The Nation Newspaper

Category: Politics

  • Will Houses of Assembly get financial autonomy?

    Will Houses of Assembly get financial autonomy?

    Will the proposal for the financial autonomy for the Houses of Assembly see the light of the day as the National Assembly is set to review the 1999 Constitution? ONYEDI OJIABOR writes on the controversy surrounding the proposal.

     

     

    As the Senate resumes for plenary session today, one of the items on the agenda is the report of its committee on the review of the 1999 Constitution.

    Expectedly, the recommendations of the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) have continued to attract mixed reactions.

    Intense lobbying by interest groups, geo-political zones and political blocs is in top gear. While some stakeholders have given their nod to most of the recommendations, others have picked holes in some of the recommendations.

    The recommendations covers the devolution of powers, creation of more states, recognition of the six geo-political zones in the constitution, constitutional role for traditional rulers, and local government.

    The need to expung the Land Use Act, the National Youth Serve Corps Act, and the Public Complaints Commission Act from the Constitution, and the National Security Agencies Act, fiscal federalism, amendment of provisions relating to amendment of the Constitution and boundary adjustment are other areas the committee covered in its report.

    The Immunity Clause, Nigerian Police, judicial reforms, rotation of executive offices, gender and special groups, mayoral status for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) , residency and indigene provisions and autonomy for state assemblies also received the attention of the committee.

    The opinions differ sharply on most of the recommendations of the committee. However, one recommendation which appears to have received maximum support is the proposal for financial autonomy to the State Houses of Assembly.

    Section 121, which deals with creation of first line charge for certain bodies and offices at the state level said, states that: “To engender accountability and efficient service delivery, a provision is made for State Houses of Assembly, State Independent Electoral Commissions, Auditor-General of the State and the Attorney-General of a State to get their funding directly from the State Consolidated Revenue Fund.”

    Instructively, the Constitution Review Committee decided to revisit the issue of financial autonomy to state assemblies, maybe to give the state assemblies a second chance to gain their independence.

    During the last amendment of the Constitution, there was a proposal to ensure that the State Houses of Assembly get their funding directly through first line charge.

    The two chambers of the National Assembly adopted the clause after due deliberation of the need to strengthen the workings of the state assemblies.

    The aim was essentially to give the legislative arm in the states some level of financial independence and empower them to serve their people better.

    The clause was applauded by most Nigerians who saw financial autonomy to state assemblies as a move to deepen the principle of separation of powers at the state level.

    Rather than seize the opportunity with both hands, it was bungled by the same people the clause was designed to empower.

    Some governors were said to have mobilised and recruited members of their state assemblies into willing tools to shoot down the clause.

    The clause required the support of the two-third of the state assemblies to pass the law.

    The implication is that 24 out of the 36 Houses of Assembly must support the clause to pass. Curiously, only 23 State Houses of Assembly supported it. It failed to the perpetual shame of those who opposed freedom. State Houses of Assemblies gained notoriety by this singular act of voting to remain in bondage.

    As most issues in the country, the true story of state assemblies that voted to remain under the jackboot of their governors is not known.

    The only thing known is that a certain State House of Assembly in the North West geo-political zone, which had already endorsed the clause, rushed to the National Assembly, a day before the consideration of returns from state assemblies, to withdraw its endorsement.

    The governor of the particular state was said to have threatened to “deal” with the speaker of the House if he failed to withdraw the endorsement of the clause. It was laughable you may say.

    But this is Nigeria , the wonder land, where the unthinkable and absurd happen; a place where a show of shame is glibly glossed over.

    Observers have been asking what went wrong. Ever seen a slave granted unconditional freedom on a platter of gold, who rather than embrace his independence, prefers to be in chains. Another opportunity for the state assemblies to free themselves from the apron string of state governors has come calling.

    The National Assembly has once again come to the rescue by unanimously proposing financial autonomy for state assemblies in the ongoing constitution amendment. Will the state assemblies take the opportunity? Will they choose to remain the official rubber stamp of the governors at the expense of the electorate? Will they through some bogus and spurious vote, elect to act ignominiously like they did during the previous constitution review exercise? These are the questions begging for answers? Only time will tell.

    Already, the State Assemblies Speakers Forum has thrown its weight behind the clause.

    The Forum stated its position at the Asaba retreat and during the zonal hearing on Constitution amendment. There are indications that the Forum has constituted a lobby group to prevail on the National Assembly to ensure that the clause sails through.

    The Forum has assured Nigerians both at home and in the diaspora that it will no longer be business as usual. Opportunity, they say, comes but once. For the state assemblies, they have a second chance. Second chance to say, yes we concur to be free from being manipulated by governors.

    If feelers from the Speaker, Abia State House of Assembly, Chief Ude Oko-Chukwu, are any thing to go by, the state assemblies may have woken from their deep slumber.

    Oko-Chukwu was reported to have assured that the State House of Assembly would vote in favour of financial and political autonomy of state assemblies as proposed by the National Assembly.

    He was also quoted to have said that Abia House of Assembly is favourably disposed to other areas of amendment such as granting first line charge to the state electoral commissions, auditor-general of the state and Attorney General of the state. Before now, these are no go areas for State Houses of Assemblies.

    Oko-Chukwu was reported to have spoken when members of the State Accountability and Voice Initiative visited the House in Umuahia, the State capital.

    He agreed that these were vital areas to the development and growth of democracy as such autonomy would strengthen democratic institutions.

    The speaker gave insight into why the first attempt to grant financial autonomy to State Houses of Assembly failed.

    For him, the first attempt failed because the state assemblies felt they were not properly carried along by the National Assembly in the exercise.

    But he added that the House he presides over, voted for financial autonomy of state assemblies because they realised its importance and the need to vote in favour of the clause.

    Will the recalcitrant state assemblies take a cue from Abia State House of Assembly and others like it?

    While presenting the report of the committee, Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, said constitution review is a continuous process and has been on the front burner of national discourse since 1999.

    “This has been so, especially after the last National Assembly successfully passed three sets of alterations to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

    “It is in this light that the Senate Committee on the review of the 1999 Constitution adopted an incremental approach to constitutional changes.

    “Previous alterations have undoubtedly deepened our democratic ethos by confronting outstanding problems and addressing glaring omissions. At the same time those alterations have generated momentum for continuing review,” Ekweremadu said.

    The purpose of the exercise, he said, is to remove contradictions and ambiguities, supply omissions, and make the Constitution more practical and relevant to the needs of Nigerians in the twenty-first century.

    The members of the review committee, he added, were at all times motivated by what is best for Nigeria .

     

  • Belgore: A challenge to status quo

    Belgore: A challenge to status quo

    As the Kwara State Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) chieftain, Mr. Dele Belgore (SAN), celebrates his birthday today, ABDULLAHI ISHAQ examines his contributions as a legal giant and irrepressible progressive opposition leader.

     

    The unrelenting attacks on Mohammed Dele Belgore (SAN) are self-inflicted. They are to be expected. But anyone that is familiar with real politics should know that such unceasing attacks, authored by different faces of the political status quo in Kwara State, are never directed at a political featherweight. They signal the relevance of and the threat that Belgore poses to the ‘old order’ in the peculiar politics of the state.

    Whatever happens in 2015, he has made a point. For the first time in the history of post-election Kwara politics, the people of the state are now guaranteed alternative views from an opposition political figure on almost all policies of the government and issues affecting the public. Belgore, flag bearer for the opposition ACN in the 2011 governorship poll, had long been expected to disappear from the political scene, to reappear in 2014 or 2015 when the next election is just few months away.

    Having, therefore, proved the bookmakers wrong by sticking around, even after the Supreme Court judgment which upheld the election of PDPs Abdulfattah Ahmed, the political establishment rightly deems Mr Belgore a political risk, who must be checkmated.

    Clearly jittery about what the future holds, the pro status quo elite are not challenging MDB at the level of idea. They are not accusing him of lacking the intellectual content or constitutional right to govern Kwara State. Instead, they are appealing to pedestrian sentiments and scaremongering. Indeed, they once dismissed the opposition as nonexistent, then they graduated to saying the opposition should be constructive and alleging that opposition was behind the rage that greeted the perennial nonpayment of workers salary and the minimum wage. All of it is understandable, placed against the fact that the political establishment had never been used to consistent opposition, which insists that things must be done the right way and stays the course.

    But the establishment politicians are honing their attack skills. Hiding under numerous names, they are accusing Belgore of dumping his support base after the election and waiting till election time to identify with the people. That was a misfire, a terrible one that questions their credentials.

    Since Belgore’s voice is heard again and again on Kwara (and national matters) as they affect the masses, whose collective wealth and investments, made with their funds, are daily being converted to private estate, it is safe to interpret these fellows’ understanding of ‘identify with the people’ to mean a call on Belgore to descend to their level of bread-and-butter politics, which makes even pundits loyal to them, to aver that the state politics is shaped by poverty. If Kwara politics has not shed the toga of it being shaped by poverty, for which it is known some decades ago, does it not say something worrisome about the much-glorified political establishment? If that is not enough reason to do away with such political machinery, then every Nigerian state is invited to adopt Kwara as their development model.

    Now, here is the issue: Belgore should never be stampeded into compromising his personal principle of respecting the poor by keeping to his chest, as much as practicable, whatever gestures made in community development.

    Perhaps, except the government which has a responsibility to account for how every penny of public fund is spent, individuals reserve the right to keep to themselves whatever personal goodwill they have extended to the less privileged. I am aware that the most rewarding gift is that given in secret. We are told that the right-hand should give without the left-hand knowing. And as Belgore himself has repeatedly stated in the past, it is never a good thing to humiliate fellow human beings by publicising their names/status in the name of offering them aids. This in fact conflicts with our moral belief. Besides, whatever anyone gives to the next persons ought to be from the conviction that the recipients deserve it – and not to give the impression of politically-motivated philanthropy. Indeed, the education support (extramural classes) Belgore gave last year became a public issue (as far as I can tell), only when the government was playing politics with it. We neither heard him nor his media office announcing it in the media. I was to learn later that the lawyer, well before the 2011 poll, gave scholarship every year to at least five law students, among other gestures, I’m told, he does in his own way. But we don’t hear of these in the media. It is his own style. Whoever wishes to announce his philanthropic gestures is absolutely free to do so, but it will be unfair to expect everybody to join the indecent charade of exhibiting/mocking the helplessness of our people by showing on TV or sponsoring some newspaper articles containing scenes of where ankara/garri/UTME forms are being shared to the ‘poor’ and to students deliberately, not exposed to qualitative primary/secondary education to give them solid beginning.

    Maybe I should say here that this article is provoked partly by a recent article in THISDAY entitled Ilorin Elite and the Sarakis, authored by one Arowolo. The writer undid himself through and through. And in trying to clad the Sarakis as the messiah of Kwara people, he did much to indict them. Having been in government and calling the shots for decades, a genuine pro-people effort would have been to push for an institutionalised social security net for the people – one that would make such pro-people gesture a matter of right for the recipient and not something designed to keep them perpetually loyal to any individual political dynasty. That’s what has been done in the United States that Arowolo referenced. No American recipient of that gesture is duty bound to belong to the GOP or the Democratic Party! And quite interestingly, we have seen the social security system now gradually being institutionalised in Osun and Ekiti whose governors, being ACN chieftains, are Belgore’s associates. In these two states today, once you are aged 60 and above, you are entitled to some naira at month’s end. You need not belong to ACN/Aregbesola/Fayemi’s camp to get it. That’s the sort of empowerment that is without any ‘string attached.’

    Also, Arowolo failed to tell the public that the sort of philanthropy he laboured so much to compare with the US social security system is in fact unacceptable in that society. That society, not only rejects individuals not known with legally-identifiable sources of income, it in fact, does not reckon with politicians with no personal record of professional/trade excellence. They celebrate individuals who can inspire the young generations to attain dignified success!

    It is questionable that Arowolo does not see anything wrong in repeating the innuendo that the Kwara State politics is defined by poverty and cronyism. If somebody had been privileged to remain in power for four decades, as Arowolo rightly said of the Sarakis, is it not self-indicting that the same Ilorin people still don’t have access to good water more than 30 years after personal fund was used to distribute water? The Ilorin Water Reticulation Project, which we understand has now gulped over N4b, has not resulted in a drop of water. Instead the government said it is still digging boreholes (in 21st century) to address the water problem.

    Also, it is in the interest of the sarakites not to launch a debate comparing Senator Bukola Saraki to Belgore. Occasionally, I see them touting on the social media the former’s divine right to lead Kwara the same way Thomas Hobbes regaled the British society with the ‘divine right’ of the King to, not only rule over them, but to dictate what religion they practice. To be sure, both men (Saraki and Belgore) are miles apart if leadership should be judged by personal discipline, integrity and professional excellence. And in the years to come, the good people of Kwara, not least the youth, would need to decide who leads them politically, keeping in mind what grave implications such decision has for their future and the future of the generations yet to be born.

    One final thing: Belgore is a year older today. He was born on June 25, 1961, and, according to records accessible online, he was educated in Capital School (Kaduna); Offa Grammar School, Offa; and University of Hull, London where he read law. He has a Masters Degree in Law from the University of Bristol, England. At 28, in 1989, he co-founded what is today one of Nigeria’s leading law firms Sofunde, Osakwe, Ogundipe and Belgore (SOOB). At 40, in 2001, Belgore became a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, one of the youngest holders of the title.

    His detractors are genuinely worried that his voice has refused to go away since the April poll. They had thought he would fizzle out after the Supreme Court ruling. By not keeping quiet on Kwara matters, Belgore has kept faith with his pledge to keep the flag of the struggle flying. HBD MDB!

     

    • Ishaq wrote from Ilorin, Kwara State.

     

  • Does Jonathan deserve pass mark?

    Does Jonathan deserve pass mark?

    Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU examines the mid-term report of the Jonathan Administration within the context of growing public disillusionment about the ailing economy, soaring poverty and infrastructure decay across the country.

    Pre-empting the judgment of the people, President Goodluck Jonathan hurriedly scored himself high, when he laid before them the mid-term report of his ‘Transformation Agenda’, in Abuja, the Federal Capaital Territory (FCT), two weeks ago. He emphasised that democracy was on course, urging Nigerians to assess his score card outside the prism of partisan politics. In two years time, things would be better, the President assured.

    The executive summary of the self-adulating report, which is 58 pages, unveiled an administration that has buried itself in idealistic yearnings. Not only has the government sought to score cheap points, even in the critical sectors, it also listed unverifiable achievements and exaggerated the feats recorded in other areas. The report conflicted with the National Assembly’s assessment of the budget performance, which it observed, has been very poor. Neither has the “improved economy”, as claimed by the Presidential Economic Team, impacted positively on the citizens, who still wallow in abject poverty, squalour and misery.

    President Jonathan drew attention to what he called a “model of leadership”. He claimed that he has advanced democratic culture by delivering its dividends to the people. He also submitted that he has expanded the civil space by allowing freedom of expression to thrive. According to the report, the President hosted the civil society to a retreat to express its opinion on the proposed constitution review. Describing the move as unprecedented, the report said that the forum gave the over 300 groups the opportunity to vote on a number of national issues.

    However, that posture conflicted with the President’s earlier remarks that a Sovereign National Conference (SNC), which is being vigorously agitated for by other stakeholders, is a no-go area. Analysts view this as an attempt to draw the wool on the eyes of Nigerians, contending that a piecemeal constitution amendment, may not resolve the national question the way a national conference would attempt to do.

    The administration also projected its respect for checks and balances among the three organs of government. The report noted that President Jonathan has fostered national stability by strengthening the independence of the legislature, executive and judiciary. It claimed that the National Assembly has now become a more vibrant legislature, which has come up with a more assertive legislative practice.

    To observers, this is commendable, although the President would have scored a fuller mark, had he not ignored the resolutions of the National Assembly last year January, when he was advised by the two Houses, to quickly rescind his decision on the embarrassing fuel price hike, which triggered mass demonstrations across the country. The elder statesman, Chief Richard Akinjide (SAN), observed that the President would have exploited the escape route.

    President Jonathan alluded to what he described as “electoral progress”. He attributed the sanity to the adequate funding and autonomy enjoyed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) chaired by Prof. Attahiru Jega. “The country witnessed the most credible elections in 2011”, said the report. The President also said that electoral violence has reduced. These remarks are debatable. Many election observers agree that there was an improvement. But the Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reforms (CODER) disagreed. Its Coordinator, Mr. Ayo Opadokun, observed that the crusade for the sanctity of the ballot box is an unfinished business. “There are still some unresolved issues. INEC is not totally independent. It is not appointed by a neutral body. We don’t have tribunals for trying electoral fraud. Unless the report of the Uwais Panel is fully implemented, electoral sanity cannot be fully guaranteed”, he said.

    Also, the government rationalised that it has maintained equity, fairness and balance in the distribution of the federal appointments. Many stakeholders have objected to the claim. According to the Afenifere and Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG), the distribution is lopsided to the detriment of the Southwest geo-political zone. Also, the government claimed that “confidence is building in each geo-political zone that it does not matter where the President comes from”. This assertion is false. Although merit, standard, and sound pedigree should form the basis for recruiting Nigerians for the highest office, the reverse is the case. Ahead of 2015, ethnic bigots have invaded the media, calling for either the retention power in a certain zone or power shift to a particular zone. This may have been induced by the perception that the Presidency is weak. Observers also attribute the struggle to the neglect of the inexplicable rotational principle in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    The Presidency is not a uniting factor in the highly populous and complex heterogeneous nation-state. Rather, it is a divisive force. Although former President Olusegun Obasanjo could not be described as a democrat, or a leader who mustered the strength to resolve the national question, his Presidency rose above ethnic sentiment. His successors have not mirrored this singular quality. Recently, ethnic voices from the Niger Delta have been clashing with their Northern counterparts over the soul of the Presidency. Mujaheed Dokubo-Asari, claiming to be expressing the view of the devastated coastal communities, spat fire on behalf of Dr. Jonathan, warning that there would be no oil to finance the country beyond 2015, if the Southsouth does not retain the Presidency. The Presidential Adviser on Niger Delta Affairs, Comrade Kingsley Kuku, had echoed the same sentiment, threatening fire and brimstone. Perhaps, it was in response to the opinion of the Northern leaders, including Alhaji Tanko Yakassai and Alhaji Lawal Kaita, which instantly elicited a fierce response from the elder statesman of Ijaw origin, Senator Edwin Clark.

    How has the government also tame corruption? The report pointed out that certain strategies have been adopted to nip it in the bud. These strategies, to observers, are laudable. But they are incomplete. Recently, the former Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) President, Mr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), observed that the war against graft is slow and not yielding adequate results. He pointed that the court processes are still slow. Also, some lawyers have pointed out that the anti-graft bodies and courts are after those culprits who steal tubers of yam and fowls, leaving those who cart away millions from the public treasury.

    On security, the report did not award any imaginary pass mark. “Insurgency is being contained and will soon be a thing of the past”, said the report. It is evident that the government has failed woefully in this area, more than any other. However, it is noteworthy that the Federal Government is really not relenting in its efforts. Security is multi-dimensional. At the state level, the governor, who is the chief security officer, is impotent. He lacks the power of control over the police. If the Boko Haram insurgency is politically motivated, then, only a political solution can end it. Also, many believe that, if insecurity continues to permeate the trembling polity, it will take its toll on all sectors.

    Perhaps, the most controversial aspect of the report is the score card on the economy. It is a sensitive sector requiring expert’s searchlight. Government acknowledged that it inherited a number of challenges, which the transformation agenda was designed to address. They include unemployment and poverty, food insecurity, poor infrastructure, high inflation, and rising domestic debt. Others are high recurrent expenditure, falling reserves, housing deficits and inability to diversify the economy.

    The Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister of Economy, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Eweala, painted a glossy picture of a performing economy. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP), she explained, is one of the fastest growing in the world at 6.5 percent. Inflation has come down to 9.1 percent and external reserves have rising to 48.4 billion dollar. The Sovereign Wealth Fund, which has generated quarrel between the President and 36 governors, is in place, cost of governance is reducing, national debt is declining and petroleum subsidy payment regime is also in place. In addition, trade is booming and investors are competing to be in Nigeria. Rail, waterways, aviation, roads, electricity and other sectoral reforms are on course.

    To observers, the minister has reeled out theoretical facts and imaginary indices, which ultimately paled into fable and propaganda. “Where are the roads?”, asked ARG chieftain, Kunle Famoriyo, who added: “Have they dome Lagos-Ibadan Expressway? Have they done Shagamu-Ore Road? Do we now have regular electricity supply? There is no evidence of governance yet”. Before the release of the mid-term report, Afenifere chieftain Pa Rueben Fasoranti lamented that the ship of state may hit the rock. He said the soaring unemployment, infrastructure decay, corruption, especially the pension scam, and misuse of public funds portend danger for the country’s future. “The only thing they are doing is that they are preparing for the 2015 elections. There is no governance”, he added.

     

  • No going back on impeachment bill, says lawmaker

    No going back on impeachment bill, says lawmaker

    Hon. Yakubu Dogara represents Bogoro/Dass/Tafawa Balewa Constituency in the House of Representatives. He told Dele Anofi that the new Impreachment Bill will check the excesses of the President, if enacted into law.

    THE impeachment your Bill removes the judiciary from the process of impeaching the President. What is the intent of the bill?

    The reason why four of us sat and made the proposal is because we looked at the culture of impunity in this country, and I must say that examples abound. For example, the annual budget laws are made to be implemented. In a democracy, if laws won’t be implemented, there are processes to get them repealed or amended. But in most cases, laws are not implemented in this country and nobody tells you why.

    The budget is a case in point. If you set an examination and score 35 percent, based on the marking scheme and other parameters, it is a failure. We have never had a situation where the National Assemly passes the budget and the Executive refuses to sign and we override the President. The budget proposal has always been based on envelope system. At the end, it is only 25 to 30 percent that is achieved. That is not democracy.

    Look at the case of Public Procurement Act, Section 1, talks about the National Council on Procurement, which is the first thing the law establishes, but the executive abandoned that section. The executive, however, found it convenient to respect the part B of the law, to set up the Bureau for Public Procurement, whereas it is the Council that is supposed to constitute that agency and employ the staff but they refused . The reason being that if it is set up, it deprives the Federal Executive Council from sitting as a contact awarding body, since they want to determine who gets what.

    If part A of that law is bad, then part B is also bad as well. But why do you think the executive will sit down and determine what part of the law to obey? Because there is no consequence attached to it and nothing will happen. Look at the issue of fuel subsidy, to every democrat, the question will be that, is there any law that authorises the President to remove subsidy?

    Was there a law?

    There was no law that authorises him to remove subsidy. There is none. So, as a democrat, on what would you hinge your action? As a matter of fact, there is a law that prohibits the President from removing subsidy, but the argument we heard from government was that there is no going back. I don’t think there is any civilised democracy in the world where you hear the executive shouting that there is no going back on any policy. Everything is meant to be driven by consensus. What could be responsible for anybody to think that there won’t be any consequence for breaking the law? This is because, if it were a true democracy we are running, the question would have been that there is this law and the Attorney General is there to get the legislature to repeal it to pave the way for subsidy removal.

    Do you consider this as a breach?

    There are catalogues of other breaches that I will not enumerate here, but our thinking in crafting this bill was, why should there be the culture of impunity? And let me refer to what Lord Acton said that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The corruption we are witnessing in Nigeria today is as a result of concentration of powers in the hands of few individuals and without appropriate checks.

    The entire goal of our retributive system of justice is to ensure deterrence. If armed robbers are executed, it is because they want to deter people from committing robbery. So, what is there in the constitution that will deter the executive – the President and the Vice President from committing obvious breaches of the constitution? The only thing you find in the constitution is the provision for removal from office or impeachment.

    Is the provision self-defeating?

    That is why every successive Nigerian President violates the constitution at will. As a matter of fact, if I were the President, there is nothing in the whole constitution that stops me from being a dictator. I can become a dictator knowing that the National Assembly, based on the provisions of the constitution, cannot remove me. Why? The powers of impeachment under Section 143 is given to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, through the panel of seven that he will constitute. We all know what will happen. When the National Assembly, a body of 469 members by 2/3 majority has passed a resolution to say that an office holder has committed an impeachable offense, the CJN is called upon to constitute the panel , at the end of the day, whatever they say, the courts cannot query it, the National Assembly cannot debate it. So, if I were the President, I will just give the CJN the seven names, because he is my appointee. After that houses or mansions will be bought for them, they will be bribed and the story goes on. In fact, they won’t even put people of ‘unquestionable integrity’ that the constitution specifies. If I were the President, I can almost bet 100 percent, that utilizing the provisions of the constitution, nobody can remove me.

    With this amendment, are you not giving the legislature absolute power to impeach the President at will?

    There is no civilized democracy out there, where impeachment is not a political process. It is completely a political process handle by politicians. If the President commits an offense, and you require the intervention of the judiciary, there is the proposal that after his impeachment, if he has committed a crime, he should nonetheless be prosecuted. However, it is against the principles of our law for the person to be tried twice by the same institution, that is, the judiciary on same allegations.

    That is why, if you look at the history of impeachment from Alexander Hamilton, one of the American founding fathers, he encapsulated these points in his arguments. He postulated that, let the politicians determine what constitute an impeachable offense and then give the Senate the powers to remove the person, and then, the courts can now try, if the person has committed a crime. That separates the body that accuses, which is the House of Representatives from the one that will impeach and prosecute. Impeachment in our proposal does not amount to removal from office. The House will first indict by impeachment only, then the matter will be entirely referred to the Senate and then the CJN will come to the Senate and preside over a hearing. This is because the major defect of that section is that it failed to provide for fair hearing. That is the practice everywhere, we are not being ingenues about it.

    Is the bill targetingPresident Jonathan?

    Those who think that we are targeting President Goodluck Jonathan may not have listened to the debate, because the goal of a legislation cannot be an individual and so, it is even very wicked to claim that we are targeting the President. We supported and campaigned for him seriously. After all, Jonathan will not be President forever. Moreover, we are dealing with the constitution and if it is altered in that regard it is going to be there for couple of years and whoever is the president will meet that.

    The bill was proposed by four of us who are all members of the PDP and we are guided by the fact that we have not done anything against the PDP but the question is whether it is right within this circumstance to introduce it. Remember, we did not take any oath of allegiance to the PDP, the oath we took was to serve the country. So, it doesn’t matter if it is contentious but as long as it can better our democracy and better the lives of those who elected us, so be it.

    But we hear that the party is considering suspending you…

    I have also heard that, but, I think it will amount to a joke carried too far because we are protected by an Act of Parliament, which says that: “on account of what you have said on the floor of the House; no disciplinary measures or court actions can be initiated against you”. It is a big joke and I don’t think anybody in his right senses, whether it is the chairman of the party or a national leader, will ever contemplate suspending members of his party because of the position they have taken on matters that will strengthen our democracy. And in any case, disciplinary procedures are there. Before disciplinary action can be taken against me, I have to be given fair hearing and no one has summoned any of us.

    As a loyal party member, won’t you consider withdrawing the bill for peace to reign?

    Our allegiance is to the people of Nigeria not the PDP; we are moved by our conciseness and whatever is right and will advance this democracy that is what we will do. We are not here to engage in figure worship or to interpret our world just around the narrow prism of some god-fathers but to do what is just based on our conscience and what the majority of people of this country want. So, as as far as we are concerned, there is no issue here whatsoever and I guess it is because the presidency or the people in PDP have realized that there is nothing in this bill to cause the kind of apprehension or trepidation that we are seeing, that is why they are quiete, otherwise, by now, they would have summoned us.

  • PDP ‘rebel’ governors and third force option

    PDP ‘rebel’ governors and third force option

    The battle for the soul of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the war of attrition between some governors and the leadership of the party on one hand and President Goodluck Jonathan on the other is throwing up new permutations ahead of the next general elections. Remi Adelowo reports

     

    Interesting days, weeks and months lie ahead in the build-up to the 2015 general election.

    For months, peace has remained elusive in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). In some state chapters of the party, key members are at daggers drawn. The same scenario is also playing out at the national level.

    Could this recurring crisis be all about the alleged second term ambition of President Goodluck Jonathan or much more than that? While the president is almost certain to seek for another term in office, there are some powerful political interests hell-bent on stopping him.

    In the last two months, the political space has been heated up with series of mostly contrived crises.

    From the post-election crisis trailing the chairmanship election of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF); the call by some PDP stakeholders asking the National Chairman of the party, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, to step down and the suspension of Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi, have all been linked to the politics of 2015 and the rumoured desire of the president to contest for a second term in office.

    And from all indications, the two camps – one for and the other against the President’s alleged ambition – seem not to be ready to sheath their swords.

    A pointer to this fact emerged last week when PDP governors who voted for Amaechi at the NGF election joined their counterparts from other parties to boycott a meeting convened by the president to resolve the impasse arising from last month’s Federal Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC), resulting in a walkout by all the 36 commissioners of Finance.

    Days before the meeting was held at the Presidential Villa, the absentee governors disclosed their intention that they would be in attendance. One of the governors, Ekiti’s Kayode Fayemi, had in a television interview said, “I’m not aware of any meeting called by Governor Jonah Jang (NGF factional chairman of NGF). But if the president calls for a meeting, I will attend because he is the president of the country.”

    That turned out to be a dummy, as none of the pro-Amaechi governors showed up, nor sent a representative.

    Sources disclosed to The Nation that the governors’ action was allegedly due to feelers they got that the president would have used the parley to give legitimacy to the Jang’s faction.

    “The meeting was planned in such a way that after all the thorny issues concerning the FAAC crisis had been ironed out, the president would have asked Jang to speak on behalf of his colleagues. This, no doubt, would have conferred legitimacy on the Jang’s NGF faction and pull the rug off the feet of the pro-Amaechi governors. And even if they disagree with the president’s action, it would be almost impossible for the governors to walk out on the president,” the source explained further.

    Curiously too, none of the absentee governors has spoken publicly on why they boycotted the meeting, while the Presidency has also refrained from making any official statement on the issue.

    Going for the broke

    In a speech that was interpreted as daring the PDP leadership and the president, Jigawa State Governor, Alhaji Sule Lamido, a few days ago revealed the identities of PDP governors who voted for Amaechi at the NGF election.

    According to Lamido, himself, Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Saidu Dakingari (Kebbi), Aliyu Wammako (Sokoto), Abdulfatah Ahmed (Kwara), Rotimi Amaechi (Rivers), Rabiu Kwankwaso (Kano), Babangida Aliyu (Niger) voted for Amaechi against the President’s prefered choice, Jang.

    Short of calling the bluff of the PDP leadership, Lamido added that the suspension of Wammako, which followed that of Amaechi, was a mistake, which must be corrected by the party.

    Though the party has since lifted Wammako’s suspension, the PDP governors opposed to him are still unrelenting in calling for his ouster, accusing Tukur of running the party like his personal estate.

    The third force option

    The ‘rebel’ PDP governors are not taking chances in their battle with the president and Tukur, The Nation has learnt.

    Aware that attempts will be made by the Presidency to castrate them politically in the run-down to the 2015 general elections, impeccable sources revealed that the governors are working on several options to frustrate this plan and stay relevant before and after the next elections.

    Kano State Governor, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, alluded to this fact a few days ago during a media briefing.

    He declared: “This party (PDP) belongs to all of us. It does not belong to the governors; it does not belong to the president and it doesn’t belong to the party chairman or anybody. We have invested so much in the party and I don’t think any governor is thinking of leaving this party, but if you are suspended, dismissed or expelled, of course there are no options.”

    The first option, it was learnt, is get Tukur out and if possible hijack the party’s structures from loyalists of the president and in the likelihood that this plan fails to sail through, the governors have allegedly resolved to work against the president at the 2015 PDP presidential primaries.

    The Presidency may have got wind of this plan, necessitating a recent statement credited to the PDP Board of Trustees chair, Chief Anthony Anenih, that the president would be offered an automatic ticket as the party’s presidential candidate.

    Criticism of this plan particularly from northern stakeholders notwithstanding, The Nation, however, learnt that the PDP leadership, backed by support from the Presidency, may go ahead with it.

    Another option on the table is for the governors to form another political party to further their political aspirations.

    If this plan works out, the new party will serve as a ‘third force’ to challenge the dominance of the PDP and the yet-to-be-registered All Progressives Congress (APC).

    This option also has its drawbacks, according to a source close to one of the governors. According to him, time factor may scuttle this plan, as the period between now and the next election is considered as rather too short to put the party in the consciousness of Nigerians.

    Also being considered by the governors is to move en masse from PDP and join the emerging APC. Leaders of APC are allegedly mounting pressure on these PDP governors to join the new party, while allegedly assuring them of equal stakes in the party.

    A few weeks ago, the National Leader of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), one of the three major parties fusing into APC, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, and the National Chairman, Chief Bisi Akande, met with Governor Kwankwaso in Kano, in what a source said was part of the ongoing plan to woo formidable politicians into APC.

    The last option according to The Nation’s findings is for the governors to remain in PDP, work for the party in every election for elective offices, except the presidential election.

    Battle for 2015 presidency

    For most northern governors and politicians, nothing short of the region clinching the Presidency in 2015 would be good enough.

    In his post-mortem of the NGF election and its likely implication on the 2015 presidency, Kwankwaso was quoted at his media briefing thus: “Let me say that we are northerners and I think we should be consulted on what we need. Some people have decided that we should take the chairmanship of the Nigeria Governors Forum.

    “That is not our choice; we know what we want and we are not expecting anybody to choose for us. We should choose for ourselves. I think that point should be clarified.”

    It remains to be seen how these calculations from the ‘rebel’ governors will shape the post-2015 direction of politics in Nigeria.

     

  • River crisis: Spanner in the wheel?

    River crisis: Spanner in the wheel?

    Nigeria’s political history is replete with monuments of willful resistance to change by the powers that be. The colonial office, through crookery and other obnoxious means strove to stop the nationalists from fighting for independence. Truth became a victim as nothing was too sacred to trample upon by the rampaging colonialists. At the end of the day, the will of God for the country came into manifestation.

    Did the civilians in the First Republic learn any lesson from the fall of colonialism? Not at all! They too unleashed terror on the opposition. With time, terror confronted terror, and, “Wetie” and other skirmishes led to the collapse of that republic. The rest is history. Students of medieval history knows too well that without renaissance, the world would have remained in the dark, no wonder change, though often confronted, remains the only constant decimal in global political calculus.

    It was in line with this pedigree that the Nigerian League of Democrats met in Asaba, the Delta State capital, to discuss the current crisis in Rivers State.

    As Uthman Dan Fodio rightly put it, conscience is an open wound, only the truth can cure it. The Nobel Laureate, Prof Wole Soyinka, out of concern for the Nigeria project has reminded President Goodluck Jonathan and the presidency to be careful lest they unwittingly foster unpleasant political heist on Rivers State.

    He rightly pointed attention to the insecurity in the north, which is sufficient for discerning leaders to know that it could be dangerous for anyone that as Nigeria sits on the precipice, heating the system further could lead to anarchy.

    The Nigeria Democratic League is united with the Nobel Laureate to aver that bickering and parochialism are no solutions to the crisis staring Nigerians in the face now. Already, factionalisation based on some political jobbers’ penchant for fanning the embers of vendetta has already divided the Rivers State House of Assembly.

    The league is of the same mind with Prof Soyinka and all peace loving Nigerians that enough is enough on unnecessary political belly aching and the dangerous fanning of schism among the good people of Rivers State and, well, in all parts of the country, should stop forthwith.

    All apostles of politics as it was in the beginning should realise that change, when it must come, will come whether people like it or not. The Nigerian League coordinators are eagle-eyed across the country to document the activities of interlopers, beating their chests as leaders of our people. These people wherever they are or no matter their privileged pedigree should, however, note that every day, the pot goes into the well to draw water, but one day its bottom will drop. It is a simple arithmetic.

    The League officers have observed that the opinion of many Nigerians that the presidency and its cohorts plan to rubbish Governor Rotimi Amaechi’s good work in Rivers State cannot succeed. This accounts for the riddle in the election at the Governors Forum, in which Amaechi retained his seat as chairman, and yet the presidency is said to be backing the Jonah Jang faction.

    Any discerning Nigerian who has visited Rivers State of late will realise that Amaechi would be difficult to put aside. What is democracy other than giving the electorate good roads, food on the table, peaceful environment to work and creating gainful employment for the people.

    In all of these, Amaechi is a champion any day. The construction and expansion of roads, awards of overseas scholarship to indigenes, establishment of modern health facilities, building and equipping schools are just a few on the list of this populist governor.

    Critical to Nigeria’s development is the need for power to shift to the north in 2015. It is incumbent on the north too to ensure that an experienced, trusted and detribalised leader emerges from their ranks come 2015. This recommendation is germane to promote fairness and equity across the land.

    The League is also of the opinion that non-performing political office holders should not hold the electorate to ransom because Nigerians are already warming up for a change and there is no stopping them.

    The fanning of schism in the nation is a call up to progressive elements to come together and give Nigeria, the land flowing with milk and honey, but which has continued to bring forth sour grapes a break, the right leadership.

    It is not too late for the progressives to perish whatever has caused them bitter acrimonies in the past. Let them shun ‘I and I’ and other dividing tendencies and unite to liberate our people from the shackles of modern slavery and pervasive servitude.

    Ayela is a veteran journalist, based in Lagos.

     

  • Politics of Okorocha’s attack

    Politics of Okorocha’s attack

    The recent attack on the convoy of Imo State Governor, Rochas Okorocha, in Oguta by some protesting youths is still generating ripples in the state.

    An unconfirmed report has it that the protest was allegedly masterminded by an unnamed senator and key leaders of an opposition party in the state. Okorocha had visited the area to inspect some ongoing projects, but in the thinking of his opponents, the visit was a decoy to campaign for APGA candidate, Walter Uzonwanne, who is contesting the bye election for Oguta Constituency seat in the House of Assembly. The protest, according to a source, is to portray the governor as unpopular in the area.

  • ‘Our innovation in education can curtail terrorism’

    ‘Our innovation in education can curtail terrorism’

    Osun State governor, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, during a recent media chat with some selected journalists spoke on some socio-economic developments in the state, reports Ibrahim Apekhade Yusuf

     

    Your government came up with the now famous tablet otherwise known as Opon Imo (treasure trove of wisdom or tablet of knowledge), which it hopes to improve learning. But there are fears that the project has gulped and will gulp more in terms of funding. There is also the issue of sustainability. What’s your take on this?

    We project that the Opon Imo will be distributed among 153, 000 students across secondary schools from SS1-3. We imported 50, 000 Opon Imo and we are assembling the rest 100, 000 here in the country. Talking about the scalability and whether it can be sustained here, the issue of sustainability does not arise. You see, during the launch, my brother and friend from Oyo State, Governor Abiola Ajimobi, said ‘those who say this is fated for failure and therefore might not be sustainable, please just tell them that does it require any persuasion to reject leaf as the medium of serving food rather than using plates?’ If that idiom or illustration is quite clear to you as it is to me, you know that Opon Imo is an innovation, no doubt, that is bound to change the idea of learning forever in Osun and in the world. Why? And I say that the alternative to Opon Imo is beyond whatever anybody can imagine.

    But in that our own, we limited the holding capacity of the Opon Imo tablet to the 56 text books that we need. There could be states where students learn up to 100 subjects, Opon Imo has the capacity to take all the 100 hundred subjects as against 56 subjects we do here. So the contents we have are just a reflection of what we need. Let’s now agree that the needs are the same, what’s the average cost of a textbook? I did the survey and I found out that the average cost of a textbook is N1,000. For any pupil at that level of education to have the number of books in Opon Imo, the parent or the government must be ready to spend N56, 000. But that’s not the case here. If each tablet contains 56 books that would have cost either a government or parents at least N85, 680, 000, 000 but we spent just N200million. If hard copies are N85billion plus at N1, 000 average cost per book and digital copies of the same books are N200million, which is cheaper?

    So, what is cheaper to acquire: is it the hard copy or the digital copy? Which is sustainable: is it the procurement of hard copies of books every year or the procurement of Opon Imo that can last for five years? The only thing you can say is this, each child may not need 56 books in a year, and I agree with you. But you cannot deny the fact that having these books is an advantage. You can’t deny that fact. Even if you reduce the books to 10 per student, the cost of that to either the government or the parent is still more than N200million. It is the most cost-effective way affording each child’s assess to books wherever they are, whether in the cities or single hamlet settlements.

    Laudable as this initiative is, what measures are in place to ensure continuity after you have left the scene as governor?

    We will try and get a worthy successor. The people will always choose their own government. But we are not God. But one thing is clear in human nature, nobody will leave that which is clear to something that is uncertain. In the past, human beings were not always wearing clothes; it came as the knowledge of man advanced. But since cloth came, man has refused to drop it. So if modernisation is a result of human advancement and there has not been any single advantage of that advancement, in that philosophical sense, I don’t think even anybody in his normal sense will deny that which is cost-effective, which makes learning better, which gives you the access to learning, which guarantees universal access to all forms of learning to the old order which is not as enduring and which does not provide for all the way this is providing for all.

    So by the normal human attitude to change and advancement, there is no question about how succeeding regimes will take this. That’s one. But beyond that, is the issue of expertise to operate and maintain. The workings of Opon Imo is not different from your normal GSM phone, its touch screen with finger control. The device is divided into three essential segments namely: the e-library, textbook and the virtual learning centre. The operation of the tablet is amazingly simple such that any 14-year-old can easily use.

    But in spite of that, we have devised a means to ensure that all teachers at that level will be given training on the operation of the tablet and in each school there will be a maintenance unit in which the schools themselves will manage. And should there be a problem beyond the management of the school, we are going to have in nine zones, maintenance centres to attend to intractable challenges.

    To reduce downtime to reduce any challenge any student will have. We have deployed units of the tablets to three schools and I’ve not heard any extraordinary issue. The way the youngsters have taken to the tablet is amazing because it’s as if their heads have been programmed for it. They are amazing in their knowledge of the tablets.

    If you listened to my speech during the introduction, I said not just the software will be produced here but the hardware will be assembled here too. The demand for the tablet outside the state is expected to be heavy within the next three years and I think will cover the entire state of the federation. What Opon Imo guarantees is that wherever the students are they can learn; whether in the school, at home, on the farm, on the field, inside the car, inside the bus, inside the taxi, everywhere and anywhere.

    Opon Imo has huge potentials. The capacity of the device is limitless, it’s a vital tool. It can also be used for religious education and anti-terrorism training for instance. All we need to do is to get scholars to produce the right content that would be used to assist the almajiris to learn and others as well.

    What is Osun doing to promote agriculture?

    What we have done in agriculture is more than what we have done in other sectors.

    The three cardinal points of this administration are centred on agriculture intervention and is food- based. It is our major concern in agriculture. We created an omnibus programme, ORIS, communist agriculture. Our administration is just a fly by night administration. Our programmes are integrated.

    You once said that the state was ready to grant tax holidays to investors who are interested in investment in agriculture. Has the state recorded any success along that line?

    Outside Lagos, I don’t see any other government that has been able to attract more investment in the last few years. We have three companies now that have come on board in line with our incentives.

    There is the garment factory that our intervention has brought. It is the largest garment factory in Nigeria. There is RLB, which is a company from Ghana, that produces telephone handsets, laptops, desktops. They have commissioned their plant here. This was possible as a result of our bold initiative.

    Hospitality industry is growing daily. Since we assumed office, the influx of people in the state has improved substantially in the state.

     

     

     

  • Ogun 2015: Is Labour Party really a threat?

    Ogun 2015: Is Labour Party really a threat?

    Against the backdrop of its claim that it is now the party to beat in Ogun State ahead of the 2015 governorship election, Assistant Editor, Dare Odufowokan, examines the chances of the Labour Party (LP) in the forthcoming election.

     

     

    Alhaji Rafiu Ogunleye, a former deputy governor in the state and a politician from the eastern senatorial district of Ogun State, recently spoke about the possibility of the Labour Party (LP) defeating the Action Congress of Nigeria (AC N) in the 2015 poll in Ogun State.

    The pronouncement sums up the feeling within the camp of the relatively new LP in Ogun State. Ogunleye is the known leader of the party in the state. But the statement elicited resentment from the ruling AC N which described such as mere wishful thinking.

    Indeed, the LP is sparing no effort in its quest to announce itself as a serious contender in the politics of the state ahead of the 2015 general election. With claims of mass defection into its fold by members of other political parties in the state, leaders of the party seek to create the impression that it is being seen as an alternative.

    But pundits and politicians say the party may not have what it takes to dislodge the ruling party just as the AC N says the LP cannot offer the people of the state anything as it is a party peopled by disgruntled mischief makers who are fond of playing politics with development issues.

    Before now, much couldn’t be said of the LP in the politics of Ogun State other than it fielded Chief Jide Awosedo as its gubernatorial candidate during the last election and came a distant fourth in the race. Senator Lekan Mustapha who flew the party’s flag in Ogun East senatorial district also lost woefully.

    Awosedo and Mustapha remained the biggest political figures to be associated with LP in the state until a few weeks back when Ogunleye led some aggrieved members of the ruling party into the party (LP) and emerged as its new leader and financier.

    They were soon joined by a splinter group within the Otunba Gbenga Daniel’s (OGD) faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) allegedly led by the former governor’s political son and gubernatorial candidate of the Peoples Party of Nigeria (PPN) in the state, Mr. Gboyega Isiaka.

    Indications that Isiaka may have pitched his tent with the LP came to light during his 51st birthday ceremony at his home in the Ibara Government Reservation Area, GRA, Abeokuta, the state capital.

    Labour Party members and officials, led by party chairman in the state, Olabode Simeon, and secretary, Sunday Oginni, witnessed the event, where posters and leaflets of LP were being distributed to guests. Isiaka’s supporters from both Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Peoples Party of Nigeria (PPN) participated in the distribution of the LP campaign materials

    When asked by our reporter if the presence of the LP chieftains symbolises his next political move, Isiaka said, “my friend, you can see things for yourself, but I will speak at the appropriate time.” He is yet to deny or confirm his membership of the LP in spite of rumours surrounding his alleged romance with the party.

    Rumours are also rife that OGD himself may have made up his mind to dump the PDP for the LP to re-launch and actualise his failed dream of installing Isiaka as Governor of Ogun State during the 2015 governorship election.

    According to sources, OGD has convinced himself that the only way he can ensure the election of his long-time associate, is to repeat the 2011 experiment of moving his supporters from the PDP to another party, this time the LP.

    Other PDP heavyweights who are rumoured to be preparing to dump their party and join the LP in the state include Alhaji Sarafa Ishola, Chiefs Jubril Martins Kuye, Alani Bankole, Hon. Biodun Akinlade, Tunde Alabi and Waliu Taiwo. But beyond the rumours, none of the named politicians has come out to confirm their membership of the party.

    The Nation learnt that the movement to the LP is not a generally accepted one even among political associates of OGD. While some are currently boasting that the impending move will signal their return to power, others are strongly expressing their objection to the purported defection.

    But the party says it will spring a surprise in 2015. According to Ladi Adebutu, one of the leaders of the party, seventy per cent of the electorate in Ogun State will actually support and vote the Labour Party in 2015.

    “I can tell you that all the 20 local governments of this state, particularly the three local governments of Remo (Sagamu, Ikenne andRemo North), the effect will be very well-felt.

    “I am not the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). I have not conducted the counting, but I know the number of people will be enough to make the difference between winning and losing at an election situation.

    “We have eighteen months or thereabouts to the 2015 elections and I can assure you that in the next ninety days, it will be clear to everybody that Ogun State is a Labour Party state,” he said.

    But Adebutu’s claim has received knocks from many quarters. In the opinion of Akin Adegbite, state treasurer of the Alliance for Democracy (AD), the LP is no threat to the ruling party ahead of the 2015 general election.

    “We have on our hand a band of propagandists who think they can fool all the people at all times. Isn’t that funny? You can only fool some people at some times. Not all people at all times. I hear of thousands and millions defecting to LP in Ogun State. Where are the defectors?

    “In my own view, the LP is just making noise so as to attract some attention to it. The party lacks any known credible leader. Most annoying is the fact that all the people they claimed have joined their party are yet to publicly confirm being members of LP. How can a political party exist on rumours?

    “Scavenging for disgruntled members of other political parties to beef up your own unknown party cannot win election anywhere in the world. Politics is serious business and should be seen as such. When a party declares millions of members on the pages of newspapers and have nothing to show for it on its registers, then such party is unserious,” Adegbite countered.

    In his own opinion, a chieftain of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) in the state, Deinde Ifarajimi, said the LP is not on ground in Ogun State. According to him, it is strange that a party that is actually unknown to the voters is making so much noise ahead of a crucial election.

    “I am even beginning to suspect foul play in the whole thing. I think this is a ploy by the ruling party to deceive serious opposition parties into relaxing and thinking that the LP can truly confront Amosun and the AC N.

    “Otherwise, I don’t see anything on ground to suggest that LP can win even a councillorship seat anywhere in Ogun State. Those following them should be prepared to labour in vain.

    “There is no way a handful of disgruntled politicians who left their various parties sadly will converge in one new party and immediately win the governorship. They are strange bedfellows and soon, they will start bickering and fighting over crumbs. That is when all their lies will crumble.

    “I want to see OGD, Osoba, Martins-Kuye, Akinlade, Oladunjoye, Remmy Hassan, Adijat Oladapo, Salmon Adeleke, Job Akitan, John Obafemi and others they claim have joined them line up and declare for LP publicly. Until then, I will not waste my time discussing the chances of the party in the governorship election. How can they win? Where are the people to campaign for them? There is no LP in Ogun State for now,” he declared.

    The Chairman of the PDP in the state, Engr. Bayo Dayo, also rated the LP low when he described the party as a mushroom party without any electoral value among the people of Ogun State.

    “They ought to have learnt their lessons when they went to the Peoples Party of Nigeria (PPN) in the last general election and lost woefully. They should know that the popularity of their principal, Otunba Gbenga Daniel, is waning by the day and it is better they retrace their steps back into the PDP.

    “Daniel wants a party that has no structure on ground like the Labour Party which he can hijack and manipulate as he likes, reminiscent of what he did in the PPN. It would be politically suicidal for him to repeat the same mistake he made when he misled his associates to the PPN,” he said.

    For the AC N, there is no reason for it to be scared of the LP or any other party at that because the people of the state appreciate the ongoing developmental projects in the state. Commissioner of Information and Strategy, Yusuph Olaniyonu, said the LP is ignorant and its leadership has lost touch with the people, and as such cannot be a threat to the ruling party.

    He said the ongoing infrastructural development programme was a response to the inadequacy and old-fashioned state of the facilities, many of which have not witnessed government touch in the last 20 years.

    “The 16 road projects being constructed across the state is an attempt by the Amosun administration to modernise our state and prepare it for the envisaged role as the investors’ destination. That is why we have set a standard for our roads to be six-lane with accompanying road furniture.

    “The administration has also been very frugal and transparent in the award of its contracts. We can boldly say that with the quality of roads that we are constructing, nobody can fault our contract costing. Our people know what they want and who is serving their interest. They will not listen to mischief makers who are pretending to be critics,” Olaniyonu said.

     

  • Aftermath of S’ West PDP endorsement of Jonathan

    Aftermath of S’ West PDP endorsement of Jonathan

    A few days ago, key leaders of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the South West met in Lagos. At the end of the meeting, they reportedly endorsed President Goodluck Jonatham for a second term in office. Instructively, some prominent members loyal to ex-president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, like the party’s former National Secretary, Olagunsoye Oyinlola ex-Governors Olusegun Oni, Adebayo Alao-Akala, to mention but a few, stayed away. This development, observers noted, is another clear indication that the party will be contesting the 2015 general elections as a fractured entity.