Category: Editorial

•Enugu State people deserve to know what is wrong with their governor

It is sensational that Enugu State Governor, Sullivan Chime, has been away from his duty post inexplicably for over two months. This has, understandably, generated widespread public anxiety over his health and whereabouts. Before the mysterious development, Chime, on September 19, attended the Council of State meeting in Abuja. Since then, it has been speculations galore concerning his circumstances. It has not helped matters that official information about his situation falls short of full disclosure. He is said to be on vacation, without concomitant clarification of the leave period and his location.

Compounding the ambiguity, a letter he reportedly transmitted to the Speaker of the state House of Assembly, Mr Eugene Odo, before leaving the country, thereby clearing Deputy Governor Sunday Onyebuchi to become acting governor, was never read on the floor of the house, contrary to the procedure. What a curious omission! It is interesting that Onyebuchi has not been visible as acting governor, which has hindered government’s activities in the state, particularly as he is believed to have an approval limit of N500, 000.

The latest report ( or was it speculation) on Chime, which is that he returned to the country only to be flown out again following health complications, has further deepened the mystery as it suggests that the official account of his absence might just be a cover-up. Is the governor ill? Did he travel abroad for medical treatment? Has his condition improved or deteriorated? Regrettably, discussion of the governor’s state of health has been treated as off-limits by government officials, as if it should not concern the people.

Inquiring about the governor’s health does not make anyone a busybody. A public office holder of Chime’s status should appreciate the fact that a democratic culture implies more transparency and less secrecy in governance. It is the people’s business to know if anything is amiss with their leader, who by his position as a public figure must be ready to give up his privacy in the people’s interest. It is an aberration to lead a public life as a private citizen.

Official concealment of this type is certainly not strange in these parts, despite the fact that it is undesirable and should be discouraged. Consider the high-profile suppression of the truth in the recent case of First Lady Patience Jonathan who also puzzlingly disappeared from public view for a long period, and the official secrecy that surrounded her health status. To go back a bit further, consider also the ridiculous extent to which the truth about the late President Umaru Yar’Adua’s terminal health condition was shielded from the public by overzealous government officials before he died in office.

There is a sense in which such official concealment amounts to living in denial and playing God. Since it is a fact that as human beings we are all susceptible to illness, why do our leaders love to disguise reality and project that all is well when it is not so? Why do they always miss such opportunities to declare their humanity, and benefit from the fellow-feeling of the people? It is lamentable that the power game blinds such leaders to their own undeniable mortality.

Whatever might be wrong with Chime probably did not begin today. It is on record that he once collapsed in public during his campaign for office, and had to be revived. It was not clear why he slumped, and although he won the election for a second term as governor last year, the issue of his suspect health remained in the public space. Did the stress of public office compound his condition?

Obviously, the leaders need to be more honest with the people on their health status, just as the people need to pay greater attention to their leaders’ health issues, for the greater good of effective governance.

•An eminent jurist departs

Nigeria surely has lost one of its preeminent jurists of all times, Justice Kayode Esho, who died on Novemebr 16 at the Hammersmith Hospital in London, aged 87. The learned jurist served the country meritoriously as a Justice of the Supreme Court for 12 years. While at the apex court, he belonged to what is commonly referred to as the core panel of the golden era of the Supreme Court. Respected internationally for his erudition and unimpeachable integrity, Justice Esho wrote some of the best judgments of the apex court. An orator, pianist and disciplinarian, he enjoyed classical music, and was at home both at the bench and on the pulpit.

Justice Esho loved books, and could be referred to as the best Chief Justice Nigeria never had. The learned Justice took first and second degrees in Law, from the University of Dublin, and nourished a rich library at his country home. He was called to the English Bar in November 1954, and the Nigerian Bar in December of the same year. He practised in Jos, Plateau State, for four years, before he joined the Western Region Legal Department as a draughtsman, where he was in charge of civil litigation in the region. In 1965, he was appointed to the bench, as a high court Judge, and by 1967, he was promoted to the Western State Court of Appeal. After serving as the Chief Judge of Oyo State between 1976 and 1978, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Justice Esho proudly stood out as a judicial activist, and left several imprints of social activism in his judgments. Against the tide, he wrote the dissenting judgment in the case instituted by Chief Obafemi Awolowo over the 1979 presidential election, which brought Alhaji Shehu Shagari into the presidency. He rejected the proposition that two-third of 19 states was 12 plus two-third instead of 13 states. He was also the judge that freed Wole Soyinka from the gulag during the politically tempestuous years leading to the civil war.

Justice Esho was born in Ilesha, Osun State, and was educated at Holy Trinity School, Omofe, Ilesha, from 1933 to 1939. He also attended Ilesha Grammar School, between 1940 and 1944. He was a Christian and a beloved family man. Justice Esho served as the Chancellor of the Diocese of Ilesha for 33 years, built and dedicated a church behind his house in Ilesha, called Church of the Risen Christ. Until his death he was the revered head of the Esho dynasty, and during his long life mentored several relations and non-relations. Respected at home and revered abroad, Justice Esho was recently awarded the meritorious honour of Commander of the Order of the Federal Republic by President Goodluck Jonathan. He served on the Commonwealth panel that put together the South African constitution.

Following his death, many eminent Nigerians have been eulogising him. Governor Ibikunle Amosun of Ogun State believes that Justice Esho ‘used the law as an instrument of social re-engineering’. According to Mr. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN), Justice Esho ‘bestrode the legal firmament with unequalled gusto, a consistent advocate of a corrupt-free judiciary’. For Bamidele Aturu, ‘Eso was outstanding in terms of integrity, in terms of dedication to service and in terms of commitment to sound legal principles of law’.

Governor Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State, while declaring a three-day mourning period in his honour, said: ‘the exit of the legal icon is sad and we pray against such unfortunate incident. His life was dedicated to both the rich and the poor and he was a patriot per excellence.’ We cannot agree more. May his soul rest in peace.

Shortly after Hurricane Sandy knocked out the power for millions of people in the Northeast, Gov. Andrew Cuomo began hammering New York’s utilities for their inadequate response to the disaster. They were not “God-given monopolies,” he said. And last week he called for a special investigative commission to determine why the state’s utilities — in particular the hapless Long Island Power Authority — left so many people in the dark and cold for so long.

Mr. Cuomo was right to call for an investigation. But if the investigators are diligent, they will find that one of the problems — and also one of the answers for a more reliable system — lies right in the governor’s office.

The governor of New York has much to say about the state’s power systems, including Long Island’s main utility. He appoints 9 of the 15 members of LIPA’s board, which now has five openings. The governor could and should have filled three of these positions long ago. The authority has been without a permanent chief executive for two years, and the acting executive announced last week that he would resign. Many important management positions are occupied by political appointees.

Mr. Cuomo says that he has been planning for some time to overhaul LIPA and streamline the state’s utility system. But allowing such managerial ineptitude to fester was bound to lead to disaster, as alarmingly documented by Hurricane Sandy. About 90 percent of the authority’s customers lost power, in part because of inexcusably poor planning by people with little knowledge of or interest in the electricity business. An investigation by The Times revealed that as Sandy bore down on the Eastern seaboard, the authority’s trustees spent essentially no time worrying about its impact. The chairman later explained that they believed a plan was in place.

Further inquiries showed that the authority had failed to take the most elementary precautions despite the lessons of Tropical Storm Irene, which left a half-million of its customers without power in August 2011. Trees, for example, had long gone untrimmed, exposing power lines to falling branches. Workers seeking to restore power had to rely on an antiquated system and paper maps to determine exactly where power lines were damaged.

The Long Island authority was originally created by the governor’s father, Gov. Mario Cuomo, to help close the Shoreham nuclear power plant and cut costs to consumers. Yet its 1.1 million customers now pay some of the highest rates in the country.

Obviously, as the governor has noted, the system has been poorly managed and needs an overhaul. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is also conducting an investigation. The end result of both his inquiry and the governor’s should be a dispassionate record of what went wrong and, even more important, a road map for a more professional and less political utility.

– New York Times

Six months have passed since that invidious scandal broke out; searing the very psyche of the nation and her people. Yet, none in government has deemed it fit to take any action, if only to purport that Nigeria is part of the modern civilised universe. We of course refer to what has been dubbed the subsidygate, the bribery allegation scandal against a ranking legislator, Mr. Farouk Lawan, and top businessman, Mr. Femi Otedola.

The bribery scandal, which was itself a chain in a cycle of another corruption scandal involving the Federal Government and oil marketers had its genesis in the dramatic removal, last January, of a so-called subsidy in the importation of petroleum products. The sudden yanking off of the subsidy had elicited a spontaneous reaction from Nigerians who insisted on a reversal, proper consultation and possibly, alternative solution to the problem.

The ensuing violent protestations and near-total shutdown of the country for about a week moved the government to set in motion a series of panels to investigate the subsidy regime which had clearly become untenable even to the government. The alarm actually triggered when it dawned on all that one year subsidy payout was almost surpassing the capital expenditure in the federal budget.

It was in the frenzy of the moment that the House of Representatives, not to be outdone by the executive arm, set up its own committee headed by Farouk, perhaps the longest serving member. No sooner did the committee turn in its earth-shaking report which revealed how oil marketers had colluded with government officials to fleece the nation of about N1.07 trillion in purported subsidy than Farouk and his team was shafted with a deadly allegation.

Farouk had enjoyed only a few days as a national hero of immense courage and integrity when one of the marketers under scrutiny, Mr. Otedola, revealed to a stunned nation how he had ‘bribed’ Farouk in a ‘sting’ operation. Otedola had tell-tale, if not a ribald video ‘evidence’ to corroborate his ‘sting’ operation story. He claimed he had paid Farouk an initial $620,000.00 out of a total $3 million. It was too real, too shocking to believe or even disbelieve. The populace was, in a manner of speaking, torn to pieces as their emerging hero, in a quick, sad twist, was kissing the dust of villainy. The hunter became the hunted.

The tale became even more twisted as the thief catcher was framed in an awkward position necessitating yet another panel to probe him. Last June, the House’s Committee on Ethics and Privileges was mandated to investigate Otedola’s allegations against Farouk. The committee had 21 days to submit its report. Six months have passed, yet the committee has presented no report. The House has not deemed it fit to make an official statement on the matter either. By the same token, the police started an investigation on this high-wire criminal matter and they have only managed to lead the people to a cul-de-sac.

We find it uncanny, and we believe numerous Nigerians are in the same state of bemusement, that such a matter as this which touches the very fabric of our society and is capable of defining not only the character of this government, but its rating in the comity of nations, is treated with so much levity. We wish to remind that if the Federal Government, the police and the House imagine that this sordid affair will just vanish from the public arena without proper resolution, it will not happen. The subsidy matter is a fundamental issue that defines an epoch. We urge the House to release its panel’s report and drive the matter to its logical end.

•Even with victims of the flood disaster, Jonathan keeps faith with his policy flip flop

Both cheery and dreary news emerged this week for victims of the national flood disaster, from the Goodluck Jonathan administration. Is this a case of lack of coordination or simply policy flip flop?

From the Federal Ministry of Agriculture has come the good news that 40, 000 metric tons of local staples would be released to displaced flood victims nationwide, with 1, 333 trailers bearing the stock, the first step in the N9.7 billion Food Recovery Production Plan.

But from Bayelsa, the president’s home state, has come disheartening news, that displaced refugees were being forcibly ejected from their camp, amidst great lamentation and gnashing of teeth, with the authority to disband reportedly coming from Rear Admiral John Jonah, chairman of the Bayelsa Flood Relief Management Committee. Lt. Col. Bernard Kenebai (rtd), Governor Seriake Dickson’s special adviser on security was said to have led security agencies to enforce the order; leading to protests by the luckless refugees.

That the released grains – maize, millet, gari and sorghum, prized local staples – come from Nigeria’s national strategic food reserve silos is heart-warming. Though strategic grain reserves are routine in other spheres, it is gratifying all the same to realise Nigeria, maybe, is not as plan-less as perhaps many a citizen would like to believe. It is kudos to Dr. Akinwunmi Adesina, the agriculture minister, and his staff.

The distribution formula would also appear fair and equitable. Having earlier classified the flood disaster into four brackets, depending on the severity of the flooding, the states in Category A (Benue, Plateau, Adamawa, Oyo, Kogi, Bayelsa, Delta and Anambra) would get 50 trailer loads of grains; Category B states (Lagos, Imo, Bauchi, Kano, Jigawa, Nasarawa, Kaduna, Taraba, Niger, Cross River and Edo) would receive 40 trailer loads; Category C (Ebonyi, Rivers, Kwara, Abia, Ogun, Ondo, Gombe and Katsina): 30 trailer loads each; and Category D (Borno, Yobe, Enugu, Ekiti, Osun, Zamfara, Kebbi, Sokoto, Akwa Ibom and the FCT): 25 trailer loads each.

But pray, with a disbanded refugee camp, where do the Bayelsa victims of the flooding get their own share of the food relief? And to think Bayelsa is the president’s state! How could the authorities explain that victims in Bayelsa, one of the worst hit states, now stand, if care is not taken, to benefit least from the relief, since they have been forcibly removed from their camps? So, whereas states nominally affected by the flooding get food relief, Bayelsa might not. That is not good enough and should not be allowed to happen.

Besides, the Bayelsa development seems to reinforce yet again a recurring decimal in the Jonathan Presidency: lack of coordination and avoidable flip flops. The earlier this worrying trend is stopped, the better.

Whatever reasons the Bayelsa State government has to have taken the action it did, it ought to have been more circumspect and much more compassionate in the handling of the situation. Citizens just coming to grips with the trauma of mass displacement are hardly the right sort of people to be visited with yet another displacement.

Whatever happens, Governor Dickson must ensure the affected people, wherever they are, benefit from the food relief. Otherwise, the whole exercise would degenerate into a sham, ending up with people who don’t need the food, while those who genuinely do starve.

This year’s round of state judicial elections broke previous records for the amounts spent on judicial campaigns around the country. The dominant role played by special-interest money — including money from super PACs financed by undisclosed donors — has severely weakened the principle of fair and impartial courts.

In Florida, for example, three respected State Supreme Court justices won their retention election battles, but only after they were forced to raise more than $1.5 million in total. They had put on expensive campaigns because they were targeted for defeat by moneyed conservatives who wanted to drive them off the bench for their supposed liberal views. The justices were absolutely right to fight back. Still, the bitter campaigns leave impressions of judicial partisanship and indebtedness to campaign donors.

Nationally, spending on television advertisements in state supreme court races reached nearly $28 million by Election Day, exceeding the $24.4 million in 2004, the previous record for a presidential election year, according to the Brennan Center for Justiceand Justice at Stake, non-partisan groups working for fair courts. Groups not connected to candidate campaigns paid for more than half of the TV ads run, compared with about 30 percent in 2010, making it much harder for candidates to control their own message.

In Michigan, where three of seven seats on the State Supreme Court were up for election, records were set for both spending and lack of accountability. The $3.2 million raised by candidates and reported to the Michigan Bureau of Elections was dwarfed by unreported spending by the political parties and outside groups interested in tilting the balance on the court. One ad run by an independent group against Bridget McCormack, a Democratic candidate for a seat on the court, featured the mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan and suggested that Ms. McCormack’s legal work for a detainee released from Guantánamo Bay in 2007 showed support for terrorism. Ms. McCormack won the race.

Of the $15 million or so spent for TV ads in Michigan, 75 percent cannot be attributed to identifiable donors, notes Rich Robinson, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which advocates changing Michigan law to bar undisclosed independent spending. That exceeds even the 2010 record, when half the total spending on Michigan Supreme Court races came from secret sources.

Regrettably, states that elect their top judges show no inclination to address these distressing trends by replacing judicial elections with systems of merit appointment that avoid retention votes. This year’s experience should at least hasten state efforts to revise rules for judicial refusal to take campaign contributions into account. Mandatory disclosure of all donations to a judicial race is also essential. Litigants cannot know when they should request that a judge step aside if they cannot tell whether their case involves a party that supported the judge’s campaign.

– New York Times

•The former leader has no moral right to pontificate on Nigeria’s problems because he is involved

HAD he not pursued a military career, former President Olusegun Obasanjo would most certainly have been a consummate professional actor. The tempestuous Obasanjo was at his theatrical best last Tuesday in Warri, Delta State, when he was the moderator of a public lecture by former Minister of External Affairs, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, in honour of the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor. The CAN leader was commemorating his 40th anniversary on the pulpit.

A shrewd tactician, Chief Obasanjo obviously carefully chose the occasion to launch a fierce attack on his successors, the late Umaru Yar’Adua and the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan for being weak in tackling both the Boko Haram insurgency and the scourge of corruption. He argued that Boko Haram ought to have been nipped in the bud.

The first question that comes to mind is: what moral justification does Chief Obasanjo have to moralise about governance to anybody? Was this not the same man who presided over the affairs of the country between 1999 and 2007 and left it far worse in virtually every sector than he met it? To make matters worse, Chief Obasanjo sought to portray himself as a strong and purposeful leader. He probably thinks we will look back at his tenure with nostalgia and be regretting the abortion of his third term agenda. If so, the general is lost in wonderland. He must wake up and face the reality. Most Nigerians hold him responsible for the problems that confront and threaten the very existence of the country today.

Apparently giving an indication of how he would have handled Boko Haram, Obasanjo justified his sending soldiers to practically raze down the Odi community in retaliation for the murder of 19 soldiers when he was in office. In his words, “I attended to a problem that I saw. I sent soldiers. They were killed, 19 of them were decapitated. If I had allowed that to continue, I would not have the authority to order soldiers anywhere again. I attended to it”. Does this suggest that if he were in power, he would have razed to the ground Borno and Yobe states, which are the key centres of Boko Haram’s operations? That is hardly the most intelligent way to contain what is a complex socio-economic and political problem.

Chief Obasanjo should really be told to keep quiet and stop insulting Nigerians with his often hypocritical homilies. He blames his successors for not nipping Boko Haram in the bud. But when several northern governors declared Sharia law in their states during his presidency, what did he do about it? Absolutely nothing. If decisive action had been taken then to preserve the country’s secular constitution, perhaps we would not have the Boko Haram scourge today.

Again, Chief Obasanjo contends that the anti-corruption war has slackened compared to when he was in office. But the truth also is that he did not bequeath to the nation truly autonomous and professional anti-corruption agencies. The agencies are thus vulnerable to manipulation by any incumbent administration. Beyond this, the anti-corruption war under him was motivated more by political vendetta than any genuine desire to tame the menace.

We really do not know what Chief Obasanjo means when he says: “If you don’t want a strong leader who can have all the characteristics of a leader, including the fear of God, then you have a weak leader and the rest of the problem is yours”. Pray, was it not the same Obasanjo that imposed an ailing Yar’Adua and an uninspiring Jonathan on the nation? So, what is he complaining about?