Category: Editorial

PRESIDENT Goodluck Jonathan, according to newspaper reports, may cancel the N5.6 billion pipeline security contracts his government has handed former militants. That is good riddance to bad rubbish. That contract should not to have been signed in the first instance.

But will the president have the nerves to revise himself and do the right thing? That is doubtful, given the Jonathan patented vacillation.

One news report talked of crude production, as a result of incessant oil thefts, plummeting from the peak of 2.7 million barrels a day (mbd) after the all-time low of 1.3 mbd during the oil militancy crisis, had dropped to 2.5 mbd. Another report talked of further drop to 1.95 mbd because of the nationwide flooding crisis, during which the Niger Delta basin was among the worst hit.

As a result of the flourishing theft, Royal Dutch Shell, Nigeria’s largest crude producer, is anticipating a 20 per cent drop in its quarterly report, most of the financial bleeding coming from pipeline attacks, these same pipelines the former militants got a contract to protect.

Even the International Energy Agency (IEA), the global watchdog on oil exploration, exploitation and allied matters, has said in its latest monthly report that Nigeria had lost a whopping US $7 billion to crude oil theft – and it would appear the illicit bonanza continues unabated.

That explains a hurting president’s jeremiad, according to a news report, that the former militants had let him down “after sticking out his neck” for them! But again, that showed the plebeian thinking of giving out to private citizens a sensitive security contract, which should be the exclusive preserve of the Navy.

To make matters worse, none of the beneficiaries would appear willing to take responsibility, beyond the blatant blackmail that cancellation of the N5.6 billion contract could push back 5,000 Niger Delta youths into the unemployment market – a veiled threat that pipeline vandalisation would explode, and the country would lose much more, just as it did before the militant amnesty and this sweetheart deal.

Government Ekpemupolo aka Tompolo’s Oil Facilities Surveillance Ltd accounts for N3.6 billion of the contract, Victor Ebikabowei aka Boyloaf bagged a N580 million contract to guide pipelines in Bayelsa State, while the quad of Asari-Dokubo, Ateke Tom, Ipabilo Gagogo Farah and Soboma Jackrich netted a N2 billion contract to protect oil-pipelines in Rivers State.

While two of the groups have not spoken, Rex Anighoro, spokesperson for the Asari-Dokubo group, shed a penetrating light on the thinking process of his group. “The contract,” he declared, “was duly awarded by the NNPC to the beneficiaries, who are qualified citizens. So, if there is a problem, those who awarded the contract should be asked about the bottleneck.” Such swashbuckling!

But what qualification or security track record might this group of citizens have, beyond once being involved in Niger Delta militancy – and the not altogether unreasonable argument that perhaps Niger Delta natives were best placed to secure oil pipelines, since such beneficiaries would see these assets as theirs? Unfortunately, the dire results from the contract and the sanguine posturing by at least one of the beneficiary parties have not justified such optimism and reasonableness.

That however does not negate the imperative to empower locals of the area where oil is being drilled, with the telling destruction of the eco-system and attendant human misery. But it stresses the point that any decision on the security of national assets should be based strictly on clinical reason, and never on sentiments. That was the making of this debacle.

Protecting pipelines and allied marine security should be the exclusive preserve of the Nigerian Navy. So, the earlier the president corrects the anomalous situation, the better for the common wealth. But that should be without prejudice to looking into other non-security areas to empower Niger Delta locals.

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER has made some encouraging statements since last week’s election, pointing toward productive policy-making. This was not one of them:

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that we’ve had climate change over the last 100 years,” he told USA Today. “What has initiated it, though, has sparked a debate that’s gone on now for the last 10 years.” The Ohio Republican continued: “I don’t think we’re any closer to the answer than we were 10 years ago.”

President Obama recently sounded some positive notes on climate change, perhaps the most neglected big issue of the 2012 campaign. His comments rekindled hopes of environmentalists that his second term will see more aggressive policymaking to combat global warming than did his first. Mr. Boehner’s words, which appear to mischaracterize the scientific debate on global warming, indicate that blinkered Republican opposition to doing much of anything about the problem may persist.

Climate science is complicated, but the basic physical principles on which the scientific consensus is based are not. Gases such as carbon dioxide trap the energy that pours down on the Earth from the sun, making the Earth habitable. Since the middle of the 20th century, scientists have studied the warming effects of adding large amounts of additional heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, and they have made great progress since then in describing how and why the world is warming, and how that trend is likely to play out years and decades from now.

Scientists use real-world observations to describe the climate’s past, recent and distant. Then they build complex models that reflect those and other observations and run them on supercomputers. After decades of this, nearly every expert agrees that global warming is a problem and that a chief cause is the oil, gas and coal burned by humans. The biggest question now is not whether human-produced greenhouse emissions have an effect but how significant that effect will be.

In Mr. Boehner’s “last 10 years” alone, the models and the quality of the information that feeds into them have gotten progressively better. Just last week, the journal Science published a study from two climate researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research that addresses the behavior of clouds in different climate models, one of the primary sources of continuing uncertainty about how sensitive the climate will be to increased levels of carbon dioxide. Using satellite measurements of relative humidity, they determined that the models that predict relatively modest warming did not reflect the satellite record as well as those predicting much more alarming outcomes. In other words, the more pessimistic models are likely to be more accurate.

Predictions about the future climate must be tempered by an appreciation of the uncertainties inherent to describing extremely complicated earth systems. But the risks of global warming that decades of science describe are clearly great enough to warrant action.

Mr. Boehner’s office told us that the speaker was talking about the stagnation of the policy debate over the last 10 years, not the state of the science. If that’s the case, then he should be willing to stand up for the climate researchers and push Washington’s policy deliberations into accord with the science.

– Washington Post.

We welcome NCC’s ban on promos and lotteries by telecoms firms

Even as Ebube Essien-Garricks, the 27 year-old student of Rivers State College of Health Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, is still celebrating her emergence as winner of the Cessna 182 aircraft in the MTN Ultimate Winner Wonder Promo, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) has banned further lotteries and promos by the telecoms firms. Since she has opted for the monetary value of the aeroplane, Essien-Garricks will be celebrating her most memorable Christmas this year, as she is to receive N64million being the cash value of the plane.

When MTN made its intention of giving the aero-plane as its first prize public, many people dismissed it as one of those gimmicks by companies to deceive members of the public. The cynics have therefore been proved wrong by the company with the draw held in the presence of officials of the Nigerian Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC), the NCC as well as newsmen, and which was adjudged to be transparent. We congratulate Essien-Garricks for emerging the lucky winner of the promo.

However, beyond the euphoria of the new experience are other salient questions concerning this particular promo and others that the GSM firms have been doing in recent times. If the idea is partly to empower loyal customers, won’t it have been better to spread the prizes in a way that more people would benefit rather than giving an individual N64million in our kind of economic milieu?

Moreover, promos and lotteries have been with us for long and there is nothing to suggest that they are likely to disappear anytime soon. Companies, including the big brands that have been in existence for ages also do bonanzas; they appear to have little choice in today’s markets that are getting increasingly competitive and sophisticated.

But even in this fierce competition for people’s pockets, the companies cannot be left to their own sense of judgment. That is why the promos and lotteries are being regulated to ensure that consumers get the best value for their hard-earned money. Although most of the firms say the idea behind the bonanzas is to reward loyalty, the truth is that ultimately, they want to make more money not just by retaining loyal customers but also by attracting new ones.

Unfortunately, the way the telecoms companies have been going about their sales promos in recent times gives the impression that they are biting more than they can chew. The bonanzas overstretched telecoms facilities and led to big drops in quality of service. Of course this naturally made telephone subscribers to inundate the NCC with strident complaints that the regulatory authorities could not ignore.

It is in this light that we welcome NCC’s ban on lotteries and promos by the telecoms firms. The operators affected by the ban include: Globacom, MTN, Airtel, Etisalat, Intercellular, Visafone and Multilinks. Indeed, the ban has been long overdue. And it should be in force until the commission is satisfied that the companies have the capacity to sustain their bonanzas without adverse effects on their quality of service. Apparently, to give teeth to the ban, the NCC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the NLRC. This is within the commission’s powers as it is expected to protect consumers against unfair practices by the telecoms firms, among other responsibilities.

As we have noted, there is nothing basically wrong with sales promos and lotteries, provided they are done responsibly. But a situation where they lead to network congestions should not be tolerated. The firms are in business primarily to provide reliable and affordable telephony service to Nigerians, this should be their main focus; they need not embark on sales promos that they lack the capacity to sustain. Telephone subscribers in the country deserve better service from the operators. If they feel compelled to encourage their customers, the operators could do so by further reducing their tariffs. This makes more sense than embarking on promos that affect the integrity of their networks.

IT’S NORMAL FOR President Obama and congressional Republicans to be pushing and posturing in the wake of last week’s election. Everyone is trying to gauge how the political dynamics have shifted, though on paper the balance of power remains unchanged. All are trying to enhance their bargaining position. Both sides want to seem reasonable to Americans who want politicians in Washington to compromise, while reassuring partisans that they will stand up for principle.

It’s normal but also potentially dangerous, because compromise is going to be essential.

In the short term, if Congress and Mr. Obama don’t reach an agreement by the end of this year, tax rates will rise and spending is due to be slashed. The economy would go back into recession, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and unemployment would spike again.

In the long term, the United States faces ever-mounting debt that could leave the government with little to spend beyond what it owes on pension and health-care programs and interest on the debt. It’s been collecting about 16 percent of national economic output in taxes and spending about 24 percent. That’s not sustainable.

The biggest obstacle to compromise over the past couple of years has been Republican insistence that revenue can’t go up. It’s been encouraging to see many in the GOP shift, albeit gingerly, off that position since Mr. Obama’s reelection. But most Republican leaders continue to insist that revenue can’t be raised by hiking income tax rates. Instead, they suggest a change to the tax code — limiting the value of deductions and closing loopholes. Some Democrats in Congress and the administration, meanwhile, insist that only raising rates will be acceptable.

Mr. Obama struck an appropriate balance in this debate Wednesday during his first press conference since his re-election. His first choice, he made clear, is for Congress to allow tax rates to rise for the wealthiest 2 percent of the country while keeping everyone else’s rates the same. He was sceptical about the loophole-closing route. “You know, the math tends not to work,” he said.

But when pressed, he didn’t close the door on alternatives. “If the Republican counterparts, or some Democrats, have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isn’t getting hit, reduces our deficit, encourages growth, I’m not going to just slam the door in their face,” he said. “I’m less concerned about red lines per se.”

In fact, as we wrote on Sunday, Treasury could collect a lot of money, and mostly from the rich, by limiting deductions. This approach could have an added benefit of encouraging people to make decisions based on economic benefit, not gaming the tax system.

But Mr. Obama is right to insist that Republicans, if they favor that alternative, must spell it out and show the math. Allowing rates on the rich to rise to Clinton-era levels would do little to harm economic growth. And limiting charitable or mortgage deductions would be politically difficult; do Republicans really have the votes for that? Mr. Obama is right to keep the door open. He’s also right not to give up the leverage of rates that, absent any congressional action, will rise with the new year.

– Washington Post

IN THE DAYS since President Obama’s victory, it has become an instant truism that Republicans, desperate to halt their free fall with Hispanic voters, need to make a sweeping deal on immigration reform. But no matter how strong the political impetus, fixing the nation’s broken immigration system, which proved too tough for Congress in the past decade, remains a subject for hard bargaining. And no part of the deal will be harder than resolving the status of illegal immigrants.

It’s obvious — though Mitt Romney had to learn it the hard way — that 11 million undocumented residents will not “self-deport,” nor should they. Two-thirds of them are in the work force; many of those have been in this country for a decade or more; and some have children, born here, who are American citizens. They are a pillar of the American economy. The fair and sensible solution is to grant them a path to citizenship.

Still, some fudging at the margins may be necessary to reach an agreement, especially given the depth of grass-roots Republican hostility to”amnesty.” A creative compromise could take many forms, such as conferring legal status on undocumented immigrants and removing the threat of deportation for those with no criminal history but postponing the question of citizenship for a finite number of years. That wouldn’t be ideal — it could be portrayed as a program of second-class citizenship. But it would put an end to state legislation designed to harass undocumented residents and would allow immigrants to lead open, secure lives.

The other components of an immigration deal will be only marginally easier, but without a comprehensive bargain that includes the “smaller” pieces the two parties are unlikely to resolve the central question of the 11 million. Democrats should be prepared to agree to additional enforcement measures, especially in establishing a watertight system for employers to verify that job applicants are in the country legally.

Legal immigration will also have to be changed. Among the urgent priorities is attracting skilled workers and especially students who receive advanced degrees at American universities in science, technology, engineering and math. Too often, they are turned away; that is lunacy.

At the same time, businesses must have timely access to adequate numbers of seasonal and agricultural workers, and U.S. citizens’ relatives who wish to immigrate should not languish for years. Both parties will have to compromise on the mechanisms by which annual quotas are set.

In the past, much of the jockeying around solving the immigration problem has been about who would get blame or credit. Even now, some Republicans are openly fearful that a deal would simply cement Democrats’ electoral advantage among Latinos — and, possibly, create millions of new Hispanic voters. Some Democrats might rather milk the status quo, which has helped them until now, than make tough compromises.

Both parties would be wise to realize that standing pat carries its own risks. Every poll suggests that large majorities of Americans want the immigration system fixed. Congress should heed that message.

– Washington Post

A needless face-off leads to unnecessary distress

Even for a country whose long-suffering citizens have become used to the excesses of those who purport to govern them, the allegation that Sokoto State Governor, Alhaji Aliyu Wamakko, assaulted officials of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) because of their supposed inability to supply power to his local government area is shocking.

The governor is said to have invited the Business Manager of PHCN’s Gwiwa Business Unit, Mr. Moses Osigwe, to explain why power had not been provided in spite of his administration’s provision of funds for that purpose. An apparently unsatisfactory response from the PHCN official angered Wamakko, who allegedly personally flogged him and two other PHCN staff with a horsewhip. Such was the governor’s fury that he ordered two security aides to continue with the punishment until Osigwe collapsed.

In response, the state chapter of the National Union of Electricity Employees (NUEE) gave Wamakko an ultimatum to apologise for his action or face a state-wide blackout. That threat was put into action, as the state endured an electricity-free sallah celebration. An estimated three deaths have been attributed to the absence of public power supply in the state.

While there is the usual clash of claim and counter-claim as to whether the governor really whipped PHCN officials, the mere fact that such allegations are in the public space is ample testimony to the regularity with which public office holders abuse the powers associated with the positions they hold. In one of the south-eastern states, a governor was alleged to have meted out the same treatment to an individual whom he felt had subjected him to unceasing criticism. An ex-governor of a south-western state was notorious for his penchant for slapping those who did not see eye-to-eye with him. There is also the routine brutality dished out by policemen and members of the armed forces.

In the peculiar case of Sokoto, it is clear that the PHCN and the NUEE feel that the governor treated their colleagues with very little respect. The governor’s aides claim that he merely handed them over to security operatives for further interrogation when they were unable to answer him satisfactorily, but even that explanation does not preclude the possibility that the PHCN staff were indeed rough-handled.

It is clear that the governor did order the PHCN officials to see him; it is also clear that someone assaulted them. As the person at the centre of the dispute, it is surprising that Governor Wamakko did not feel it expedient to do anything other than to issue the usual denials that are a standard response to issues like these. If the governor did not assault these men, he should have launched an intensive enquiry into finding out who did, and on whose authority they did so. The PHCN is notorious for its inefficiency and corruption, but assaulting its staff for perceived dereliction of duty is counter-productive, particularly for a governor who is supposed to be a model of sobriety and respect for due process.

As for the PHCN, this lamentable affair does it no credit, even though it does appear to be the injured party. Decades of incompetence and extortion have made it the most-hated of Nigeria’s many predatory institutions; it is widely-reviled as being symbolic of all that is wrong with Nigeria. The decision to punish a whole state for the alleged offence of one person is yet another testimony to its destructive nature.

Since the case has apparently gone to court, it was completely unnecessary for the company to engage in such a needless show of force. Those who bear the brunt are the ordinary people of Sokoto, none of whom participated in the alleged assault. Rather than worsen an already-bad situation, the PHCN should restore power to the state without delay, while making every effort to obtain legal redress.