game 1 &2 (2004) and A Can of Worms 1 & 2 (2008). One of his last films was Bent Arrow, which was released in 2010.

In these productions, Elebuwa brought a magisterial grasp of roles to bear on his acting. He could be the ruthless businessman, the doting father, the wise king, the amoral politician: whatever character he was playing came to life in his experienced hands. Such was his love for his profession that he mentored many of his younger colleagues, offering detailed comments on their performances and providing sage advice on how best to improve their craft.

It is no surprise, therefore, that he was among the best-loved of the pantheon of Nollywood stars. Many avid fans bought films solely because he was starring in them; even those who were too young to remember him as “Andrew” came to appreciate the passion, humour and talent that he displayed on the screen. His multi-dimensional talent, his capacity for hard work, and his unwavering belief in himself represented the very best in the Nigerian personality.

Elebuwa’s outstanding qualities make the manner of his passing all the more tragic. When his health problems started, he was forced to rely on the goodwill of colleagues for the settlement of his mounting health bills. Nigeria’s decrepit health system brought its own difficulties, as he had to turn to faith healing in an attempt to recover. When that failed, he was virtually on his own until a sympathetic Delta State Government and public-spirited individuals came to his rescue.

He was one of the few leading men in the country’s film industry who had the ability to take it to the next stage and ensure that it attained the global attention that its Hollywood and Bollywood counterparts enjoy. The distressing emphasis on material reward that has infected Nollywood made the experience of Elebuwa all the more valuable now that he has gone. May his soul rest in perfect peace.

ACCORDING TO the Obama administration, northern Mali “has become a safe haven for extremist and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and affiliates” — the same forces linked to the deadly Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. mission in Libya. Northern Mali, says Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Africa, has become “the largest territory controlled by Islamic extremists in the world.” A Taliban-style rule of stonings and amputations has been imposed, and a dire emergency is unfolding: 400,000 civilians have fled their homes, and, the United Nations says, 600,000 children under the age of 5 are threatened by severe malnutrition.

Not to worry. U.N. officials say that the terrorists will be subdued by a military intervention — but not before the fall of 2013.

The extraordinary delay is due not to any debate over the need for armed action. On the contrary, the necessity of it is stipulated by the rump Malian government, which lost the territory this year; neighboring African and Arab countries (with the possible exception of Algeria); former colonial power France; the Obama administration; and even U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who told the Security Council last week that “every passing day brings with it the risk of a further entrenchment of terrorist groups and criminal networks.”

The council could approve a resolution this month authorizing an intervention led by West African states that have agreed to contribute 3,300 troops and to rebuild the Malian army for the mission. They say they could be ready to mount the operation in the first months of next year.

So why the holdup? Mr. Ban contends that “fundamental questions on how the force would be led, sustained, trained, equipped and financed remain unanswered.” The United Nations so far has declined to pick up the estimated $500 million cost, but the African states don’t have the funds. Military experts say that while capturing northern Mali’s three principal cities — including the ancient crossroads of Timbuktu — might not be so difficult, a follow-up counterinsurgency campaign in a territory larger than Texas would likely exceed the capabilities of the African forces. Arab governments with stronger armies and counterterrorism experience, such as Algeria, are uncommitted. And Western governments say that they won’t send ground forces.

The Obama administration, for its part, is insisting that military action must be preceded by a multi-step political process, including democratic elections for a new Malian government and negotiations with groups in northern Mali that are not part of al-Qaeda. One, Ansar Dine, has imposed fundamentalist rule on Timbuktu and destroyed many of its priceless religious and cultural monuments, but the theory is that it can be detached from the transnational terrorists.

Negotiations, which began this month, are certainly worth a try. But it’s also worth bearing in mind what is happening while this process drags on. As a Malian minister told the Security Council, “there are floggings, amputation of limbs, summary executions, children forced to become soldiers, rapes, stoning, looting and the destruction of cultural and historical sites.” Perhaps the diplomats in Turtle Bay can conclude it’s prudent to allow such atrocities to continue for another 10 or 12 months. But morality as well as common sense suggests that intervention must come sooner.

– Washington Post

THERE was a decidedly sour note to the interactive session organised by the House of Representatives Committee on Finance, with Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to find ways of plugging the leakages in the revenue generated by the MDAs and the non-remittance of such funds to the Federation Account/Consolidated Revenue Fund of Government.

As the committee chairman, Mr. Abdulmumini Jibrin, took a roll-call of the MDAs present, he appropriately called the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but oddly remarked that the agency was not supposed to be invited. He then addressed the three-man SEC delegation representing its director-general (DG), Ms. Arunma Oteh, saying, “SEC was invited in error. As you are aware, the House is not supposed to have any dealings with you at the moment. Please, pack your documents and excuse us.”

It is laughable that he said the commission was invited by mistake. Who made the so-called blunder? Has SEC officially ceased to belong to the MDAs? Why should the House exclude the commission from a meeting it had a legitimate right to participate in? Was it in the public interest to shut out SEC from the session, and thereby block its input?

The intolerance and narrow-mindedness displayed by Jibrin on the occasion only helped to replay a spiteful flashback. The House, following its probe of the near collapse of the capital market, had recommended Oteh’s sack on the grounds that her appointment was illegal; but the Presidency has not seen any reason to fire her.

Thwarted, the House passed an absurd resolution not to recognise Oteh as the DG of SEC or have anything to do with the commission as long as she remained in charge. In choosing to blacklist Oteh, however, despite her recognition by the Presidency, which has the powers to dismiss or retain her, the House acted lawlessly, suggesting that it was power-drunk, especially given the context of governmental separation of powers.

In addition, the House, being an institution of the state, cannot irrationally decide to be selective in its dealings with the MDAs that come within the purview of its oversight functions. At all times the overriding interests of the country should be uppermost in the minds of the legislators as representatives of the people, even when their egos had been bruised, as in their dealings with Oteh in the past.

It is quite understandable that the House is still smarting from Oteh’s demeaning allegations against the Chairman of the House Committee on Capital Market, Herman Hembe, during its investigation of SEC some months ago. According to Oteh, “Hembe is corrupt and lacks credibility. For instance, he collected estacode and other travel allowances from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to travel to the Dominican Republic on a capacity enhancement conference for capital market regulators. He did not go; neither did he return the money collected. Also, he asked the commission to contribute N39 million towards the ongoing charade of a public hearing and demanded another N5 million cash on Tuesday, March 13, 2012. He made both demands by proxy.”

Following Oteh’s scandalous claims, which amounted to saying that a member of the House had behaved dishonourably and was caught with his hand in a cookie jar, not only was Hembe forced to resign his position on the committee, he was arraigned with his deputy, Ifeanyi Azubuogu, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on criminal charges for misappropriation and “dishonestly converting” $4,095 (N600, 000) public funds to private use.

Although this scandal, which has gone on record as the first major scam in the seventh House of Representatives, has expectedly caused bad blood between members of the House and Ms. Oteh, the federal lawmakers cannot afford to sink lower in the estimation of the public through petty vindictiveness that is counter-productive to the country’s overall interests.