Category: Insight

To say the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), established 13 years ago, has suffered a chequered existence is clearly stating the obvious. But equally worrisome is the instability of tenure of the Directors-General as most of the agency’s bosses have had to leave office in rather controversial circumstances since inception.  Ibrahim Apekhade Yusuf and Bukola Afolabi examine the issues

IT is the dream of every qualified Nigerian to work at the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), especially as the big boss calling the shots, but the irony is that many of those who have had the good fortune of sitting atop as the Director-General of that organisation have never had a smooth-sail in their career thus far.

There is a high turnover of DGs at the agency as controversies always trailed their tenure. They are either accused of not following due processes in the sales of government properties or are dealt with by powers that be, who try as best they can to manoeuvre the activities of BPE for their own selfish aggrandisement.

Privatisation as nemesis of DGs

As a company saddled with the responsibility of handling the privatisation of government’s properties, BPE had, in the past, handled the sale of government-owned companies like Daily Times, NITEL/Mtel, Ajaokuta Steel Company, NICON Insurance, Nigerdock, Delta Steel Company and Aluminium Smelter Company of Nigeria, ALSCON.

The sale of these companies has been the nemesis of past DGs of the agency who have had to abruptly vacate their seats following different accusations and failure to perform their duties successfully.

First, it was Mallam Nasir el-Rufai, the former minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) who, during former President Obasanjo tenure, was the head of BPE. During his tenure as the DG of BPE, el-Rufai was saddled with the responsibility of handling the sale of the moribund NITEL in 2002.

Investors International London Limited, ILL, made initial attempt to buy the telecommunication company by offering $1.317billion but later defaulted when it failed to pay the price.

Next, BPE, still under the leadership of el-Rufai, made further attempt to sell NITEL by engaging the service of Pentascope, a Netherlands-based company, to manage the company while at the same time preparing for its sale. Pentascope managed NITEL for two years but could not successfully carry out its sale. Instead, at the end of two years, Pentascope left behind billions of naira in debt.

Other attempts were made to privatise NITEL under el-Rufai leadership, but none were successfully carried out. One of those numerous attempts was in 2005 when Orascom Telecom, an Egypt based company, attempted to buy the company but failed in its attempt due to differences in the amount ($500million) which the Federal Government wanted to sell the company and the price ($256.5million) Orascom offered.

Although NITEL was later sold to Transnational Corporation (Transcorp), a company formed by the former Director- General of Nigeria Stock Exchange, Prof Ndidi Okereke-Onyuike and some Nigerians at the cost of $500million in 2006, it never successfully turned around the fortunes of NITEL. Rather, it compounded the problems of NITEL as alleged internal scuffle hampered its smooth operation. In other words, Mallam Nasri el-Rufai failed to successfully carry out the privatisation process but was allowed to finish his four-year tenure. After this, his tenure was not renewed.

Mrs. Irene Nkechi Chigbue was the BPE DG from 2005 to 2009. Her tenure as the DG was also full of allegations that BPE, under her leadership, sold NITEL, Daily Times and ALSCOM at lower price to politicians. She was subsequently replaced by Dr Christopher Anyanwu, a law lecturer at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, in 2009 by late President Yar’Adua.

Probably, Anyanwu had thought he would stay longer on the seat when, on assuming office, he said it would not be business as usual as he was not ‘ready to conform to Nigerian way of doing things,’ apparently referring to his desire to change the negative ways things were being done in the agency.

He began to realise the gigantic obstacles before him when some powers that be in the agency, who felt his coming to the agency would spell doom for their corrupt practices, began to put machinery in place to make sure he leaves the post.

Though Anyanwu, to some people, could be credited for the transparent manner he operated, others, most especially those he had stepped on their toes, thought otherwise.

But like a fated script, Anyanwu never lasted on the seat as he was removed within one year and was replaced by Ms Bolanle Onagoruwa.

Reminiscing on the circumstances that led to his removal following series of allegations against him, he said, “Those allegations were malicious and unfounded. If they were not, that should have been the basis of accusing me, trying me and finding me guilty before any action will be taken. I am sure you were all witnesses to the fact that it was after the completion of the privatisation of NITEL that trouble broke out in the presidency, the BPE suspension, and then, I was disengaged. Ordinarily, such chains of events might be misunderstood or misinterpreted if you allow silence to be the order of the day.”

Continuing, he said, “From the background that I came, I have been teaching all my life. First of all, I taught for 13years in the Law School and then another five years in the University of Nigeria. So, I was not schooled in the intrigues of putting public assets in any private hands without following the due process. As far as I was concerned, transparency was the order of the day. Report by Mohammed Adoke said in summary that ‘the privatisation of NITEL was transparently done and the procedures were strictly followed.”

When Ms. Bolanle Onagoruwa came on board, on August 11, 2010, just few days before her retirement, nobody thought her tenure would suffer the same fate like her predecessors.

But her almost three years’ stint as DG was dogged with controversies over the sales of some government properties, notably the PHCN.

The BPE, under Onagoruwa, signed a three-year $23.7million contract with Manitoba Hydro Electric Company of Canada to manage the Transmission Company of Nigeria, TCN. This was done after National Council on Privatisation, NCP, had ratified the decision to privatise PHCN.

Trouble began for Onagoruwa when the Ministry of Power refused to sign necessary documents which would have allowed the Canadian company to begin full operation. The Ministry hinged its refusal to sign the documents on the ground that BPE under Onagoruwa did not follow due process in selecting the company as well as failed to obtain a No Objection certificate from the Bureau for Public Prosecution. The development created a rift between the office of the Vice-President and the DG as the Vice-President who was the head of NCP expressed lack of confidence in the ability of BPE to handle such issues.

Her trouble was further compounded when Power Grid, an Indian-based power company, further accused BPE of not following due process in selecting the preferred bidder in the deal.

The company reportedly wrote a petition alleging that Manitoba had been selected before the financial bids were opened. Though BPE denied the allegation, its denial failed to hold ground as the Bureau for Public Procurement, BPP, made the situation more difficult when it wrote to the President requesting that it be allowed to select a new management contractor for TCN within 30days, which the President approved.

Confirming that BPE did not follow due process in the sale of TCN, Reuben Abati, who is the spokesperson to the President, said, “The management contract in question is $23.6million, which is above the threshold of BPE. For the BPE to go ahead and approve that contract simply means that due process was not followed. It is a matter of due process, a matter of best practise. The infraction was committed by BPE.”

Besides, Onagoruwa also had to contend with the governors of some states: Edo, Delta, Ekiti and Ondo states who had accused her of not following due process in the selection of the preferred bidder for the Benin Electricity Distribution Company. All these prompted the Senate to make resolutions some months ago to the president that Onagoruwa should be removed as BPE DG and the Senate’s Ad hoc committee on Privatisation and Commercialisation in its report, said Ms Onagoruwa was unfit to hold the position.

Senator Uche Chuklwumerije said: “We recommended sanctions against key officials of the BPE but the President hasn’t done anything about it. It will get to a point of threatening him with impeachment. I will move the motion.”

The report added that former Directors-General, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai, Dr Julius Bala and Mrs Irene Nkechi Chigbue, should be reprimanded by the National Council on Privatisation (NCP), “for seeking approval directly from the president instead of the NCP, as stipulated in the Public Enterprises Act 1999.”

Informed commentary by economic-cum policy pundits

Expectedly, economic and policy pundits who have followed the drama surrounding the removal of the DGs thus far believe it is a sad commentary on the way the country’s public institutions are run.

According to Mr. Bismark Rewane, Managing Director/CEO, Financial Derivatives Company Ltd, he thinks the instability of tenure of office of the DGs is a problem of lack of structure in place.

Also commenting on the issue, an economic analyst, Desmond Paul, said, “The problem of improper sale of public enterprise has been a big issue in Nigeria right from the beginning of the privatisation process. The sales were always tainted by scandals and their reversal is a serious indictment of the programme managed by BPE. It has been apparent to Nigerians all along that the sales were not transparently done. So many things were wrong about the process that led to the sale of public assets. Instead of the privatisation of the companies leading to resuscitation and successful operations of the companies, some of them were stripped of the assets by their buyers, with no efforts made to add value to them.”

Insider’s perspective

Giving fresh insight into the problem of tenure instability of the DGs, a former Deputy Director of BPE, Mr. Charles Osuji, in an exclusive interview with The Nation, said bad politics is at the centre of the crisis bedeviling the agency.

Osuji, who spared no punches, said: “The problem with the BPE Director-Generalship is that apart from the first two Directors General, Dr. Shamsideen Usman and Mr. Bernard Veer under Dr. Hamza Zayyad when BPE was then TCPC, the rest of the DGs were appointed under the influence of one godfather or the other known nationally and even worldwide. The fact is that the DG, BPE’s appointment is for a term of four years renewable for another four years, if reappointed, making a maximum of eight years.”

Expatiating, he said: “Hardly has anybody done eight years as DG of BPE. Once they appoint you over time your godfather becomes less powerful and another set of god fathers take over and they kick you out. So, apart from the first two who were appointed on merit, the rest had been under one godfather or the other. That’s just the problem we have in BPE.

“The appointment of BPE DG is at the mercy of the President and it’s up to those who have been so appointed over time and have been removed prematurely to operationalise their corporate governance. It is their right to go to court if they feel shortchanged but so far no one has done so.”

“I think most agencies are under the same kind of condition, it’s the godfathers that rule everybody. Most agencies are run under that kind of circumstance but the problem is that BPE is so peculiar, maybe because it sell assets, federal government assets, you know and everybody is interested in one asset or the other. You know we haven’t had a system where somebody vows that I am heading this organisation and I am not going to determine who buys what. It is very difficult for the country.

“No, no, no, one thing you have to understand is that the BPE as a body is very efficient, I don’t even want to go into the mechanism of how BPE does its job, it’s extremely efficient. Where the manpower is not there and that is very rare, it recruits from outside, from the best international practices.”

The former staff at BPE while doing a comparative analysis of past leadership of the agency said the immediate past DG achieved less successes compared to her predecessors.

Raising a poser, he queried, “In her three years spent in BPE, how much did she make, what privatisation did she do? She just sat down there thinking that the BPE job is a civil service job, it is not. It is a very proactive job, you don’t sit down and wait for things to happen. You make things to happen, you make government move, whether the will is there to privatise or not, you move.”

Making oblique reference to Onagoruwa’s appearance at the Senate, Osuji asked rather rhetorically, “How can you cry before people? Is it an emotional thing there? You should show forth your acumen, show the stuff you are made of, how many women cry in the face of opposition? Even if the opposition is there, face it and then come back to real work. I don’t know sometimes they appoint those who cannot define privatisation without looking into a book, it’s wrong!”

Any hope for BPE?

The challenges at BPE notwithstanding, it is the view of many people that it is still redeemable.

To these analysts, with the right mix of leadership and less interference from the powers- that- be, the BPE will become a public institution that works.

One of those who share this optimism is Osuji. “The future of BPE is fantastic,” he argues matter-of-factly, adding: “It needs a strong leadership who can also withstand their own godfathers. Yes, get there by the influence of your godfather. But you should be able to tell your godfather this is the right thing to do and they respect you the more. There are lot of Nigerians who can run BPE.”

The refusal of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Mukhtar, to swear-in Justice Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo, the Anambra State-born High Court Judge married to an Abia man, as a judge of the Court of Appeal, has reignited national debate about indigeneship and citizenship. DARE ODUFOWOKAN examines why the issue has remained intractable.

Chidera Obiagwu is an indigene of Aba in Anambra State because that is where his parents, and even their own parents, hail from. But save for the one year he spent in Orlu, Imo State, serving in the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), he has never lived anywhere near Aba, his supposed home town. In all his twenty three years on earth, he has resided in Katsina, the Katsina State capital in the north western part of Nigeria.

However, Chidera says he is aware that in spite of having spent all his years in Katsina, it is unlikely that he will be able to secure employment in the state’s civil service.

This, according to the young undergraduate, is because he will be unable to get the local government chairman, or any district head in Katsina to certify that he, Chidera, son of the very popular trader, Obiagwu, was a citizen of the council and as such should be considered for employment.

The fact that he had lived there for more than 20 years is irrelevant. He says even if he attempts to secure employment with the federal civil service using Katsina as his base, he will be turned down by the commissioner representing the state on the Federal Civil Service Commission.

“I will be told in clear terms to go and use the quota of Anambra State despite the fact that I hardly know the way to my hometown in the state. Sometimes, I wonder if I am not a stranger in my own country,” Chidera laments.

The dilemma faced by this young man is not unique as millions of Nigerians find themselves in a similarly frustrating bind. Many in this situation have quietly accepted their lot. But increasingly others are speaking out about the injustice inherent in the way and manner we determine indigeneship and citizenship in Nigeria.

While the ongoing constitutional amendment hearings have made the issue topical, the plight of Justice Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo, the Anambra State-born High Court Judge married to an Abia man for nearly two decades, has thrown it into broad relief.

On Monday, 5 November, 2012, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Maryam Aloma Mukhtar refused to administer the oath of office on Justice Jombo-Ofo as a Judge of the Court of Appeal because of a petition alleging she was not from Abia State.

This is in spite of the fact that a few years after marriage, she transferred her service to Abia State where she had served for 14 years. But now she’s being denied a benefit due Abia because she is not an indigene of the state – irrespective of her rights by marriage.

The irony of it all is that it happened as the world, including Nigeria, celebrated the re-election for a second term as the President of the United States of America, a man born of a father from Kogelo, Kenya. Perhaps, if America was Nigeria, Barack Obama would never be President!

The CJN’s action has generated quite a stir with many accusing the NJC of breaching Jombo-Ofo’s rights.

The Senate waded into the controversy by urging the head of the nation’s judiciary to swear in the judge without further delay.

During the debate on a motion moved by the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu and 107 others, the President of the upper legislative chamber, David Mark, described the decision of the CJN as unfortunate and having great implication.

“The implication of this is that if there is anything good in the husband’s place we’re saying that the wife should not take it. I think is just unfortunate but more importantly, the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed by this act if we allow it. I believe that we ought to encourage professional women to maintain their professions and keep their marriages at the same time.

“This is going to provide for them to choose between their professions and their marriages and that will not encourage married life in this country. The whole thing to me is fait accompli because they have gone through the entire process. There was nothing left again. Swearing-in was just a ceremony and if the issues were not raised before but just at the point of swearing-in, either to appease those who have petitioned or because she was not from her husband’s place of origin, it was immaterial,” he remarked.

Senate leader, Victor Ndoma-Egba, in his own submission, recalled instances where Kalu Anya from the South East once served as Chief Judge while non-indigenes served as Attorney General and Secretary to the Government of Borno State.

Citing Section 238(2) of the Constitution, Ndoma-Egba emphasized that the CJN has no power to refuse judicial oath on a justice who has been appointed by the President on the NJC’s recommendation.

“Section 238(2) of the constitution stipulated that the appointment of a person to the office of Justice of the Court of Appeal is done by the President on the recommendations of the National Judicial Council. It is a process and at both levels of the process, the Chief Justice of Nigeria is the chairman. So, whatever issue they had, ought to have been sorted out. The moment the President appoints based on the recommendation of NJC, it is automatic and there is no role for the Chief Justice of Nigeria after the appointment,” he stated.

Legal icons, including but not limited to Justice Mustapha Akanbi, Chief Richard Akinjide (SAN) and Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), have also called for the swearing-in of Jombo-Ofo without delay.

In separate interviews they held the common view that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), erred by refusing to swear-in Jombo-Ofo, saying Mukthar has no power under the constitution to stop the swearing-in of the nominee.

Akanbi, a former President of the Court of Appeal and Akinjide, a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, said that the action of the CJN is capable of ridiculing the judiciary and bringing it into disrepute, especially in the eyes of the international community.

Akinjide said he was rattled by the CJN’s action, adding that she must have reasons, quite unknown to others.

Human rights campaigner, Falana, said the action is contemptuous of the office and person of the Nigerian President, who, alone, can appoint or refuse the nomination of any person as Justice of the Court of Appeal.

He backed his views with reference to a judgment on similar matter delivered by Justice Niki Tobi, then of the Court of Appeal:

“All human beings – male and female are born into a free world and are expected to participate freely, without any inhibition on grounds of sex, and that is constitutional.

Any form of societal discrimination on grounds of sex, apart from being unconstitutional, is antithetical to a society built on the tenets of democracy, which we have freely chosen as a people.”

But there are those who support the actions of the CJN. For them, Jombo-Ofo, not being born of Abia parents, should not be given the share of the state’s spoils at the very top of her profession.

They argue that swearing her in will contravene the federal character principle as enshrined in the constitution. The principle, they say, states that the composition of the government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria.

For those with this view, the decision not to swear in the judge was in tune with Official Gazette No. 74, Volume 84, with heading: Guiding Principles and Formulae for the Distribution of all Cadres of Posts. It was created in pursuance of the Federal Character Commission (Establishment, etc) Decree No. 34 of 1996.

Its Clause 11, Part 11, which deals with definitions, among others, states: A married woman shall continue to lay claim to her state of origin for the purpose of implementation of the Federal Character formulae at national level.

But what these people may not have taken into cognisance is that given her marriage to an Abia man, with her surname now from that state, Anambra State would also have protested and petitioned against her were she to be appointed as an indigene of Anambra State.

They would have argued vociferously that she was no longer one of them, having married in Abia. So, effectively Jombo-Ofo could have become stateless by virtue of marriage and the principle of federal character.

An example was when Mrs. Josephine Anenih was appointed Minister of Women Affairs, some people from Anambra, her home state, protested because she was married to an Edo man.

Given scenarios like the ones above, questions about how we determine indigeneship in Nigeria agitate the minds of many in a country where communal clashes religious riots have become daily occurrence. It is one of the bitter issues fuelling communal and religious clashes in places like Plateau and some other parts of the north.

As a way out of the indigeneship conundrum, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), an umbrella socio-political association in the north, recently called for government to take steps to address the indigene/settler question and demanded that states, local government areas should adopt a common protocol making anyone born in a particular community a native of that community, just as it called for appropriate legislations to address the problem.

To Dr. Abimbola Adesoji, of the Department of History, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, the solution lies in according more importance to individual rights than group rights.

The university teacher who has authored several articles on the issue of indigeneship and citizenship in Nigeria fingers the lack of explicit constitutional provision on the issue as one of the major causes of strife between indigenes and perceived settlers, across the country.

“Essentially, there appears to be agreement among authors and scholars on the need to strengthen individual rights and accord them more importance than group rights. The reason is that efforts at protecting and promoting group rights have been directly responsible for the escalation of indigene versus non-indigene problems, including the numerous crises witnessed in different parts of the country in the past.

“Towards this end, it has been suggested that citizenship rights should be tied to either place of birth (different from one’s ethnic group) or residence so that any Nigerian who has lived in any part of the country for certain number of years can enjoy full residency rights, which must include all rights normally available to the traditional indigenes of the states,” he argued.

Consequently, Adesoji calls for the incorporation of what he calls ‘residency rights’ in the constitution. He wants the law of the land to provide that a Nigerian citizen who has resided continuously for a period of five years in any state of the federation, and performs his/her civic duties, including the payment of taxes, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the state.

This would be in accord with the practice in most federations, and would strengthen the provisions in the constitution, in addition to removing restriction on who can contest elections in different parts of the country.

If a foreigner can become a Nigerian after fifteen years of residency through naturalisation, then it should not be difficult for Nigerians to enjoy citizenship rights irrespective of where he or she lives. Anything short of this represents a diminution of citizenship, analysts argue.

In defining who an indigene is particularly in the context of the Federal Character principle, the 1999 Constitution emphasizes showing evidence of belonging to a community indigenous to a state or local government through one’s parents or grandparents which in effect suggests membership of a local ethnic and linguistic community.

Ironically, the experience of the different groups referred to as settlers or strangers in different parts of the country indicate that they settled in places now known to them several years ago. In other words, several generations of these groups, perhaps not limited to that of parents and grandparents or even great grandparents were born or grew up in their present locations.

Consequently beyond being eminently qualified as members of communities indigenous to a state or local government, they are also in position to participate meaningfully in the sociopolitical and economic life of the community; fulfilling their obligations and enjoying basic rights,” he said.

But Dr. Bala Takaya, politician and respected University don says it will be difficult to legislate on the issue of citizenship and indigeneship without paying critical attention to some salient issues that are likely to militate against such legislation sooner or later.

The Adamawa born don calls for an unambiguous constitutional provision in respect of indigeneity rights; such that any settler community in any place knows their limits vis-à-vis their native hosts.

“It is not possible to legislate indigeneship into being. As such, there should be no confusion over the concepts of citizenship and indigeneship. It may be helpful to specify the facts of the matter that all indigenes of a nation-state are citizens; all nationals resident in any part of their country are citizens, but not all resident citizens are necessarily indigenes because indigeneity is a status that can be acquired over time through holistic assimilation into one’s community of choice.

“Indigeneity and territorial control is a fact of life even among animals, nay, all living things. As things stand in Nigeria today, the 1999 constitution guarantees the rights of citizenship to all Nigerians no matter where they migrate to and settle. But it fails to provide similar guarantees in respect of indigeneity rights for the clearly more vulnerable components of the polity – the autochthons!

“It is here suggested, therefore, that as a matter of necessity, there should be a clear policy distinction between citizenship and indigeneship statuses by a deliberate policy enactment that guarantees the unprotected natural rights of indigenes as well as well-defined access to economic and political empowerment beyond the palliatives Americans conceded their Indian reserves, rather than the suggested reverse idea of granting and enforcing indigeneship on setters by legislation.

“In other words, there is a need for an unambiguous constitutional provision in respect of indigeneity rights; such that any settler community in any place knows their limits vis-à-vis their native hosts. This is underscored even by the very fact that to migrate and settle outside one’s place of origin presupposes ability to outgrow one’s own local obstacles and an added ability, on the part of the migrant, to compete for national resources and opportunities on his own elsewhere,” he submitted.

Despite such calls many observers are of the view, that altering the way an indigene’s status is determined in Nigeria will require the wisdom of Solomon. The problem lies in the fact that any change will upturn the political and economic advantages enjoyed by different in certain parts of the country where the issue is particularly touchy.

Many Nigerians currently being discriminated against on account of their inability to claim indigeneship in places of their birth, would be hoping this class of legislators would miraculously succeed where their predecessors failed in tackling this troubling national question.

THE cost of university education for Nigerian students and parents that pay the bills gets higher by the day. Universities in the United Kingdom where Nigerian kids love to school have jerked up fees for her citizens to nine thousand pounds per annum as maximum fee payable by a British citizen.

Fee payable by foreign students, including Nigerians, varies from school to school, but it is higher than what British citizens pay.

The fee does not include living expenses, for those in love with America’s top grade universities like Harvard, foreign students pay as high as $37,576 as tuition, health services fee $930, student services fee $2,360, room $8,366, board $5,264, subtotal, $54,496 per annum.

Estimated personal expenses $3,454, estimated travel costs $0-$5,000, total billed and unbilled costs, $57,950 – $62,950 per annum. In addition, health insurance coverage is required at a cost of $2,168 unless the student is covered under the family’s health plan.

For those who prefer countries closer to Nigeria like Ghana, top Ghana universities charge between $5000 and $7000 for foreign students, depending on the course of study.

At home, students in federal universities still enjoy “free education”, but they pay for accommodation, library, health care, caution and other minor expenses.

State-owned universities are more expensive, students pay between N80, 000 and N250, 000 per annum as school fees. The fact that most of them are non- residential makes cost of living very expensive.

It is the private universities that are really expensive. With its Spartan rules where students are treated as if they are still in secondary schools or in concentration camps, their fees could be as low as N500, 000 and as high as N1, 000,500.00 or higher in some cases depending on the chosen course of study. At Babcock University, students that intend to study accountancy pay N938, 000, Mass Communication N700, 000 and Nursing students pay the highest of about a million naira. At Redeemers University, a Law student pays above N700, 000.00

At Covenant University, students of Mass Communication pay N449, 000, accounting N525, 000, engineering N544, 000, Biology N526, 500

Parents who wish to send their children to Bowen University, Iwo, Osun State must be ready with N700, 000.

The most expensive course at Idahosa University is Law, and a student pays N680, 000, while at the Lead City, Law is also the most expensive at N550, 500; at Ajayi Crowther University parents pay about N600, 000.

All other private fees are believed to be within this range except ABTI University owned by former Vice President Abubakar Atiku which is believed to be the most expensive, students pay well above a million naira per session for all courses.

The Lagos State Education Commissioner, Mrs. Olayinka Oladunjoye, in an interview with JOKE KUJENYA catalogues the challenges and concerted efforts by the state government to redress the issues, among others.

So, how much would you say that the state government has spent so far on primary, secondary and tertiary education in the state?

Billions! Last year alone, the budget was about N74billion and it all went into the different aspects of our education system. If you take it from that premise alone, you can imagine how much is spent in totality. It included infrastructural development, training, building of schools, intervention in the Lagos State University (LASU) programmes, curriculum development, grants to lecturers, library development, salary payments, buying of books, e-library, computers; it is really a huge investment.

With all these, would you say that private schools are ahead or at par with public schools in the state?

No, they are not. Now, private schools have an edge and these are the reasons: First, they do not have the large number of students we have to contend with in our respective classes. So, attention span of teachers in private schools vis-à-vis concentration on students is not as difficult as we have in public schools. Now, people flock into the state each day, and their children must be admitted into our public schools. And you know Lagos is like a melting point where they all come into and we cannot send them back. So, we end up having our classes over-crowded even with our facilities that we have to be expanding with respective needs. Now, when they come without anything to sift the chaff from the wheat, we then face serious challenges which as you know a private school with limited number of classes might not be faced with.

So, what’s the fate of public schools in the state likely to be in the next ten years?

I can tell you it’s going to be an Eldorado. That’s why we are passionately laying a foundation which we believe our successors in the nearest future will be left with no other choice than to build on what we have laid down. Lagos belongs to all of us just as the future of the children. That is why we are also passionately ensuring as much as possible that the right things are being done the right ways. You know also that now we screen our school children as an acid test to determine their readiness to learn. For the ones who are not ready to move on, we counsel and encourage them to repeat their immediate class. We do the screening on the days they are doing their regular examinations like English Language, Mathematics and Economics in the GCE. When we find that they have met a particular set score(s), then, we will say that they are eligible to write their ‘mock exam’ and then go ahead to write the actual exam. But if a student does not pass the screening, he or she is not eligible to write either the mock or the final exams.

And what is the state doing about those who have turned their private residences to schools?

Seriously, what we recently did was to ask Department for International Development (DFID) from the United Kingdom to come and help the private school owners categorise the setting up of such for us. And this was a conscious move. It is not that we don’t know what to do. But for clarity and thorough professionalism, we are inviting them to bring in the model of UK, Canada and other requirements of what it entails to set up a private school for our children. We want the owners of these schools to know if what they are presently doing is in international best practices so they won’t think that government is not just trying to witch-hunt them. We are working on that. And when that is done, I will even benchmark myself and then we will be able to categorise them as ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ nothing beyond that as the case may be. If anyone trying to set up a private school does not fall into any of those classifications, sorry, no apologies, no school for such people. The same also applies to already existing private schools so-called. Anyone that does not fit in, their school is gone. We realise that we have to be careful of habitually closing down schools and leaving our children to wander on the streets. That way, the goal of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will be defeated.

Professor Alphonsus Bosah Chukwurah (ABC) Nwosu was Political Adviser and Minister of Health in the administration of ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo from 1999 to 2003. He was a young undergraduate on a Federal Government scholarship at the University of Ibadan when the Civil War broke out.  He abandoned his studies and joined the Biafran Armed Forces as an officer.  In this interview in Abuja with AKIN ORIMOLADE he reiterates the accusations against the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo by Chinua Achebe in his latest book ‘There was a Country’

A lot of Nigerians are worried about the book, “There was a country”. Why write such a book 42years after the nation went into a civil war? Why is it coming at this particular time?

The book has come out at the right time, because it is 42 years, tempers and emotions would have subsided for us to have a purely objective look at what happened. I am sure that Achebe had this book swimming in his mind for the past 42 years. If it had come out earlier when tensions were high, it might have provoked the kind of responses the book is not intended to provoke. I have read the book cover to cover. You have seen me with a copy and the book is supposed to point attention to aspects of our history, trace how Achebe went, as a small boy, to Government College, and then what happened about Nigeria after independence and then ended up how Nigeria can get back on track and realise its potentials. So the book has come at the best time.

The most controversial point in the book has to do with the allegation of genocide against General Yakubu Gowon and Chief Obafemi Awolowo. Is that a fair charge?

Achebe’s book is a very expansive book. I can tell you that it is my brothers from across the Niger that are overcharged about how Awolowo fares in the book. There is no charge; there is no overheating from Ndigbo side. The overheating is coming from Pa Awolowo’s side and we want it to happen that way.

Why?

Because we regarded Pa Awolowo as a friend; as an ally. We were sorely disappointed that he made the statement that we were not expecting for our friend and ally to make…especially given the remark he made in Enugu and I have just read some of them out here for you from the book which you can see I have. So, they should just forget it. Pa Awolowo has already defended it. The accusations were worse even in “Trouble with Nigeria”, which was published in 1983. Chief Babatope has pointed that out. Infact, Pa Awolowo and Zik were completely castigated by Achebe in 1983 showing that it was their entry that ruined the Second Republic polity, and you know in joining politics, he went and joined Mallam Aminu Kano’s People’s Redemption Party (PRP). So there is nothing that Achebe has said about Awolowo now that he did not say in 1983. So I don’t think that is a controversial point at all. First, pogrom occurred. Second, genocide occurred and there were people who were in charge when it occurred. To say that Gowon was Head of State and Awolowo his deputy while it occurred are statements of facts. I don’t see why that should generate heat especially when Awolowo had defended it. Our anger with Pa Awolowo is why should he defend it? Why should it be my uncle defending that I am starving? Especially after these many things which he said in Enugu which are on record. So I think that it is not a controversy at all. When you are presented with a fact, you react to the fact. We expect those who are defending Pa Awolowo, when Pa Awolowo had already defended himself, we expect them to react to the evidence.

Some say that Prof. Achebe should have balanced the story since he is presenting facts; he should have stated Awolowo’s defense in the book instead of just giving out allegations and letting it go like that.

What was Awolowo’s defense in the book? I will help you. His defense is that starvation is a legitimate instrument of war. It is a very cold logic and that is what Achebe said in the book. He stated Awolowo’s defense. He didn’t accuse Awolowo of genocide. He said that Awolowo justified it through Awolowo’s statement that starvation is a legitimate instrument of war. He didn’t see why he should be feeding his enemies fat so that he can fight him stronger. It wasn’t Achebe’s statement, it was Awolowo’s statement that was repeated by Achebe, and so, Achebe did not accuse anybody of genocide. He simply said what most Igbo’s are saying. This is uncle, Pa Awolowo speaking about us. That is the point. And we would want our brothers to know that when you are a brother, you are a brother; there are some things we don’t say. I was very glad that Duro Onabule even asked the question, but why did Pa Awolowo have to say it? Were there not other people in the federal side not to have said so?

Some have said that Ojukwu did not consult enough before going into the war as people like Zik were not too keen on the war. Do you agree?

Nonsense! If Lieutenant Colonel Ojukwu did not declare Biafra, we would have killed him.

Why?

We would have killed him. Why are you asking me why? About two million people had come, refugees camps had come, tempers were high, and we met brick wall everywhere. I had fled the University of Ibadan, my teachers left, my professors left, even my Vice Chancellor, Dike had left, the same with University of Lagos, University of Ife, Ahmadu Bello University and we were all in that place, and we were ready to begin a life anew. You think the matter was a matter of Ojukwu? That is one myth, stupid myth none Biafrans are carrying with them that it was Ojukwu. Then, why was he given a hero’s burial if he was the man who took us like the Pied Piper of Hamelin to our deaths? That is something people should get out of their system. Biafra secession was a collective effort. The war was the people’s war and Ojukwu was named even in death as the people’s General.

Gowon said that there wouldn’t have been a civil war without a secession declaration. Which side deserves more blame for this national tragedy?

Gowon said what he had to say. There would have been no war if there had been no pogrom that is also true. There would have been no war if Aburi agreement was implemented even if in stages. So, there were many steps before the secession. I think Gowon should use his tongue to count his teeth to know who was responsible for the pogrom and who was responsible for the non-implementation of Aburi. If you must know, Biafra went for secession and war with war chants of “On Aburi we stand”. Not on anything else. You notice that I have not mentioned the January 15th coup and the July 29th coup. Achebe covered it earlier. He said if the things stopped at the July 29th counter-coup or revenge coup, and even hundreds and thousands of people were killed, there would have been no war. In Achebe’s words, it would have just been regarded as horrendous tit-for-tats. So you can see that before secession, there was pogrom. What does Gowon think of pogrom? Does he think it was good? Is it the kind of thing that cements a country? What does he think about agreement reached at Aburi at their own accord? If they had any problem couldn’t they have met again to iron it out instead of leaving them to civil servants? I have read to you here where Awolowo said at a meeting in Enugu that it was wrong, very improper for civil servants to have commented on this. So there were two stages before that. And Gowon said if there was no secession, no war. I have said if there was no pogrom, no war, I have said if there was no reneging on Aburi, no war. I think it is two-one. So you can see who it is in favour of.

What were the alternatives to war?

There was no alternative to war except that we had to talk. We started to talk, ad-hoc conference set up by Gowon, we failed. We can examine why we failed. We shouldn’t have failed in that conference. I must commend Ojukwu and Gowon for Aburi. If you know the details of how Aburi came; they were still in telephone conversation and both of them decided that the matter had to end. They were convinced, they convinced the others and they went to Aburi to talk. When two parties or three parties reach an agreement, you cannot have a unilateral amending of the agreement. And there were no point in the agreement that wouldn’t have been resolved. We could have started with the points that were resolvable and then left the others and they would have treated them later. If you notice, nobody is trying to crucify the other. The scenes took their normal turn. I think what happened with Aburi was that one person looked at himself and he was about 6ft 4in and a hefty man, and he took a look at the other man and the man was about 5ft 3in, averagely built so he thought that this cannot be a fight even with one hand tied at my back; I can beat him silly. But it wasn’t a case of beating the other man silly; it was a case of what is right and what is wrong and the man whom you thought you could beat silly derives extra power from being in the right, and that was why it lasted as long as it did.

Some said the allegations of starving Biafrans were false. They said Biafran soldiers and elite hijacked food and relief materials meant for civilians and this accounted for why the ‘big men’ looked well fed after the war. They also allege that Biafra rejected the proposed aid corridor that would have allowed food and medicines in…

Double nonsense! Nonsense to the fact that soldiers were hijacking the food and nonsense to the fact that the East blocked or stopped the corridor. The first nonsense is that I was a soldier when I left the University of Ibadan, I joined the Biafran Army. In fact in the same school of infantry where I trained, I was commissioned lieutenant the same day with Chief Ojo Maduekwe and Uzodinma Okpara, the first son of the premier. Nobody wanted to be shielded from the army and we were not conscripted. That is another myth. If you did not join the Biafra Army, you were not a man and we were men so we joined. You can find out from Chief Ojo Maduekwe; we were in the same intake in the school of infantry. We didn’t hijack the food. You know we were fighting in the bush which had been fled by the civilians, so, the food was there. We had food to eat. The civilians could not reach there. They had fled to their various homes and were been housed in camps and it was in these camps that they were being sent food and relief materials. What food were we going to hijack? Milk, egg yolk, corn mill? They were high protein things for starving children. Can an able bodied man go and drink breast milk? No, it was not true. It was just finding an excuse for doing the wrong thing and they cannot find an excuse for doing the wrong thing. On the second one on the corridor, I shall be brief. It is well covered. OJukwu and Biafra believed that allowing the corridor proposed by Gowon will give Nigeria military advantage that they didn’t have. He proposed his own corridor and Gowon thought that would give Ojukwu an advantage that they didn’t have. Now again, the question: Nigeria said that since these people don’t want it, let them not have it; after all, it was their children that were starving not ours. But they didn’t reckon that there was something called human pride and human freedom and it was not Ojukwu. The question I always ask non-Igbos is: do you know how long you have to allow your child to starve before the child develops kwashiorkor? How many can bear the anguish of watching their children starve slowly to death? If you can’t watch it, then dare to watch it as a non-Igbo. Why do you think I as an Igbo can bear to watch it? You are ascribing to yourself greater humanity than me and it is not true. The second question that I have asked, is do they know how many Igbo children have been lost? You know the figures quoted are about 40% of the future generation of Ndigbo. Many of them are now 40 years and above and are lost to the Igbo nation. They were sent to Gabon, they were sent to Sao Tome, they were sent out through Caritas. Some preferred that their children should leave rather than for them to stay with them. I think that when people talk about that, that Biafra allowed starvation to use it for argument, is wicked. As I said in my write-up, such argument can only come from twisted minds. If you can’t do it with my own children, please grant me that I cannot do it with my own children.

A foreign public relations specialist who claimed to have worked for Biafra said he resigned because he discovered that Biafra authorities prevented food and relief materials from coming into Biafra. What is your reaction?

I read it probably in The Nation and I laughed thoroughly. These were some of the things that existed on the outside, people who think they can make money from people’s anguish. How did you come to be involved in Biafra? Did anybody ask him? How did he get the various sums? How? What was he offered to say this? You start first with somebody. You are somebody’s friend; boyfriend or girlfriend, it’s all good, and the money is going. At one stage, you say no, this is what you think. I laughed. I said all these mercenaries of some sort. It was not true. The man also knows that it was not true. The food was there in abundance. We didn’t have to get the food from Red Cross, from Caritas, from World Council of Churches; we were heroes.