The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • Educational exodus

    Educational exodus

    ONE of the most significant of Nigeria’s many paradoxes is the glaring disconnect between the academic prowess of its students and the decrepit state of the tertiary institutions available to them. This situation was recently decried by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors of Nigerian Universities who claimed that Nigerians spend about U.S. $500 million, or about N78.5 billion, on foreign universities annually.

    For a country that produced intellectual powerhouses like Professors Ayodele Awojobi, Kayode Osuntokun, Chinua Achebe and Wole Soyinka, among others, as well as centres of learning like the University of Ibadan, Ahmadu Bello University and the University of Nigeria, such news is tragic. Much of the money spent on acquiring education in European and American universities strengthens their economic prospects and enhances their teaching and research capabilities, while their Nigerian counterparts steadily decline into international irrelevance.

    Encouraged by their embassies and high commissions in Nigeria, foreign universities regularly stage so-called “education fairs” in order to aggressively market themselves, and the high attendance figures are a testimony to their popularity. To make matters worse, the Nigerian thirst for foreign learning has spread to countries in Africa and Asia which at first glance might be deemed to be no better than Nigeria. It is said that Nigerian students constitute the biggest source of external funding in Ghanaian universities. Such is the demand that Nigerian business and educational groups are actually building tertiary institutions outside the country’s borders.

    The increasing readiness of Nigerians to pursue tertiary education abroad in spite of the often-prohibitive cost is a testimony to how bad things have become in the country. Age-old challenges like incessant strikes, inadequate infrastructure, cultism, and low levels of teaching and research have worsened rather than improved. Government policy is lamentably inconsistent, veering between demands that tertiary institutions become financially independent, and the refusal to grant them the autonomy vital to achieving that goal.

    Instead of focusing on the comprehensive rehabilitation of public universities, the Jonathan administration appears to have adopted the strategy of facilitating the establishment of private universities which are accessible only to wealthy citizens. The recent setting-up of nine new federal universities in spite of the challenges facing their older counterparts is yet another example of the dubious policy framework that has aggravated already-intractable problems.

    There can be little doubt that the huge amounts being spent on tertiary education outside Nigeria could have very beneficial effects on the sector if a larger proportion of it was utilised within the country’s borders. For that to happen, however, there has to be a comprehensive programme aimed at the revival of tertiary institutions. Their major requirements should be identified and concretely addressed, especially those relating to classrooms, laboratories, libraries and accommodation for staff and students. The curricula of the various institutions must be re-examined where necessary; this will involve the rationalisation of some programmes and the expansion of others. Universities must be given the freedom to charge commercial rates for their services, while a robust scholarship system should be established to ensure that capable students are not denied tertiary education simply because they cannot afford it.

    It is clear that the long-standing opposition between tertiary education as a right, as opposed to a privilege is in fact a false choice. A truly qualitative tertiary education is relatively expensive and will have to be paid for. The Nigerians spending millions of dollars outside the country’s shores have already realised this to the disadvantage of their own country. If Nigeria can offer an educational experience that meets global standards, it will result in positive benefits for all citizens, and for the country as a whole.

  • INEC goes for the jugular?

    INEC goes for the jugular?

    Commission’s bid for powers to disqualify candidates is prone to abuse

    The likely dangers in the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC’s latest request for more powers, in its proposal to the National Assembly’s Constitution Review Committee, could be gleaned from the parties’ responses.

    The opposition parties – Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and the opposition umbrella group, Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP) have all opposed INEC’s bid for powers to disqualify candidates, and to levy a fine of N1 million on erring parties. But Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the federal ruling party, has hailed the move; Olisa Metuh, its national publicity secretary, claiming such a move is needed to deepen democracy.

    Why is PDP upbeat about INEC’s power to disqualify candidates? Does it feel, as the ruling party, whose candidate as president appoints the INEC chair, such legal instrumentality could come in handy to disqualify formidable opponents, if INEC lends itself to, or is forcefully lent, to manipulation? That is a legitimate supposition, given the grim reality of Nigerian sickening politics.

    On the other hand, the PDP would not stick its neck out, when the issue is full autonomy for INEC and the setting up of the Electoral Offences Commission, as the Muhammadu Uwais’s panel on electoral reforms had recommended, even if it did not outright oppose such a move.

    Why? Is it because autonomy would automatically cancel out the appointive advantage the PDP could have thought it could press into illicit service, if a president-appointed INEC chair is induced to disqualify popular opposition candidates? Ironically too, one of the staunchest canvassers for an INEC not solely nominated by the president is the ACN, the leading opposition party.

    The Attahiru Jega-chaired INEC had pushed forward a proposal that the electoral umpire be given powers to gain full autonomy (by the president not solely appointing its chairman and other ranking commissioners), to disqualify candidates, to secure constitutionally guaranteed timelines for pre-election matters and to levy a fine of N1 million on parties whose candidates had been disqualified for not playing by the rules.

    In fairness to INEC, none of the parties’ candidate nomination processes can pass the muster. The PDP exhibits its open primaries and goes to the extent of even doing it in the full glare of live television, to show its “openness” and “transparency”. But it has proved at best, the paradox of transparent rigging, given the corruption and executive impunity that have plagued the delegate voting system.

    On the other hand, the ACN insists on its right to a consensus system, as opposed to the American system of open primaries. “Is there primary in the United Kingdom or Israel,” queried Lai Mohammed, ACN national publicity secretary, in reaction to the INEC proposals. “Parties are like clubs, guided by rules.” Aye. But even Alhaji Mohammed would agree that the ACN has come under heavy criticisms, by members and non-members alike, over the perceived opacity of its consensus system.

    On balance therefore, neither PDP’s open primaries nor ACN’s consensus system has passed the muster of public scrutiny. The other parties operate within these two extremes. That may, in fairness, have motivated the INEC call to have the final rod to knock the parties into shape, for not strictly following their own rules.

    But not even that can be enough excuse for an INEC censure of party nomination affairs. The reason is simple: you do not remove an abuse by planting another. Besides, the charges of following or not following laid down rules are the prerogative of the courts, not the electoral commission.

    Indeed, with the penchant of Nigerian politicians to take brazen advantage of any slip, and with the president still the sole nominator of the INEC chief and principal national commissioners, the power to disqualify, in INEC’s hands, is open to abuse. The scandalous era of Maurice Iwu’s chairmanship of INEC is still fresh in memory; and military-era impunity to disqualify candidates at the whims and caprices of the powers-that-be still rankles on the memory. Such should never be allowed again.

    Still, that does not excuse intra-party nomination abuses. In truth, the gravest threat to the deepening of democracy today is the corruption of party nomination processes. If democracy does not guarantee quality service delivery but only guarantees electoral reward and punishment, it follows that both the nomination processes and the elections themselves must be above board. If either or both falter – and both would appear to be faltering right now – the result would be a loss of confidence in the electoral system; and the dire consequence is a grossly weakened democracy.

    That should not be allowed to happen – and the only way is to ensure party nominations and elections are radically improved. So, beyond partisan gains and losses, the political class must, as a sign of enlightened self-interest, as a matter of urgency, work on this twin-weakness. But not much, it regretfully appears, is happening on that lane.

    The INEC demand for full autonomy, on the other hand, is fair and legitimate. Indeed, that should be the apogee of the democratic system. An INEC not subject to executive abuse and suborning, but only to the strictures of the law that created it, is likelier to organise sane elections.

    Anything done to achieve that end can only strengthen the democratic system.

  • Commission’s bid for powers to disqualify candidates is prone to abuse

    The likely dangers in the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC’s latest request for more powers, in its proposal to the National Assembly’s Constitution Review Committee, could be gleaned from the parties’ responses.

    The opposition parties – Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and the opposition umbrella group, Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP) have all opposed INEC’s bid for powers to disqualify candidates, and to levy a fine of N1 million on erring parties. But Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the federal ruling party, has hailed the move; Olisa Metuh, its national publicity secretary, claiming such a move is needed to deepen democracy.

    Why is PDP upbeat about INEC’s power to disqualify candidates? Does it feel, as the ruling party, whose candidate as president appoints the INEC chair, such legal instrumentality could come in handy to disqualify formidable opponents, if INEC lends itself to, or is forcefully lent, to manipulation? That is a legitimate supposition, given the grim reality of Nigerian sickening politics.

    On the other hand, the PDP would not stick its neck out, when the issue is full autonomy for INEC and the setting up of the Electoral Offences Commission, as the Muhammadu Uwais’s panel on electoral reforms had recommended, even if it did not outright oppose such a move.

    Why? Is it because autonomy would automatically cancel out the appointive advantage the PDP could have thought it could press into illicit service, if a president-appointed INEC chair is induced to disqualify popular opposition candidates? Ironically too, one of the staunchest canvassers for an INEC not solely nominated by the president is the ACN, the leading opposition party.

    The Attahiru Jega-chaired INEC had pushed forward a proposal that the electoral umpire be given powers to gain full autonomy (by the president not solely appointing its chairman and other ranking commissioners), to disqualify candidates, to secure constitutionally guaranteed timelines for pre-election matters and to levy a fine of N1 million on parties whose candidates had been disqualified for not playing by the rules.

    In fairness to INEC, none of the parties’ candidate nomination processes can pass the muster. The PDP exhibits its open primaries and goes to the extent of even doing it in the full glare of live television, to show its “openness” and “transparency”. But it has proved at best, the paradox of transparent rigging, given the corruption and executive impunity that have plagued the delegate voting system.

    On the other hand, the ACN insists on its right to a consensus system, as opposed to the American system of open primaries. “Is there primary in the United Kingdom or Israel,” queried Lai Mohammed, ACN national publicity secretary, in reaction to the INEC proposals. “Parties are like clubs, guided by rules.” Aye. But even Alhaji Mohammed would agree that the ACN has come under heavy criticisms, by members and non-members alike, over the perceived opacity of its consensus system.

    On balance therefore, neither PDP’s open primaries nor ACN’s consensus system has passed the muster of public scrutiny. The other parties operate within these two extremes. That may, in fairness, have motivated the INEC call to have the final rod to knock the parties into shape, for not strictly following their own rules.

    But not even that can be enough excuse for an INEC censure of party nomination affairs. The reason is simple: you do not remove an abuse by planting another. Besides, the charges of following or not following laid down rules are the prerogative of the courts, not the electoral commission.

    Indeed, with the penchant of Nigerian politicians to take brazen advantage of any slip, and with the president still the sole nominator of the INEC chief and principal national commissioners, the power to disqualify, in INEC’s hands, is open to abuse. The scandalous era of Maurice Iwu’s chairmanship of INEC is still fresh in memory; and military-era impunity to disqualify candidates at the whims and caprices of the powers-that-be still rankles on the memory. Such should never be allowed again.

    Still, that does not excuse intra-party nomination abuses. In truth, the gravest threat to the deepening of democracy today is the corruption of party nomination processes. If democracy does not guarantee quality service delivery but only guarantees electoral reward and punishment, it follows that both the nomination processes and the elections themselves must be above board. If either or both falter – and both would appear to be faltering right now – the result would be a loss of confidence in the electoral system; and the dire consequence is a grossly weakened democracy.

    That should not be allowed to happen – and the only way is to ensure party nominations and elections are radically improved. So, beyond partisan gains and losses, the political class must, as a sign of enlightened self-interest, as a matter of urgency, work on this twin-weakness. But not much, it regretfully appears, is happening on that lane.

    The INEC demand for full autonomy, on the other hand, is fair and legitimate. Indeed, that should be the apogee of the democratic system. An INEC not subject to executive abuse and suborning, but only to the strictures of the law that created it, is likelier to organise sane elections.

    Anything done to achieve that end can only strengthen the democratic system.

  • Dangerous pastime

    Dangerous pastime

    JNI’s attempt to mix religion with security must be condemned by all

    What does Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI), a Muslim pressure group, hope to achieve by its reaction to military postings as a result of the terrorist bombing of a church facility at the Command and Staff College, Jaji, Kaduna State?

    Sequel to the bombing, which claimed lives and limbs, Air Vice Marshal Abdullahi Kure, commandant of the college, and Major-Gen. Muhammad D. Isa, corps commander, Infantry Centre and School (ICS), Jaji, were redeployed for alleged negligence. As far as the records go, there is no evidence that these two officers have complained over their new posting.

    But in a shocking written reaction, which Khalid Abubakar Aliyu, the JNI secretary-general signed, the body claimed the two officers were removed not because of any perceived incompetence but because of their religious leaning.

    JNI thundered: that the “two officers who were removed were Muslims and replaced by non-Muslims makes any discerning observer to be suspicious” – really?

    This is a most reprehensible and insensitive reaction to a shameful but avoidable national defence and security embarrassment. The high shrine of Nigerian military intellectualism is bombed, precious lives of innocent citizen-worshippers lost and the best JNI could manage is rabid plebeian complaints, erected on a suspect religious divide?

    Beyond playing the meddlesome interloper – and a reckless and dangerous one at that – what is JNI’s locus in a grave and sensitive national security matter?

    To start with, the two officers being disciplined, as far as we know, joined the military as qualified citizens; and earned promotion as competent soldiers, and not as fillers of some religious quota. So, if for perceived negligence their employers are disciplining them, what is JNI’s business in the matter?

    Besides, if two competent Muslims can command two key positions in Jaji, what is wrong with two Christians taking over the positions, if the former occupiers were found wanting in the command, as indeed they were with the Jaji bombings? Or does the paradigm then change because a set of officers were Christians and others were Muslims?

    That apart, is it not ridiculous talking of Christians and Muslims in sensitive military postings, when some murderous criminals, faking as faith-anchored terrorists, had just defiled a military high shrine, to the eternal shame of the rest of Nigerians?

    This JNI comment is both reckless and sinister. Reckless, because the bombers were suspected Muslim fanatics; and it was not the first time these criminals would bomb churches and kill innocent worshippers. And sinister, because JNI has adduced religious motives to a strictly military re-deployment, when no one has accused the two officers of complicity with the criminals.

    Is JNI then trying to force a Christian-Muslim divide in the military, and its dire consequences? Or is it saying that the military cannot redeploy and discipline its members, just because such members were Muslims?

    This is religious activism taken too far. Religious groupings and lobbies must stay out of national security matters. JNI must apologise for this asinine statement. It is enough humiliation that a high profile military facility can be so attacked. It is even worse that JNI is playing politics with the tragedy.

    This is a most dangerous pastime that must never be tolerated.

  • Our prisons

    Our prisons

    •This is terrible: 970 on the death row; 33,731 awaiting trial, in some cases for years!

    The Nigerian criminal justice system is a national embarrassment and there is need for a remedy. The scandal equates to a criminal impunity on the part of the state, if as reported by a daily newspaper, 33,731 of 51,004 prison inmates nationwide are awaiting trial. The paper also reported that 970 of the inmates are awaiting execution, having been condemned to death by the courts. A few days ago, this paper also reported that one of the ‘awaiting trial’ inmates at Kuje Prisons had spent 20 years in prison, for allegedly fighting with a neighbour. These grim data deserve swift action by the authorities, unless state torture is our national ethos.

    The data on awaiting trial inmates constitutes about 66 percent of the entire inmates of the prisons, yet we pride our country as a constitutional democracy. With a constitution proclaiming the accused innocent until proved guilty by a competent court of law, how does the Nigerian state defend the cruelty of allowing an accused to be in prison for decades awaiting trial for an offence that is punishable by two or three years imprisonment on conviction? Again, how do the state officials justify the double torture of permanently keeping on the death row, persons sentenced to death?

    Except in a clime where public officials are not accountable in the true sense of the word, these scandalous data are enough to sweep parties out of power, if truly democracy is alive and well. State executives who have sworn to defend the constitution must be reminded that what is happening in our prisons constitutes a gross abuse of human rights, which is protected by the constitution. It is incomprehensible that despite the huge budget allocations in the past few years at the federal and state levels to decongest the prisons, those involved have merely traded in human misery.

    If the executive represented by the police, prosecution and prisons have connived to degrade our humanity, the courts could come to their aid. A judge or magistrate could, for instance, insist that all persons standing trial before the court must be brought to the court on each court day, and officially keep a tab of those that suddenly drop off the court’s list, without the accused having been discharged. If the courts are part of the problem, the legislature can make a law to punish any state official that frustrates a speedy trial of criminal offence. They can also legislate to make trial less expensive and more expeditious.

    No doubt part of the crisis is the result of our defective federal system. While the police and prisons are federal institutions, the directorate of public prosecution for most of the offences is state-based. Also, the trial courts, in most cases the magistrate’s courts are state institutions; so there is no synergy or the leverage to deal with challenges or inefficiencies across the board. What we have is one institution’s inefficiencies rubbing off the other; while Nigerian citizens, sometimes innocent of the crimes they are accused of, suffer debilitating and humiliating cruelties in the hands of the state that should protect them.

    One other thorny problem is what to do with the condemned felons on the death row. While some Nigerians defend the death sentence, many condemn it. Death sentence has become unacceptable to many countries, just as many governors in the country are under pressure not to sign the required warrant for execution. To save the convicts the extra trauma of uncertainty, there is need for a compromise. May be, Nigeria should commute death penalties to life imprisonment.

  • Rigging the financial system

    Rigging the financial system

    The report this week that UBS, the Swiss bank, may be close to a deal with American and British authorities to settle charges that its employees manipulated interest rates to increase the bank’s trading profits signals incremental progress in the global investigation into rate rigging at more than a dozen big banks, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank. What it does not signal — at least not yet — is that regulators, prosecutors and political leaders are using the investigation to hold banks and bankers truly accountable for the magnitude of the wrongdoing. The rates in question, including Libor, the London inter-bank offered rate, are used to determine interest rates on trillions of dollars of loans and are linked to other transactions estimated at hundreds of trillions of dollars worldwide. By rigging the rates, the banks rigged the system against borrowers, consumers and investors everywhere.

    UBS is expected to pay more than $450 million, following on the $450 million settlement agreed to earlier this year by Barclays, the British bank, to resolve similar charges. At this stage, the UBS settlement — like the Barclays deal — appears to be focused on civil, not criminal charges. Barclays escaped criminal prosecution in part because it was the first to cooperate in the investigation. The Justice Department left open the possibility of criminally prosecuting officers or employees of Barclays, but it has not yet done so.

    UBS has reached a conditional immunity deal with the antitrust arm of the Justice Department, though the department’s criminal unit could still take action against the bank. Unless civil penalties are paired with high profile criminal prosecutions, they will not add up to meaningful punishment or effective deterrence.

    There is little indication that the authorities will learn the right lesson from the rate-rigging scandal. Most of the discussion has centered on reforming the system for setting Libor and other rates. That is obviously needed. But these cases also show, once again, how big banks are driven to recklessness and even illegal conduct by the pursuit of trading profits, to the detriment of bank soundness and the public interest. So far, there have been only fledgling attempts by American and European politicians and regulators to curb and isolate excessive speculation, which means that even if Libor is made less susceptible to manipulation, behemoth banks still pose a danger to the broader economy.

    – New York Times

  • Pipeline vandals

    Pipeline vandals

    We cannot allow this plunder to continue in the face of poverty

    Reports quoting an unnamed Presidency source say Nigeria is losing about N105billion annually to the activities of pipeline vandals. This may be true. But, what did the government official expect from Nigerians to whom he made the disclosure? The official said nothing new though, because pipeline vandals have been with us for years. Without doubt, N105billion is a lot of money to lose annually, but that this has been on for years is indication of the lack of seriousness on the part of the government to deal with the hoodlums.

    Of course the pipelines are part of our national assets and should therefore be guarded jealously. Indeed, any threat to them ought to be treated as threat to national security because of the pivotal role that petroleum products play in our national life. But, how do Nigerians police about 5,120 kilometres of pipelines in the country? This is the question that the government has to provide an answer to.

    And, if the answer is in the negative, it means the ball is back in the government’s court. There are four means by which fuel could be distributed: the first is by transporting it by road; the second is by sea; the third by rail and the fourth is transporting it via the pipelines. For a country with a total land mass of about 910,770 sq km and a population of about 150 million, we will require about 1,061 trucks plying our roads daily, given the current contribution of about 35 million litres of PMS daily by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to the national demand. The risks are legion: first is the problem of security of the products; then, the wear and tear on the roads; again, we have to contend with the likely increase in road accidents, etc. So, the road option is out of it.

    Transportation by either rail or sea is also not feasible given the dilapidated state of the infrastructure in both the sea and rail sectors. So, we are left with the pipelines. This being the case, the government has to invest massively in providing the pipelines and maintaining them, even as it has to ensure they are relatively secure. But what do we see? Government continues to inundate us with the havoc wreaked by pipeline vandals as if it is completely helpless in the situation. And, if in spite of the massive instruments of coercion at its disposal the government cannot rein in the vandals, who can?

    The fact is that the vandals have seen vandalism as a thriving business and they are ready to go all out to achieve their aim, irrespective of the effects on the economy or even on their lives. There have been instances when their activities had resulted in the deaths of some of them and even innocent members of the public; yet, they are not deterred.

    Their desperation could be seen in the gruesome murder, a few months ago, of three engineers of the Pipeline Products and Marketing Company (PPMC) who went to repair vandalised pipelines at Arepo, Ogun State. Months after, the PPMC is yet to gain access to the vandalised points to effect repairs as a result of security challenges. What impression is the government trying to create: that the vandals are larger than the government?

    Security of lives and property as well as national assets like the pipelines is the government’s duty. And it is the job of the regular security agencies – the police and the military. We have argued that the more than N5billion so-called security contracts to militants to protect the pipelines was mere job for the boys. Government must think of more creative ways to deal with the problem. What Nigerians want is security for the pipelines and not unending excuses of the challenges posed by the pipeline vandals.

  • A governor’s frustration

    A governor’s frustration

    People want soldiers involved in internal security because the police can’t cope

    Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan, Governor of Delta State, strongly believes that the problems of kidnapping and illegal bunkering in his domain deserve sterner handling. His apt position could not have come at a better time than now when the powerful syndicates behind these nefarious activities, not only in Delta but other oil-producing states, are proving to be above the law. Their despicable acts have so far made security agencies’ efforts geared towards nipping the ugly trends in the bud so ordinary.

    Uduaghan, as the chief security officer of the state seized the opportunity of a courtesy visit on him by Lt.-Gen. Azubuike Ihejirika, Chief of Army Staff and the leadership of the Nigerian Army, before the commencement of the 2012 Annual Chief of Army Staff Conference held in Asaba, to seek sustained help of the Nigerian Army to complement his administration’s efforts against the two cankerworms. He said: “One of the three major agenda of this government is ensuring that there is peace and security; and in achieving that agenda, the Army has played a very big role in ensuring that there is peace and security….Sometimes, some of the issues are overwhelming for the other security agencies and we had to call the Army and they have done so creditably… with the cooperation of your men on the ground, we are gradually surmounting all those challenges.’’

    We agree that there should be productive working relationship between the army and states across the federation, especially in critical or emergency moments when internal cohesion of any part of the country is under threat. To a reasonable extent, this would help in boosting the effective discharge of state duties by governors who by the dictates of the 1999 Constitution are the chief security officers of their states.

    However, despite the laudable roles of the military in restoring sanity in flash point states, there is no doubt that the cankerworms of kidnapping and illegal bunkering and even terrorism, among other vices, could be better approached for lasting relief, in the larger interest of the nation. The use of soldiers and other military personnel to checkmate these deleterious activities is good but such stop-gap solution cannot take the nation far. The best tactics that can subdue these avoidable societal milieus is to deploy state intelligence to combat them. So far, the problems are festering because of failure of intelligence.

    We are aware of the existence of the Directorate of Military Intelligence and even the National Intelligence Agency, (NIA), etc., but the truth is that their impact has not been deeply felt; the problems keep recurring. Or, could it be that vital information needed in dealing with these challenges were sourced by the intelligence services but suppressed by powerful elements in the corridors of power?

    Whatever the case is, we should not lose sight of the fact that by and large, it is the duty of the police to maintain internal security. It is only in exceptional circumstances that the military can be brought in to restore order. Uduaghan’s invitation to the military, like most other people who have called for military involvement in internal crisis resolution is borne out of the fact that the police are incapable of dealing with the security issues for obvious reasons. It is the duty of the government to give the police all they need to deal with the threats to security. Soldiers should be kept in the barracks. We do not have to keep tempting them by calling them out all the time to deal with internal crises.

  • What’s missing in the latest Greek bailout

    What’s missing in the latest Greek bailout

    The new Greek bailout deal agreed to Tuesday by euro zone finance ministers and the International Monetary Fund is a clear improvement over earlier deals. It recognizes that Greece’s current and projected ratios of debt to output are unsustainable. It prescribes useful steps to lower that ratio, including lower interest rates on loans from Greece’s European partners, longer bond maturities and a plan for Athens to buy back and retire some of its heavily discounted bonds.

    Regrettably, it excludes more effective tools, like actual debt write-downs, which Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, finds politically unpalatable. And in deference to Ms. Merkel, the deal postpones some of the promised relief until after German elections next September.

    But its biggest mistake is conditioning relief on maintaining fiscal austerity. Greece’s only hope for long-term solvency is through aggressive measures to revive economic growth. These could include public investment in modernizing ports and infrastructure, tax cuts to encourage export industries, and better public education. Done right, such measures would more than pay for themselves by improving Greece’s competitiveness in global and European markets. The bailout deal should keep Greece financially solvent for the next few months, but the price could prove too much for Greece’s economy and society to bear. Beginning in 2016, Greece will be committed to extracting a budgetary surplus (excluding interest payments) from a shrinking economy. And it is expected to reduce debt-to-output ratios while output continues to fall.

    Greece’s output is now almost 25 percent lower than it was in 2008. This year alone it will be down 6.4 percent. Next year, factoring in the new package of tax increases and spending cuts approved by the Greek Parliament last month at European insistence, it is expected to fall even further. That means less business and less personal income to pay taxes. Unemployment is now over 25 percent. Health benefits for the long-term unemployed have already been cut. So have pensions for the elderly and wages for those still working.

    Greece’s prime minister, Antonis Samaras, hailed this week’s debt agreement as the transformation of “endless austerity”into a program that “will lead to growth.” Unfortunately, it promises nothing of the kind, and Mr. Samaras’s fragile coalition shows signs of fracturing under the economic strain. It might not even be able to stagger on until the German election next year. If it falls, Greece could be headed for default and exit from the euro. That catastrophe can still be avoided — but only if Ms. Merkel decides to put the survival of Greece and the future of the European Union ahead of her own electoral calculations.

    – New York Times

  • Reign of anarchy

    Reign of anarchy

    •Auchi robberies show police still have a long way to catch up with bandits

    For three hours that seemed interminable, residents of Auchi in Edo State last week had a taste of hell as an army of robbers terrorised the town in a shocking operation carried out with bullets, dynamites and bombs. Reports said the bandits incredibly numbered over 100 and rode on motorcycles and buses, leaving a trail of death and destruction. In the reign of anarchy, 15 people were killed, four banks robbed, and a police station vandalised. The quarters of soldiers attached to the state’s security outfit, Operation Thunderstorm, also came under attack. The scale of the violence prompted Mr Rasaq Momoh, the lawmaker representing Etsako West II in the state House of Assembly, to describe the incident as a “terrorist attack.”

    An unsettling aspect of the Auchi raid is the reported size of the group of bandits involved, which should draw attention to the state of the nation, with high unemployment figures and widespread poverty constituting a huge threat to social security. We recall that a similar crime happened in Lagos recently when a gang of violent robbers seized the streets of the city for several hours in what was tagged “Bloody Sunday.”

    From the evidence, despite the use of terror tactics, the Auchi incident was actually an attack by the robbers on some banks, GTB, Access Bank, First Bank and Ecobank, where they left in their wake shattered windows and doors, smashed ATM machines and broken walls, and got away with money. Their greed was evident in an opportunistic move, as they even stole from a female road-side trader, Iyabo Omon, who said, “They took the chickens and other items I displayed for sale.”

    Clearly, the police were caught napping when the bandits struck, which is both unbelievable and inexplicable. It was a massive minus that the robbery attack took the police by surprise, showing that they were ill-prepared for such a raid. How can the police force explain that within the period the siege lasted, paralysing the entire town, its men failed to come up with any resistance? If anything, the daring bombing of the Auchi Police Station by the brigands showed a helpless force, as reports said many of the policemen fled in the face of superior firepower.

    If the police appeared unpardonably weak in the circumstances, the inaction of the state’s special security unit was no less intolerable. It was to be expected that where the police were vulnerable and handicapped, the men of Operation Thunderstorm would be equal to the challenge. Of what function then is this security outfit, if it could not confront the daredevils in what was, to all intents and purposes, an emergency? The fact that the robbers were audacious enough to take their attack to the outfit’s command quarters without serious reprisals defeated its security essence.

    One curious but incontestable reality discernible from the security challenge is that criminals are in possession of very sophisticated modern weapons; they, therefore, tend to have an advantage over the police in a shoot-out. It is baffling that the government has allowed criminals to outclass the law enforcement agency in this crucial area, with the ridiculous result that policemen have been known to take to their heels in encounters with robbers, as was the case in Auchi. It deserves to be noted that the Edo State Deputy Governor, Pius Odubu, highlighted this disturbing deficiency on the part of the police when he visited the scenes of the crime and urged the police to upgrade the quality of their arms.

    No doubt, the government is expected to pay more than lip service to this requirement and equip the police with effective weapons to maintain law and order in the society. The police should be given all it takes to combat crime in this day and age.