The Nation Newspaper

Category: Editorial

  • Indiscriminate waivers

    Indiscriminate waivers

    National Assembly’s move to curb Federal Government’s waivers is salutary

    The National Assembly’s recent move to curb presidential impunity in the grant of duty waivers is long overdue. President Goodluck Jonathan, acting mostly on the counsel of the Minister of Finance under this dispensation has dispensed such waivers, perceived largely to have been relentlessly abused.

    The evidence is the unchallenged revelation, at the recent public hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Finance for some bills including the Customs Service Bill, 2012 and Companies Income Tax Act, 2004 (Amendment) Bill 2012, that the nation lost N58billion to import duty waivers authorised by the President.

    The Customs Service Bill seeks to curtail the powers of the President and the Minister of Finance to grant duty waivers to individuals and companies. The bill arose through the consolidation of two private members’ bills that originated from Leo Ogor and Senator Domingo Obende.

    We note the curious aversion that the Federal Government has for the bill despite stakeholders’ wholehearted support for it. The government erroneously canvassed the position that if passed into law, the bill would have adverse effects on the development of the economy. We ask: How? Is the N58billion put forward as waivers by Senator Issah Galaudu, a member of the committee incorrect? Why can’t the government dispute the figures or justify its action rather than look for an easy way out?

    The above questions Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy could not answer at the public hearing where she was physically present. Rather, she took solace in arguing that the bill tended to vitiate the powers of the President and the Minister of Finance to initiate policies affecting the nation’s Customs and Excise administration.

    She also gleefully berated the section of the current bill that purportedly vested policy making powers and executive powers in the Customs. But we doubt whether she ever bothers about the serious economic implications the huge discretionary duty waivers so far granted by the President, on her advice, has had on the nation’s till. What will the nation miss if such powers were curtailed since her office and that of the President have mismanaged such powers so far?

    The antecedents of duty waivers have shown that successive administrations grossly abuse the award to cronies and political associates. At a point, it was even alleged that waivers were granted to amass slush funds used to fund elections in the country. During ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo’s eight years rule for instance, duty waivers to friends and political allies of that regime deprived the nation of trillions of naira, even when the effect of such grants were subtly felt in the society. Most of the beneficiaries later donated tens of millions to his Presidential Library project in Abeokuta, Ogun State. So far, no lesson seems to have been learnt. Otherwise, why is the nation still witnessing such situation in grant of waivers without any meaningful impact being felt by the citizens?

    We call on the National Assembly to force the minister to come out with the list of beneficiaries of duty waivers this year and why such were granted to them. There were reported diversions of such waivers to other areas other than the ones for which they were granted. The country needs to stop this fraud that has obviously become the twin ally of the scandal called fuel subsidy.

    We appreciate the need for waivers which if well deployed to genuine beneficial economic spheres can lead to economic development. But the reverse has been the case in the country as most of the grants given to the so-called companies and individuals are frivolous and antithetical to the country’s economic growth. That is why we believe that there is need for checks and balances in the way and manner such discretionary powers are exercised no matter the degree of executive opposition to the move.

     

  • Stranger than fiction

    Stranger than fiction

    •What explanation does CJN Mukthar have for refusing to swear in a Court of Appeal nominee?

     

    If gold rusts, it is often asked, what becomes of baser metals? If the judiciary miscarries justice so blatantly, what refuge for the rest of the society? This is the rhetoric abroad in the matter between the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Maryam Aloma Mukthar and a Court of Appeal nominee, Justice Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo.

    It was arrested development of the most shocking kind on November 5 when Justice Jombo-Ofo was asked to step out of the row of 12 eminent men and women, all set for swearing in into the much coveted status of appellate court justices. According to report, Chief Justice Mukthar had suspended the swearing-in of Mrs. Jombo-Ofo on the ground of a petition concerning her state of origin. As the story goes, Jombo-Ofo is an indigene of Anambra State but married to an Abia State husband. It is said that going by a subsisting policy in Nigeria’s judiciary, Jombo-Ofo is not eligible to represent Abia State at such high level.

    The questions we ask and which critical commentators on the matter have raised too are that would the CJN allow a nebulous policy override common sense and even the country’s constitution? Justice Jombo-Ofo has served in the Abia State judiciary for about 14 years; her nomination from the state’s judiciary was endorsed by the state government and forwarded to the National Judicial Commission (NJC) which is headed by the Chief Justice. It was via the recommendation of the NJC to the President that judges are confirmed for appointment into the appellate court.

    We ask: at what point did the CJN receive this damning petition that supersedes even the NJC’s screening which she conducted? Who are the petitioners? Why would their petition, in the opinion of the CJN, carry more weight than the written reaffirmation and appeal of the Abia State governor who was the key nominating authority in this instance and whose state had everything to lose?

    If the CJN would override the input of the state governor and the President on this matter, it would be interesting to know her interpretation of Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria which is clear in its stipulation that no citizen must be discriminated against on the grounds of sex, ethnic group, place of origin, religion, etc. it is trite to state that the Constitution is superior to any convention, policy and of course individual. And if we must add, it borders on the ridiculous, to have to make this point to the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    We notice a tinge of abuse and show of power in the CJN ordering the honourable judge to step away from the row of appellate court nominees in full view of the audience at the swearing in ceremony. Unless the CJN received the ‘incriminating’ petition right there in the auditorium, she had all the time in the world to have dealt with the matter and Jombo-Ofo needed not to have been invited to the occasion in the first place.

    We are keen to find out how the CJN, who herself rose to be the first Nigerian female to climb to such exalted height last July, would convince Nigerians that she has not discriminated against a fellow female folk. This controversy which seems needless and self-inflicted may well be what we need to resolve the questions of indigene status and inter-state marriage by women public servants. It is fascinating that it is a female CJN who has, by a singular act of a seeming indiscretion, brought this vexatious matter of discrimination against Nigerian women for the reason of their choice of husband, to the front burner. Some precedential resolution is expected from this for, what God has joined together; it is written, let no man (or woman) put asunder.

     

  • Borrower’s burden

    Borrower’s burden

    •There’s no justification for FG’s planned $9.3bn loan 

    THE Presidency seems to have suddenly become conscious that the original $7.96bn (N1.9tr) it proposed in the 2012-2014 Borrowing Plan it earlier submitted to the National Assembly would be inadequate, and has interestingly reviewed its projected foreign debt profile to $9.3bn (N2.1tr) for the two-year period. The amended borrowing plan, which showed an increase of $1.4bn (N230bn) is aimed at infrastructural development, particularly in the agricultural, housing, education, health and transport sectors. With this development, Nigeria’s external debt would stand at $14.1bn by 2014, up from the current level of $6.2bn.

    The additional external loan, according to Minister of Finance Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who defended the new plan, is expected from a Euro Bond that the government would issue next year ($1bn), a Diaspora Bond ($100m), the African Development Bank ($200m), the World Bank ($300m) and China-Exim Bank($500m).

    A breakdown of how the entire $9.3bn would be spent includes $450m for erosion and flood control projects in the South-East states and Cross River State; $200m for the FADAMA agriculture projects in some states in the North; $150m for educational projects in Edo State; $243m for power projects in Zungeru; $136m for water supply projects in Zaria; and $500m for the Abuja Light Rail Project.

    Okonjo-Iweala, who in 2005 ironically achieved dubious stardom as a minister who was the arrowhead of negotiations that successfully freed Nigeria from the foreign debt trap, resulting in the country’s exit from the Paris and London clubs of creditors, painted a bright picture to the House Committee on Loans, Aids and Debts, arguing that the loan had “zero interest” rates, “soft terms” and a repayment period of 40 years, and another 10 years of grace. Justifying the planned borrowing, she added that the infrastructural and other needs of the country are substantial, and would gulp between $10billion and $14billion, equivalent of more than N1.5 trillion a year for the next three years. “If we take that from our budget, it means the totality of our capital budget,” she stated.

    If Okonjo-Iweala expected that her arguments for increased external borrowing were beyond criticism, she probably needs a rethink. In particular, many question why the country cannot spend from its savings, especially with a reported external reserve of about $46bn. The minister’s answer: “The lower you run the reserve the more the Naira will depreciate, so we must maintain a level of reserve and we believe that for our economy, we should push it to $50billion and $10billion of Excess Crude Account because of the uncertainties in the world.”

    However, this seeming economic wisdom flies in the face of logic and common sense, considering the size of the country’s reserve in relation to the amount of the planned borrowing. Furthermore, it is unclear what level of spending from the reserve would devalue the Naira, as she claims. Also, based on her analysis, we wonder what level of reserve the country must maintain to sustain its economy.

    There are more worries: If the country’s budgetary resources can accommodate infrastructural and other needs, as she implies, why borrow then? If we are making more money than we can spend, and not spending as we ought to spend in that the current budget is even under-implemented, do we really need to enlarge our foreign debt burden? Since the loan has to be repaid anyway, is it not counter-productive to commit the country to a debt that it has the financial resources to avoid in the first place?

    What these questions show is that it is certainly not enough to appeal to expertise or professional knowledge, as the minister seems to be doing in this matter, because her reasoning is simply unconvincing. The futility of the projections is further compounded by the fact that Nigeria has hardly spent any loan judiciously in recent years. And, given the way the present administration is going about the anti-corruption war, there is nothing to suggest that things will be different now.

     

  • 10-year deadline

    10-year deadline

    • Ruling party is just waking up to the shame that we are importing petroleum products

     

    Thirteen years after, the understanding of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Federal Government is being opened to the anomaly of a major crude oil producer importing refined petroleum products. Indication to this effect emerged when President Goodluck Jonathan received the reports of the three task forces that were set up by the government to look into various areas of the petroleum industry and recommend ways by which Nigeria could benefit optimally from the resource.

    Hear President Jonathan: “On the Task Force on Refineries, people make jest of us that we import what we have and export what we don’t have. We have crude oil yet we are busy importing kerosene, diesel, aviation fuel, petrol and these are products of crude oil, why do we have crude oil and still be importing the derivatives of crude oil? If we place our focus right, we should be having retail filling stations all over Africa and the world and generate revenue for Nigerians”.

    Ordinarily one should commend the initiative even if belated; but for the government’s antecedents. The Jonathan administration, like the Obasanjo administration is long in talk but short in action. We have not forgotten the many broken promises that the government has to its discredit. Perhaps the one that readily comes to mind is its promise to end Boko Haram insurgency by June this year. This is November, more than four months after that presidential proclamation, and Boko Haram is still very much around and alive. What of the many promises the party and government had made on electricity generation, with the goal post incessantly shifted when the target became unrealisable?

    The PDP-led government does not seem to appreciate that the President is like an oracle and whatever he says is sacrosanct. When a leader has a track record of not living up to his words, whatever he says is likely to be taken with a pinch of salt.

    Even beyond all these, why must it take us a whole 10 years from now to end fuel importation? When we add the 10 years to the already wasted 13 (from 1999 to date), then we are talking of a whole 23 years wasted simply because the ruling party has not been able to get its focus and priorities right.Nigeria’s refineries at Port Harcourt, Warri and Kaduna have a combined capacity of 445,000 barrels per day but have, unfortunately, not operated at full capacity because of lack of maintenance and corruption. In the best of times, they never attained 70 per cent capacity utilisation.

    All said, in the interim, we have to find a way to make them work since government has been unable to sell them to private investors. Whatever shortfall we have can be bridged by importation until we gradually attain self-sufficiency in refining the products. It is shameful that it took the PDP government this long to realise the need to get more functional refineries in the country. And, having wasted so much time, all the president could say if the 10-year target is not met is for Nigerians to “…write something against us saying we did not rule the country well”. The matter is not that simplistic; as that is already assured. A more serious government would have said something beyond the pedestrian.

    We must caution however that no matter how long it takes to end fuel importation, the government must not at any time within the period contemplate withdrawing the so-called fuel subsidy. Nigerians are not responsible for the ineptitude, corruption and policy flip-flops that have put us in the quagmire of fuel importation; they therefore should not be the beasts of its burden.

    If we had started from somewhere in the last 13 years, we would have made some progress and we would have avoided becoming the laughing stock that even President Jonathan acknowledged we have become in the comity of nations.

     

     

  • The five-dollar debate

    The five-dollar debate

    THE economy is clearly in the doldrums; nearly every sector is suffering acute inertia, the corruption monster is on the loose while the current federal budget seems irredeemably mired in implementation hiccups. These are fundamental problems that require hard-headed responses from both the executive and legislative arms of government. But instead of seeking far-reaching solutions to the dire situation the country is faced with, these two bodies are bickering over a five-dollar differential in the oil benchmark of the 2013 federal budget.

    There is no doubt that five dollars in millions of places is a lot of money just as we recognise that an oil producing country must find an appropriate benchmark to peg its oil price upon; but these arguments become trifling when they override fundamental issues. Now, the House of Representatives has threatened to shelve all considerations for next year’s budget unless the Federal Government accedes to its demand that the oil benchmark is pegged at $80 per barrel against $75 proposed by the Federal Government. The Senate on the other hand, has found a middle ground of $78.

    Under the circumstance Nigeria’s economy is today, oil benchmark is neither here nor there. It is indeed the least of the challenges the economy is faced with. We wish to remind that in the last two decades or so, we have deliberately under-benchmarked our oil earnings and there has not been any spectacular benefits accruable there from. The economy has continued on its seeming inexorable slide. If this benchmark gimmick has not worked over these years, why do we keep splitting hairs over it?

    Again, we are inclined to align ourselves with the position of the House which queries the logic of deliberately inducing deficits into the budget only to borrow funds at costs to make it up. It is troubling that the Federal Government is proposing a deficit of about N700billion, which includes domestic borrowings. Government compounds its argument by insisting that a higher benchmark would hamper its ability to access a $1.2billion loan from the World Bank that will be ready for draw down next year.

    The Federal Government team led by the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi have warned of grave consequences to the economy should government not have its way on this tussle. But our answer to that is that Nigerians hardly believe government officials anymore, particularly this duo. Not after the fuel subsidy saga during which our economic minders, including the twain, had warned of doom of calamitous proportions should the so-called subsidy be retained. But it all turned out that the ‘subsidy’ was a ruse anchored on a grand scale corruption.

    And talking about corruption, it has been revealed to Nigerians that it may well be the problem with our budgets and not the margin of benchmark. On many occasions, we have heard of unilateral withdrawals by the Federal Government from the excess crude account in which proceeds accruing from lower oil benchmarks are warehoused. A most recent example is the report by the Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force led by Mallam Nuhu Ribadu which found that about N2.8 trillion may have been unlawfully drawn from the federation account.

    We are worried that this unnecessary bickering, as we consider it to be, would distract us from the real issues about the budget and the economy. Some of these include, promptitude of the budget which has been a sore point for a long time now, and a more efficient implementation regime – government seems to absolutely lack the capacity to move from projections to actual. And, unless the Federal Government summons the courage to kill the rampaging monster of corruption, no formula or benchmark would work.

  • Where Hurricane Sandy still hurts

    Where Hurricane Sandy still hurts

    For all the efforts of federal, state and local officials to help people after Hurricane Sandy, unacceptable pockets of suffering remain. Ten days after the hurricane struck, thousands of people in New York City’s public housing are still without heat, water, electricity or food. Many people needed assistance after the storm, but the most vulnerable of the city’s inhabitants seem to be among the last in line to get it.

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration estimated that Sandy had initially left more than 800,000 city customers without power, including many people in public housing. Many have since had their power and heat restored. Yet Steven Banks of the Legal Aid Society estimated on Thursday that more than 15,000 units of public housing closest to the city’s shoreline — mostly in the Rockaways, Coney Island and Red Hook — were still without heat and hot water or electricity.

    “We’re into the second week of this,” he said, “and there is no real urgency to get it fixed. …No can-do New York attitude here.”

    More than 400 buildings run by the New York City Housing Authority were affected by the storm. Mr. Bloomberg said Thursday that 70 percent of these buildings now have heat and hot water and 82 percent have electricity. But that leaves 120 buildings and the people who live in them without heat or hot water and 72 buildings and their residents without electricity.

    Whatever the precise numbers, by any accounting, life for these people is grim. On Wednesday afternoon, in the Far Rockaways, hundreds lined up for as much as three hours in the cold to get hot food promised by a makeshift delegation of volunteers. The multiple government agencies promising help were nowhere to be seen.

    In a public housing building in Red Hook, residents received official notices warning that “Since Hurricane Sandy, the electricity and water will be out indefinitely.” Meanwhile, Mr. Bloomberg has been urging older residents and other vulnerable citizens to “go someplace warm,” like shelters.

    On Thursday, Mr. Bloomberg expressed the hope that private contractors would be able to restore electricity by the weekend and heat “sometime early next week” to affected buildings. This is hardly comforting news to people huddled in blankets as temperatures drop. There seems to be no clear answer for why it has taken so long to send out temporary generators and boilers to help these residents.

    City Hall leaders argue that restoring power is a process that is more complicated than simply bringing in generators, especially in buildings where electrical systems have been badly compromised. They promise to dispatch additional workers to public housing and a phased-in schedule to bring more power and heat each day to devastated areas like the Rockaways. To us, that sounds late and insufficient. Mr. Bloomberg needs to redouble his efforts to help those most in need.

    – New York Times

  • Hard way to peace

    Hard way to peace

    FLUSH from the unprovoked bombing of St. Rita’s Catholic Church, Unguwan Yero, Kaduna on October 28 in which about 30 defenceless worshippers perished , Boko Haram’s November 1 call for peace talks is doomed to mass distrust.

    To boot, the terrorist organisation was listing its own preconditions! It proposed Saudi Arabia as venue; and listed six moderators, without whom it would never trust the Nigerian government: Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, Dr. Shettima Ali Monguno, Senator Bukar Abba Ibrahim, Ambassador Gaji Galtimari, and the Alkali couple – Alkali Wakil and his wife, Aisha.

    If the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) under Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor angrily dismissed the talks and virtually warned the Federal Government to steer clear of it, that stand is perfectly understandable. In the Boko Haram war of blood and gore, Nigerian Christendom, under Oritsejafor’s presidency, had been unprovoked victims. Christians who for nothing got their temples routinely bombed and their members killed and maimed, certainly have a right to be sore.

    No less is Gen. Buhari, Boko Haram’s preferred chief moderator – but for a different set of reasons. The former military head of state and Congress of Progressive Change (CPC) national leader would be naive to have his name linked to a murderous gang, even for the sake of peace, in a political milieu where bad faith, cynicism and blackmail come with the territory.

    So, it is little wonder Gen. Buhari has turned down the offer, insisting that Boko Haram could be any of these three: the slain Muhammed Yusuf group protesting brazen injustice by the Nigerian state, free-wheeling criminals cashing in to kill in Boko Haram’s name and the Jonathan Presidency which, in Buhari’s view, has showed prodigious incompetence in dealing with the menace. Aside, CPC, Buhari’s party, had fingered an alleged Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to tar Buhari with a link to Boko Haram.

    Even the generality of Nigerians would be riled by a lawless and murderous band, having bombed a defenceless populace into submission, having the temerity to call for talks, and stake claims to amnesty and compensation, as if terror was the key to the pocket of the Nigerian state. The same pattern prevailed in sorting out the Niger Delta militancy crisis, though terrorism then was targeting Nigeria’s oil facilities rather than mowing down defenceless citizens.

    Still, all these are emotional responses, understandable as they are. The stark reality is that there is an urban warfare which Boko Haram cannot win but which the state could not subdue. Such infernal stalemate calls for fresh thinking and a clinical approach to peace and security. That is the window the Boko Haram offer has opened. No matter how it hurts, that window should not be shut. That is why the Jonathan Presidency’s open door approach is welcome.

    Certain principles, however, must guide the talks. Under no condition must this talk be about jumbo payout to some malcontents who have levied war against their country and recklessly taken innocent lives. That would be rewarding anarchy and criminality; and it would just be motivation for future malcontents to tread that path for blood-soaked profit.

    Rather, it should tackle the fundamental causes: mass poverty, cavalier injustice, wanton impunity and lack of opportunity, especially in the North East, which makes a large swathe of the hopeless to gravitate towards doomsday pseudo-saviours.

    That was the trigger of the Maitatsine crisis in the Second Republic, which though exploded in Kano had its roots in the North East. That is the trigger of the current Boko Haram insurrection. That would be the trigger of any future insurrection, if the poverty question is not addressed.

    By tackling poverty and injustice, therefore, this bloody cycle of blood and gore would be broken. That should be the goal of the talks.

  • Bayelsa versus Rivers

    Bayelsa versus Rivers

    The land dispute is a scandal and smacks of feudal politics

    Boundary disputes are, thankfully, envisaged by our laws. That is why the constitution created the National Boundary Commission inured with powers to intermediate in such disputes. Unfortunately, the dispute between Rivers and Bayelsa states has been elevated because of the value of oil lying within the bowels of the disputed land. But even more unfortunate is the attempt to foist a feudalistic intermediation, (some insinuate) simply because President Goodluck Jonathan, who is from Bayelsa State, is currently the President. Yet we are in a democracy and the disagreement between the states is already before a court.

    In our view, and we guess that of many Nigerians, the resort to primordial sentiments instead of constitutionalism on this issue, belittles the integrity of our democracy. In this case, the President has unwittingly taken over a matter that is sub judice, and is gregariously seeking to use his official status as the head of the executive to determine same. This development is not good for the image of the President and is not tenable in a democracy either. What is right is for the boundary commission to diligently exercise its constitutional responsibilities and forward its findings to the court, which is empowered to weigh the evidence and make profound pronouncements as the facts of the matter dictate.

    To do otherwise is to engage in the abuse of due process. The President and governors who are attempting to foist their stature and personal disposition on the matter need to be reminded to retrace their steps, and allow the unfettered intermediation of the law. The courts must also rise up to their constitutional responsibilities of enforcing the rule of law, in this matter. If truly the courts sanctioned that the money realised from the oil derived from the disputed land should be kept in an escrow account, the officials of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) that released it to Bayelsa State must be sanctioned.

    If the decision to keep the money in an escrow account since 2000 when the dispute arose was administrative, then the President needs to explain who ordered the commission to hand over the money to his home state government. Without a plausible explanation by the commission why the money in dispute was released to one of the claimants, the accusation of bias and undue influence levelled against the President may stand. The President stands accused because he is from the benefitting state, Bayelsa; and many would argue that if not for his influence, the commission would not suddenly get into an overdrive to pay Bayelsa State the money kept since 2000, when the matter is yet to be resolved.

    We also ponder why the courts have been dillydallying over this matter, or were they hamstrung by the failure to procure facts from the administrative agencies to resolve the dispute? Considering the potent power of the dispute to disrupt the national economy, we are surprised that more than a decade after, there is no concerted effort to resolve an ordinary boundary dispute. Again, if the boundary commission accepted in a letter that the last official map, unlike the previous maps, wrongly situated the land in Bayelsa State, why didn’t it as a matter of priority do a fresh map since 13 years ago, to save the country the hiccups?

    If there should be a descent into anarchy over this dispute, will it not be right to hold the commission culpable for dereliction of duty? To avoid unpleasant consequences, considering the previous history of the region, it is important that the boundary commission is encouraged to quickly do the right thing. The ongoing resort to influence peddling and mudslinging by officials of the two states should be stopped. Our country cannot claim to be practising democracy and availed of modern capabilities in the field of survey and area mapping, yet we prefer anachronistic tendencies of the big man syndrome.

    In this respect if truly as alleged by the Rivers State Government, political permutations over the 2015 election are underlining the dispute, that must be condemned. If the allegation is correct, we remind those involved that they are playing games with the lives of the neighbouring communities, who may resort to violence to settle the dispute. If such disingenuous calculation is at play, then those using the influence of President Jonathan today, would be sure to regurgitate the money paid once a president beholden to the interests of the people of Rivers State gets into Aso Rock. As we have stated, a land dispute is not a rocket science, and can be fairly resolved based on historical fact as can be proved in the courts. To avoid unnecessary rancour among the Ijaw brothers of Bayelsa and Rivers states, their elites must raise law over illogic and the sentiments of feudalism.

  • Indecorous conducts

    Indecorous conducts

    Were Oronsaye and Otti put in Ribadu panel to make it fail? 

    What could have provided the right ambience for President Goodluck Jonathan to restate his resolve to chart a new course for the petroleum industry was marred with impolitic conducts largely perceived to have the imprints of official conspiracy. The occasion was the presentation of the report of the Mallam Nuhu Ribadu-led Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force at the Council Chambers of the Presidential Villa.

    Out of the 21-member task force, two chose to spoil the bouillabaisse with conducts quite unbecoming of their standing in the society. Steve Oronsaye, deputy chairman of the task force and former Head of Service of the Federation publicly charged at Ribadu, accusing him of following ‘flawed’ process in compiling the panel’s report. Bernard Otti, also a member equally claimed that the report was not seen by members of the committee before its eventual submission to the president on that day.

    Two things: Oronsaye in the course of the committee’s work took up appointment on the board of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Otti, during the same period, also got appointed as director of finance of the corporation. The former did not deny that he never participated in any of the committee’s deliberations; neither did he deny it when it was put to him by Ribadu that he flew into the country on the day of that submission just to effect that hatchet man’s job.

    Both men also could not deny the fact that being part of the management of a corporation being probed by their committee was inappropriate: They could also not convincingly respond to assertions by Sumaila Zubair, acting secretary and Ignatius Adegunle, a member of the committee, to their position that other members were not parties to the report’s compilation. Sadly, a reputable man like Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), also a member of the committee was present but maintained an undignified silence in the face of alleged official complicity against Nigerians clamouring for probity in the oil sector that the report seeks to combat.

    The conduct of these two men was disrespectful to the exalted office of the president. Whether by previously held positions or by their current positions, they ought to know that committees that are set up by governments do have minority reports submitted alongside the main reports. If Otti can be pardoned, the case of Oronsaye was inexcusable, being a former permanent secretary and Head of Service of the Federation. Where have the civil service etiquette and rules that he imbibed over the decades fled to? Could Oronsaye have been motivated by other factors other than the noble as reflected in his conduct before President Jonathan, which was beamed live to the world?

    We disagree with President Jonathan’s position at the occasion that establishment persons are needed to bolster the jobs of such committees. If at all this was right, such establishment persons must not serve on committees that are beaming the searchlight on the affairs of such officials’ agencies or parastatals like it happened in this circumstance. So, the president’s statement that such persons could only ‘explain’ certain things but not influence someone like Ribadu negatively is too cheap and patronising.

    We praise Ribadu’s courage and indefatigable spirit in the face of suspicious official conspiratorial intimidation. We have always known that the entire assignment was designed to compromise him but he ensured that his conscience triumphed over the traps laid on his path.

    Above all, the president must prove that the committee’s recommendations on how to enhance government’s oil revenue and ways of guaranteeing transparency and accountability in that important sector are not jettisoned. Except this is done, Nigeria will continue to remain a country where embarrassing theft of crude oil will keep occurring. It will also show this administration as unserious about its professed mantra of ridding the oil sector of corruption.

  • What next?

    What next?

    •With repair completed on Third Mainland Bridge, attention should shift to other roads

    Four months after its partial closure for repairs, the Third Mainland Bridge was re-opened on October 30, amidst jubilation by motorists who had endured heavy traffic jams while the repairs lasted. While declaring the bridge open, the Minister of Works, Mr. Mike Onolememen, said that the repair works carried out on eight expansion joints had been 100 per cent completed 10 days ahead of the scheduled date of November 5. The repairs started on July 6.

    Officials of the Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA) as well as petty traders and residents also celebrated the end of their travails. For the traders especially, it was back to business after they had been starved of patronage for four months.

    We take the people’s jubilation as normal under the Nigerian circumstances. Construction and maintenance of roads, bridges and their maintenance are an obligation any good government must perform regularly. What made the jubilation over the re-opening of the Third Mainland Bridge special was the contractor’s completion of the job 10 days ahead of schedule. This is a feat in a country where contractors have always worked behind schedule, giving all sorts of excuses, including requests for extra money in form of variation. In some cases, the projects are recklessly abandoned after collection of mobilisation fund that is diverted to personal use.

    But the Third Mainland Bridge is just one of the many bridges and roads begging for repairs or rehabilitation nationwide. There is the famous Onitsha Bridge linking the rest of the cssountry with the South-East and South-South, the Benin-Ore dilapidated road, the much neglected Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, the Oshodi-Apapa Expressway and many others scattered all over the country, all of which are crying for rehabilitation or expansion. We do not know the fate of the old Carter Bridge in Lagos. What is common to all the federal highways is criminal lack of maintenance. But then, we cannot confidently say that the roads were constructed according to international specification.

    In the advanced countries which our government officials love to visit, roads have foundations of up to at least five feet before bitumen is applied to the surface. This is to guarantee that the roads will last for years before they are due for major repairs. But in Nigeria, our contractors, many of them incompetent, only scratch the surface and paint it back with bitumen. After one year, the roads begin to develop potholes. Another contract would be awarded to incompetent politicians whose duties at road construction are to make money. And the cycle of awarding and re-awarding of contracts for the same roads continues while motorists and commuters groan under the yoke of bad roads executed at exorbitant costs.

    What we are saying is that while it is the duty of contractors to complete their projects at the scheduled time and without fraudulent variations, the government should make it mandatory that all roads constructed should have a life span of about 10 years for asphalt roads before they require major rehabilitation. Bridges constructed should last for at least 30 years before any major repairs are deemed to be necessary. But all these depend on some factors, including regular maintenance. The government should, therefore, ensure regular and proper maintenance of the roads and bridges while the initial repairs should be done by contractors who handled them ,in case anything happens within their stipulated life span.

    This way, the contractors would be forced to meet the required international standards of road and bridge construction. Strict requirements for road and bridge construction will save the nation unnecessary waste of funds through endless awards and re-awards of contracts for the same project.