The Nation Newspaper

Tag: change

  • As Buhari accelerates promised change

    SIR: On account of what some people perceived as slowness in the take-off of President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, former Vice President, Dr Alex Ekwueme had counseled Nigerians not to hurry the President since every leader comes with his own style. This obviously is a wise counsel considering the monumental problems the present administration inherited from the out-gone government.

    Among many of those problems include Boko Haram insurgency; drop in prices of oil, corruption in various spheres of our public sector, oil theft, indiscipline among others. In fact, it is now coming to limelight that in the area of mining, that some Chinese and other nationals were engaged in illegal mining in some parts of the North Central zone with full paraphernalia of state protection. These activities were being carried out on a monumental proportion.

    As a shining democrat that he is, Buhari has consistently listened to the other voices clamouring for equity in the system. For example, soon after he was sworn in, it was reported that some past officials in the Jonathan government were being barred from travelling outside the country or being humiliated at the nation’s exit points, he immediately called the affected agencies to order. Since then, he sent a clear message on his readiness to respect the fundamental human rights of all Nigerians.

    Just recently, he appointed a Delta Igbo Ibe Kachukwu as the Group Managing Director of NNPC. It could be recalled that when he made fewappointments in the beginning some vested interestshad raised alarm that some sections of the country were being neglected.

    President Buhari is a large-hearted individual, kind and upright, but has zero tolerance for corruption. Perhaps, this aspect of him does not appeal to the few individuals with skeleton in their cupboards. But to such individuals, Nigerians have no sympathy to offer them, after all in their quest for self aggrandizementand unmerited wealth, they shortchanged the majority of Nigerians who depended on them for leadership. As a nation, we must be grateful to Buhari for having the moral courage to embark on a war of redemption for our fatherland.

    On the issue of slowness in doing most of the things expected from his first day in office, it is my considered view that a thorough preparation before full take-off as in the appointment of ministers should be more desirable if we must avoid the mistake of the past. We must that it has been the  the norm in the past for new administrations to appoint ministers immediately they assume office, but experience has shown that this has always been counterproductive, as most of them end up serving their pecuniary interest rather than the collective interest.

    Therefore if the “change” Nigerians earnestly clamoured for is to be maximally realized, we must give the President the benefit of doubt, as he diligently and methodically strives to put things right.

    “Change” all over the world is the only permanent thing, and it takes time to happen, especially in a clime like Nigeria where systemic corruption has tended to stultify national growth and development. Buhari, has started on a good note by keeping to his promise to bring the activities of the dreaded BokoHaram in check. His commitment to chart a new economic direction for the country by tackling corruption headlong in all facets of our national life will surely prepare the ground for smooth and uninterrupted economic growth in Nigeria. There is no doubt that corruption has over the years held the country down, and unless this albatross is removed, other laudable plans of the government will not fall in place.

    The bottom-line is that Nigerians are able to appreciate the efforts of government at tackling the arduous task of cleaning the Augean stable.

     

    • Chukwudi Enekwechi,

    Abuja.

  • ‘ICT strategic to Buhari’s change agenda

    The Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Communications and Technology, Dr. Tunji Olaopa, yesterday said that President Muhammadu Buhari considers Information and Communications Technology as an important tool to the success of his administration.

    Dr. Olaopa, who spoke at the opening ceremony of an in – house- training workshop organised for officials of the ministry in Abuja, said that Buhari was dissatisfied with the direction Nigeria took in the past.

    He, therefore, assured the trainees that the president will introduce changes that will be deliberate, spirited and reconstructive to reposition existing policies.

    Dr. Olaopa said: “It is within this broad policy indication of Mr. President that we are gathered today, to begin to set in motion a thinking process on how we should manage the change as it unfolds. This is coming against the background of the outcome of our 2014 end of year retreat and on-going effort to rethink our sector’s reform policies and programmes within the framework of the change agenda of the new administration as it unfolds.

    “This will ride on the on-going industry wide baseline study that we commissioned last year that will provide statistical basis for taking forward ICT sector development and contributions to the nation’s GDP in the next four years.

    “Mr. President has pronounced ICT as strategic to his change agenda. This change, from the statements of the President so far and measures already taken, arises from an acute dissatisfaction with the direction that the nation has taken in the last few years. Change therefore would mean a specific, deliberate and spirited reconstructive framework for recalibrating existing policies and institutional configurations as well as the values that underpins them.”

  • Still in immunity mode months into a change regime

    Still in immunity mode months into a change regime

    A Senate with 83 senators that passed a vote of confidence in someone elected about one month ago and with the temerity to warn the police not to ‘harass’ their members seems to have sufficient numbers to frustrate policies and bills designed by the president and his party to fight corruption

    Democracy is more than a political system; it is also a moral system. It is a political system which is characterized not by particular procedures, such as regular elections of government, but primarily by being based on certain fundamental moral principles. In a genuinely democratic society, the government’s policy must accord with those principles. And, furthermore, all social institutions must also be established and conducted within the same moral framework, which invariably includes equality, freedom, and respect for the rights of the individual.—A. V. Kelly

    By immunity in this piece, I do not mean the formal protection against arrest and prosecution of president, vice president, governor and deputy governor which those who occupy these positions enjoy in our country and which makes leaders of the executive branch of government the most powerful and protected political office holders in the world. I mean the general lack of respect for laws, rules, and conventions among those accorded legal immunity by the constitution and those that are not covered by such protection. In other words, I am using immunity in the sense of an individual’s or group’s belief that he or she can do anything without being answerable to the principle of equality before the law.
    It is intriguing that despite the fact that majority of Nigerians voted for General Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the belief that the new president and his party would be in a better position to right the wrongs of the past under the regime of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the culture of business as usual is still thriving two months into the Buhari presidency. For example, the recent lucid analysis by JitiOgunye of the conduct of lawmakers in the National Assembly, particularly in the Senate illustrates how the culture of immunity and disregard for laws, rules, and conventions reigned on June 9 in the hallowed chambers reserved for regulating the lives of the nation and its citizens through establishmentof the ‘Dos and Don’ts’ that in normal situations sustain modern polity and civilisations. Ogunye demonstrated in a jargon-free interpretation that the election of Senators Saraki and Ekweremadu as president and deputy president of Senate was based on forged rules and thus need to be declared null and void, if deliberations under existing leadership of the Senate are to have integrity.
    Even after the police has revealed in its own investigation that the rules cited by the Senate for its conduct on June 9 are products of forgery, senators in support of the outcome of the election still find it comfortable to warn the police and other security agencies against allowing themselves to be used to harass the Senate, senators, or their spouses. Put in other words, the senators are warning the police not to do its work: investigation and detection of crime and presentation of suspected criminals to the court of law for trial. Instead of showing qualms, senators involved in the election of officers in June now show bravado as they threaten law enforcement officials for attempting to perform their lawful duties. This attitude from 48 PDP senators and 35 APC senators signal disaster for change, if the other branches of government— the executive and judiciary— fail to act in defence and protection of the rule of law.
    Stealing of the country’s patrimony, particularly crude oil in the millions still took place until July 3, according to President Buhari’s recent statement. This is an indication that the lawlessness that characterised the last government was still in vogue even after a new president had been sworn in. The courage of politically connected oil thieves during the last administration to engage in illegal bunkering even months after their principals had vacated power shows how ingrained the culture of impunity has become. What this signals is that there are collaborators in all sectors of the polity, including the nation’s security system who are still ready to work with economic saboteurs even under the nose of an anti-corruption federal government.
    Furthermore, using the media to deceive citizens through blatant lies that was a past-time of the administration in the last four or so years has not abated even two months into the new administration. For example, nobody in the country including those in power can say with certainty the exact location of the $15 million that was smuggled toward the end of Jonathan’s government to South Africa to ‘buy arms’ with which to fight the Boko Haram insurgency. As recent as last week, the South African High Commission was unable to confirm if the money had been returned to Nigeria. The South African envoy’s encouragement on July 23: “So, I advise you to check with the agency from where the money was released for the arms acquisition deal,” implies that the location of the money still remains unknown after several months of claim by the Jonathan administration that the funds had been returned to Nigeria.
    As we write this piece, many citizens are rejoicing that the crisis in the House has been settled with Dogara’s acceptance of the list of APC nominees for offices other than that of the Speaker. People are forgetting fast the issue that the election of House Speaker and Deputy Speaker was conducted outside the framework of the laws that guide such elections in the House. Many of such enthusiasts are saying that we need peace in the House to be able to embark on the crusade of change. How realistic is the optimism that the crusade for positive change can be facilitated by House officers who finally agreed to a compromise after being given a deadline to ‘do the needful’?
    It is not that actions and statements referred to in the paragraphs above had taken place in Nigeria that is a novelty in a country that had for decades become the poster child for political and bureaucratic corruption in the world. What is worrisome is that such unwholesome acts as conducting election in the federal legislature with forged rules; senators’ threatening of the police for planning to enforce the laws of the land; and solidarity messages from supporters of lawmakers purported to have used rules not known to the law smack of a growing tolerance for impunity under the nose of a regime of zero-tolerance for corruption.
    It is not the capacity of President Buhari to fight corruption with sincerity and vigour that is likely to be a problem, given his own strength of character. What is scary is the capacity of a Senate led by leaders elected on the basis of forged rules to constitute a stumbling block to Buhari’s efforts to clean the Augean stables the president has inherited from the preceding administration. A Senate with 83 senators that passed a vote of confidence in someone elected about one month ago and with the temerity to warn the police not to ‘harass’ their members seems to have sufficient numbers to frustrate policies and bills designed by the president and his party to fight corruption. It is not out of place to think that the current senate leadership is in a position, if adequate care is not taken, to disrupt good governance by instigating crisis that can disrupt the change agenda.
    The matter of election of senate leaders must not be left to compromise among party members, more so that police investigation has revealed that the election of such officers took place on the strength of forged Senate Rules. The executive and judiciary must not shirk in their own responsibilities on a matter that has been politically unsettling since June 9. This is the most appropriate time for the Buhari presidency to insist on equality before the law. If indeed there was forgery of Senate rules, those behind such forgery, regardless of their position in the polity and society, should be brought to book immediately.
    Citizens who want their mandate on change to be put to good use need to stand firm and give support to the executive and the judiciary when they act to protect the country’s constitution, especially its commitment to the rule of law, without which democracy cannot deliver good governance. Citizens must not leave protection of the moral system that subtends all viable democratic systems in only the hands of office seeking lawmakers.

     

  • That law may not obstruct ‘change’

    That law may not obstruct ‘change’

    •Being  concluding  part of the article published  on June 16

    “Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose, they become dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress”
    – Martin Luther King (Jnr.)

    The Law must enforce unadulterated internal democracy in all political parties, to ensure the best persons accepted by the people ultimately find their way into public service as against the awkward cronyism that will do nothing but weaken the democratic process in the long run.

    To take a second example, the President has indicated in the unfolding agenda that ‘pervasive corruption’ is one of the enormous challenges confronting Nigeria. No rational person doubts this. But is the Law currently modeled to treat corruption as a National emergency that requires dynamic and sustainable annihilation?

    One is unsure but either way, the Law must now align itself, and quickly too, with the aspiration of Nigerians to end corruption. Corruption cannot be successfully fought without a reduction of the mindless public salaries and allowances, especially of Law makers, to make public service emoluments come in alignment with the realities of our battered economy. The Law must therefore be clear that no public official can earn beyond wages and allowances fixed by the requisite agency of Government which is currently the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) and it must be clear that the wages and allowances cannot be fixed outrageously by even the RMAFC itself.

    Corruption also cannot be fought without open and transparent governance that gives the public access to unfettered information on the true state of public finance, and its use. Here, the Freedom of Information Act must now be allowed to take its prime place in the anti-corruption crusade. First, every State must pass it failing which; it should be made a Federal Law binding on every State irrespective of whether the States pass it or not. This will task the Law-making and Law interpretation foots of the Legal Order. But none should fail to lend its weight to a long cheated people’s quest for transparency in the affairs of their Government.

    Every lofty idea, however revolutionary, must have a sturdy legal framework to succeed and be sustainable in the long term. When America needed to lay its foundation for universal freedom and rights, we saw the American Declaration of Independence and the accompanying American Constitution which have both helped to deepen the Nation’s democratic growth and its enviable experimentations with the endless possibilities of human freedom. When it needed to checkmate slavery, we saw the Proclamation Act. When Civil Rights had to be made universal, we saw the Civil Rights Act. When Britain had to lay foundation for civil rights, we saw the Magna Carta. When Depression came, threatening to obliterate the US economy in the 1930s, we saw the Social Security Act, Emergency Banking Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act among several other Laws which were all Legal frameworks designed to breathe life into the ‘New Deal’ vision of the remarkable President F. D Roosevelt. The US Congress recognized the urgency of the times and did not constitute itself as a clog to the people’s recovery; neither did any member of its judiciary derail the recovery efforts of the administration with reactionary law interpretations.

    When Brazil also needed to lift millions out of poverty, the world saw the “Bolsa Familia Programme” successfully passed into Law. The programme made the government legally transfer conditional wealth to the most vulnerable families in Brazil and it remains the largest wealth transfer intervention in any developing country to date. When South Africa needed to set the stage to ascend from its sordid Apartheid past, its Apartheid era Laws were repealed with dispatch and had in their place, a revolutionary Constitution and Laws such as Provision of Certain Land of Settlement Act, 1994, Extension of Security of Tenure Act of 1996, Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2003 which all sought to align themselves with the progressive changes then taking place in South Africa. Its Constitutional Court also keyed into the vision to create a new society from the ashes of the failed one and the jurisprudence emanating from the Courts have served to deepen the Country’s thirst for freedom, rather than diluting it.

    Yes, none of these instances have made the respective Countries become fully challenge-free; but the alignment and support of the Legal Order had helped in making the countries far better off than they would have been had the Legal Order used Law making or Interpretation to delay, or obstruct the progresses made.

    So, for sustainable progress, Law must always be remodeled to align with the pressing expectations of the people it serves. And now that a new agenda to reverse decades-old decadence is unfolding in Nigeria, the Nation’s Legal System must brace up to the reality of changing times and the legitimate expectations of the people that must be met. With the leadership promised to be provided by the Law enforcement foot of the tripod, the Law-making and Law-interpretation foots must align themselves, to ensure that never again would any foot super-intend the making, enforcement or interpretation of Laws that deepen citizens’ experiences with socio-economic, political and electoral injustices. The Law must not be exploited to abort the legitimate rebirth now being earnestly awaited for the Country.

     

    Iwilade Akintayo, a Legal Practitioner.

     

  • Change and the unchangeable

    As my readers know by now, whenever Opalaba feels that he has had it, he makes sure that he vents until he satisfies himself. And when I miscalculate such that our paths cross at close range, I am almost always assured of his savage attack. It happened just two days ago.

    I thought I was going to pleasantly surprise my good friend by showing up at his door when he least expected. And like a wounded lion, he pounced on me. “What do you people think you’re doing?” He let his frustration take the better part of him. “I cannot believe that I have been fooled again at 70. Why did I even bother, after so many disappointments from politricksters that you shamelessly associate with?” They told us to expect change. And what did we get? Same old manafiki. A plague on all your houses.”

    Opalaba went on ranting and raging. I hadn’t even been offered a seat. It was only when I turned back to leave that he stopped and I can see heavy sweat raining down his face. My friend was truly enraged.

    He regained his cool and apologised. Then he went on in a more somber mood. “APC advertised itself as the party of change. A people in desperate need of change, including my poor old self, believed and jumped for change. No questions asked, because the status quo had become unbearable and therefore unacceptable. Looking back now, we should have asked probing questions.”

    “Such as what?” I asked. “At least as a non-party independent minded citizen, I should have asked if the party had thoroughly screened its candidates for electoral offices. How many of them bought into the philosophy of change? What do they understand by change? Is their view of change limited to change of personnel or office holders? Or does it include as it reasonably should, attitudinal change? If it doesn’t, why not? And wouldn’t the electorate then have been deceitfully sold a dummy? If it does, how come the party is now faced with challenges of ego, greed and gross indiscipline from the so-called leaders who ought to be the leading lights of attitudinal change?

    Opalaba went on without letting. On my part, I was aware that no response can be adequate for my friend. Seriously, however, I knew that he had a point, and I couldn’t this time dismiss his vituperations as the barking of a crazy dog as I used to.

    Change is the movement from one state to another. As such, every living thing undergoes changes. The only unchangeable is God, who is acknowledged as remaining the same through the ages. Change, for living things, however, may be from a desirable state to an undesirable one. We talk of moving from frying pan to fire as a fitting metaphor for such a change.

    In another form, change may be from an undesirable state to another undesirable state. Neither of such changes is worthy of human endeavour. To deliberately move from one undesirable state to another or from a desirable to an undesirable state is to behave irrationally. Therefore if an effort towards change is intentionally and voluntarily undertaken by individuals or groups, it is to be reasonably expected that the outcome must be a desirable state that is better than the preceding state.

    Many, like Opalaba, invested their hope, without pulling back anything; in the change idea which they expected will be actualised by the All Progressives Congress (APC) government. Of course, it is too early to dismiss the party and its agenda. And it bears pointing out that Nigerians still express confidence in the President’s sincerity of purpose and strong determination to carry out his agenda. Where Opalaba and his likes are understandably concerned is with regard to the depth of the commitment of other stakeholders in the corridors of power. They are sorely worried about those that Opalaba referred to as the “unchangeable.” “How do you change the unchangeable?” He asked.

    “But who are the unchangeable?” I asked. “And how can anyone or thing be unchangeable? Even nature undergoes change. Mountains are denuded; rivers form tributaries, and when changes don’t follow the path of nature, humans step in to impose such changes to their satisfaction. Individuals who refuse to change when there is need for change will find out that they are passed by and soon become relics of history. So what is your point, Mr. Know-All?”

    “Your memory loss as you age is my point”, Opalaba fired back in visible anger. “President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) is older than you, but he went down memory lane the other day at the APC NEC meeting. He apparently is one that doesn’t forget his beginning; he remembers those who helped him through the various challenges; he recalled the origins and foundation of the party; he named names and he reminded all officers and rank and file of the promise the new party made to Nigerian people.

    “PMB made it clear that the pioneers or foundation members and leaders who sacrificed their time and mental and material resources for the party in the midst of campaigns of hatred, calumny and name-calling thought seriously about the change that they wanted to invest in and the legacy of progressive governance they wanted to bequeath to the next generation of Nigerians. They were serious about change of attitude and outcome and they put their energy into working it out. And he made it clear that this sacrifice by the pioneers and founding fathers and mothers of the party ought to be the guiding light to all, including the late comers.”

    “The question is”, Opalaba added in an emotion-laden voice, “did the late comers to, and second-tier founders of the party also understood what change connoted for the first-tier founders? And if they didn’t, why are we now surprised that some of them appear adverse to change and may indeed be unchangeable? Doesn’t it appear now that they had a different idea of what change means?”

    My friend argued that the challenges the party has with the National Assembly election of principal officers is just a symptom of a fundamental issue, which is that there is a disconnect between the understanding and mentality of some about what power means and the message that the party has caused to be delivered to the electorate. This fundamental issue reflects the extant challenges that have been integral to the Nigerian post-independence state, but which the post-military era has simply multiplied exponentially. It is unfortunate, but the truth is that the majority of those who go into party politics choose this path for reasons other than the virtue of public service.

    The political drama that was the NASS leadership elections has all the characteristics of a soap opera that is cast in the hellish kingdom of ego, greed, crass ambition, religious zealotry, ethnic jingoism, corruption and corruptibility, and an aristocratic mentality in a populist party. The actors in the sordid drama are no agents of change, at least not the change that the party sold to the electorate. They are for change in their material conditions and their spiritual poverty simply facilitated the diabolic plan that they fashioned and delivered with perfection.

    What option is there for the party in the face of this tragic development? It must stick to change and pursue it. It must call out the unchangeable for what they are and let Nigerians know them and be their judge. Otherwise the party cannot deliver change that Nigerians overwhelmingly desire. To capitulate and succumb to the position of the unchangeable is to commit party suicide because it assures it of an undesirable result in 48 months.

  • Continuity or change?

    IR: APC was formed as a progressive political party. But happenings since the inauguration of the party on May 29, suggest that there may not be a departure from what Nigerians experienced in the hands of PDP which ruled for 16 years.

    PDP was voted out at the centre for obvious reasons. Nigerians did not vote for President Muhammadu Buhari and the APC because they want the status quo. Nigerians are beginning to doubt whether APC stands for continuity or change. Happenings in the National Assembly makes one to wonder whether the agenda of the party is continuity or change.

    Having discovered that PDP was not offering something new after their 16 years rule, Nigerians took the bull by the horn by voting for change. The tide of change also swept across states that were traditionally regarded as PDP states. Nigerians openly expressed their dissatisfaction with the poor level of governance under the PDP government.

    Nigeria is faced with numerous challenges and everyone looks up to President Buhari and his political party to fix these problems. The APC government needs to live up to the people’s expectations and have a radical departure from what obtained under the PDP. APC should not be tempted to adopt the policies and style of the PDP. Doing things the PDP way is definitely not an option for members of the APC at all levels of government. APC needs to vigorously pursue its change agenda without any hindrance.

    What played out at the inauguration of the 8th National Assembly on June 9, shows that true change may not have come after all despite President Buhari’s avowal in his inaugural speech. The coup d’état in the senate, the emergence of a PDP Senator as Deputy Senate President and the dissenting voices of some disgruntled members of the National Assembly all show what the course of events would be in the next four years.

    Nigeria is truly evolving; besides the APC is saddled with the responsibility of bringing about the desired change. It is up to APC to prove to Nigerians that what they voted for during the 2015 general elections is not continuity but change.

     

    • Bolaji Samson Aregbeshola,

    Lagos.

  • Speed or efficiency of the political machine of change?

    Speed or efficiency of the political machine of change?

    If there is any urgency now, it is not announcement of ministers but providing appropriate response to the herculean task in front of the new president: finding solutions to the looming crisis of unpaid government workers at the federal, state, and local level

    It is clear by now that 1968 will go down as the year the new politics of the next decade or more began….And therefore this is the year when the old politics must be a thing of the past. But if this is true—and I profoundly believe that it is—then there is no more important question than what the new politics is. What are its components, and what does it mean to the future of the country? The most obvious element of the new politics is the politics of citizen participation, of personal involvement.—Senator Robert Kennedy, Speech at a San Francisco press gathering, May 21, 1968

    The result of the presidential election of March 28, 2015 promised the emergence of a new politics in the country. It marked the end of years of a governance system that was driven by impunity, a governance model that was older than Goodluck Jonathan but that came to its nadir under his presidency. The enragement of citizens fostered by the last four years of PDP governance in the country led to momentous civic engagement that encouraged hundreds of Nigerians to do more campaigning in the social media for Buhari’s presidential bid than was done in the traditional media. Many people are now insinuating in the social media that was one of the bulwarks of support for Presidential candidate Buhari that the new president is slow. Even some traditional media houses are insinuating that President Buhari’s failure to appoint ministers three weeks into his tenure had grounded governance, despite the President’s directives that permanent secretaries in the ministries should continue to provide leadership for the ministries.

    Given the enthusiasm with which voters went to the polls to elect Buhari in March, it is not out of place for citizens to get impatient with the president’s seeming slowness in appointing ministers. Such complaints are not out of order in an ethos in which citizens, not necessarily belonging to professional civil society organisations, have volunteered since the beginning of the year to promote more civic engagement than before. But appointing ministers is not as urgent as getting the machine to effect change properly oiled for the job. The National Assembly, to use the phrase of enthusiasts of speed in governance, ‘has hit the ground running’ without functioning in compliance with the manifesto of change. But the NASS is not the focus of today’s column. The focus is on why President Buhari needs to do his homework thoroughly before naming ministers, if the impact of such appointments is to serve the need of change.

    In his covenant with Nigerians, President Buhari had stated clearly what his objectives and activities would be in his first 100 days in office. President Buhari on behalf of his party promised an administration that will change the culture of public service in major sectors of the polity and society: Insecurity from Boko Haram in particular; providing a national strategy for fighting corruption; addressing through policy initiatives the collapse of health and education sectors; and restoring economic stability. Certainly, he would need ministers to do most of these  things but not before doing due diligence on potential candidates for jobs that call for a new mindset that is distinct from the business-as-usual mode, a code word for government as a facility for self-enrichment.

     When President Buhari made these promises, among others, the culture of secrecy and governance by bill boards in vogue until May 29 did not allow him to discover the geography or ecology of the Augean stables the new president finally inherited at the end of May. Even though the new opposition party has quickly characterised the revelation that the PDP government failed to provide handover notes until the eve of the inauguration, the facts that were unearthed after the swearing-in ceremony show that Buhari had inherited a federal government that was in the last few months borrowing money to pay federal workers while leaving many states in the lurch, all on account of sudden decline in petroleum prices. If inheriting a virtually empty treasury is not an excuse for caution in rushing to appoint ministers, citizens should wonder what other excuse for caution on the part of the new president is acceptable to those who left the seat of power broken and soiled.

    The jury may still be out on how empty the treasury inherited on May 29 is, what is clear from the recent visit of governors to President Buhari on the need for an immediate bail-out of states to enable them pay salary arrears is an indication that governance at every level was very poor by the time President Buhari took over. If there is any urgency now, it is not announcement of ministers but providing appropriate response to the herculean task in front of the new president: finding solutions to the looming crisis of unpaid government workers at the federal, state, and local level.

    While many countries have become attached to the ritual of the first 100 days of a new president or prime minister, Nigeria has a peculiar situation that calls for extreme caution before major appointments are made. The old mindset is that political office is an opportunity to enrich the individual and that politicaloffices are to be shared among political party stalwarts, with little regard to the principle of governing as a means of actually improving public service beyond the usual rhetorical assurance. Undoubtedly, Nigeria is endowed with talented people and richly credentialed individuals, but if the emphasis on change demands a search for men and women of character, the searcher may give the nation a better service by not rushing to name ministers until proper diligence has been done.

    The emphasis that may be needed after decades of poor governance should not be on speed of the new president to appoint ministers. The need to chart a new course in the way the country is governed may require the kind of caution that President Buhari has shown in the last three weeks. He has been busy enough with consultation with other West African countries that collaborate with Nigeria in fighting the menace of Boko Haram. He has also been spending time on consulting with foreign countries that can assist Nigeria in efforts to recover proceeds from looting of the country in the last few years for the purpose of bringing life back to the economy. He had ensured that a process of due diligence was adopted in selection of the Accountant-General, a post that is crucial to the work of ministers. This is the first time there is a real democratic change of regime in country and selecting ministers requires proper planning.

    Citizens who had witnessed failure in governance in the past may have reasons to expect earth-shaking policy statements from new ministers, but such statements may be meaningless without knowing exactly how strong the economy is. In a system where the buck stops at the president’s table, it is in order for a president who is as concerned about the culture of governance especially quality of public service as he is about the character of ministers to assist him to err on the side of slowness than to err on the side of rushed poor judgment.

    Given the theatrics regarding election of principal legislative officers in both houses, it is proper to expect the president to use appointment of ministers to seize some of the attention of the media, if only to show existence of order in the other branch of government. But the times are now different. There is a dire need for deep reflection on appointing ministers capable of staying the course of fundamental change in the polity and society. Just as President John Kennedy said about the relevance of the first 100 days: “All this will not be finished in the first hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.” In more recent times, President Barack Obama’s observation on the significance of the first 100 days is worth citizens’ attention: “The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference.”

    It will not be out of place if President Buhari needs the first hundred days to plan how to save Nigeria from its ugly past, in view of the state of the nation he inherited three weeks ago.

  • Balance, not change

    THE NATION ON SUNDAY Front Page of June 28 did not defend its freedom: “Five northern govs raise alarm (the alarm) over ‘evil forest’” In headline casting, it is usually the tradion to drop ‘the’, but that should not affect fixed/stock or idiomatic expressions. Alternatively, avoid such words or phrases.

    “Marcel Witschard Jr. and Carl Witschard said it will (would) take at least a week for them to remove the bees.”

    “It declared tomorrow black Monday during which there will be no lectures at (on) all the campuses of the institution in honour of the dead.”

    “UN agency praises Nigeria’s drug control (drug-control) master plan (masterplan)”

    “As a matter of fact, they (legislators) can even remove each other’s (one another’s) teeth with blows….”

    “As we removed his cloths (clothes) to clean him up, we noticed his back.”

    Still on THE NATION ON SUNDAY under review: “I use (used) to patch my trousers by myself…”

    “At a time like this when the fortune (fortunes) of oil is (are) dwindling and the economy is nose diving (nose-diving)…reports that a peep into the potentials (potential/potenialities) in cashew production can be the launching pad (launch-pad).”

    “It is only when they fail to act that we may see a full blown (full-blown) crisis over the issue.”

    “Media seige (siege) on (of) Abia: The limit of indulgence” (THE NATION ON SUNDAY Bold Headline, June 28)

    From DAILY SUN of June 29 comes the following: “National Assembly crisis: APC holds make or mar (make-or-mar) meeting tomorrow”

    “Politician arrested over (for) theft of polls documents”

    “It was believed that he was abducted by unknown gunmen.” Crime watch today: Is it possible to know the gunmen?

    “I will recover all loots—Buhari” (DAILY SUN Front Page Headline, June 24) ‘Loot’ is uncountable.

    “Our grouse with (about) oil firm” (DAILY SUN, June 9)

    The next set of flaws id from Vanguard of June 25: “2 remanded in Kirikiri Prison over N465m fraud”

    “Ondo set to flag off (inaugurate/auspicate…) ultra-modernabattoir”

    “Probe alleged killing of vigilante (vigilance) leader, Delta community urges FG”

    From Vanguard COMMENT comes this: “We think it is something that should still come with a lot of consideration for its general impact on the economy, which literarily (literally) runs on petroleum products.”

    “As you leave today the other person will also leave tomorrow so there is nothing like witch hunting (witch-hunt of) anybody.”

    “…with regards (regard) to any car in my possession.” Alternatively, as regards any car….

    “Itsekiri oil producing (oil-producing) communities allege marginalisation

    Do you know that most people use “change” in place of “balance” when asking for their outstanding money in a transaction. It is very wrong! According to Longman Advanced Dictionary of Contemporary English, among other reference books consulted, ‘balance’ (money/uncountable) means: “The money that you get back when you have paid for something with more money than it costs: Here’s your change, sir. b) money in the form of coins, not paper money: in change / have about a dollar in change. I asked for some spare change (=coins that you do not need). C) coins or paper money that you give in exchange for the same amount of money in a larger unit: change for £1/$10 Excuse me, have you got change for a pound? / make change AmE (=give someone change) can you make change for $20? THESAURUS MONEY

    BALANCE: the balance the amount of something that remains after some has been used, spent, mentioned etc SYN the rest: The firm owns about 96% of the portfolio, with the balance belonging to our family.

    FEEDBACK

    AT the end of your opening paragraph (The Sun blazes on Shema), you wrote: “Insha Allah, your light will never deem, Your Excellency.” So what happened to DIM?” (Watchingthewatcher/08098384624)

    THE correct expression is simply “at the helm” without any other thing—affairs, etc. (Folurunsho B. F./09033604976/Ilesa)

    A news report recently quoted a wealthy lover of football as saying that “I developed a likeness for the team…” The word “likeness”

    (noun) means “being alike, resembling sb/sth”, while “liking” (also a noun) means “to become fond of sth or sb”. So, Paul has a liking for Manchester United or Chelsea, but definitely not likeness, a common error.

    Also, when someone “controls what happens in a situation, organisation or relationship”, he is said to be “in the driving seat” (British English) or “in the driver’s seat” (American English), according to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English for Advanced Learners, page 1570. Oxford Advanced Learner’s equally supports “in the driving seat (idiom).  Definitely, both fixed expressions are grammatically correct. Related to this is the expression “driving licence” (British English) while it is “driver’s licence” in American English. (KOLA DANISA/07068074257)

    BETWEEN 2006 and 2015, “a lot” (much/a great deal) had happened on the political plane to further strangulate the economy and further spread mass poverty, since strangely, the so – called paper growth hardly resulted in development, “talk less” (not to talk/not to speak about/not to say/not to mention or let alone) of mass prosperity. – THE NATION ON SUNDAY EDITORIAL, June 28, 2015. Grammar and Usage Notes: “a lot” (two words) not “alot”, like “a lot of” and “lots of”, is obsolescent, and depending on the context, has been replaced, in modern usage, by the following phrases: a great deal of/a number of/a great number of/plenty of/a good number of/a good many of/a large quality of, and so on.

    In affirmative sentences, “many” (for countable nouns) and “much” (for uncountable nouns) are generally replaced by the above phrases. Besides, Editorials must be written in Editorial English (Standard English) because Editorial writing is a statecraft. Above all, editorialists or editorial writers must keep abreast of the changes and the current tendencies – the dynamics – in the language. Correct usage will always win. Usage is king! (BAYO OGUNTUNASE/08056180046)

    From Oguntunase’s language laboratory: Health is wealth (wrong); Health is better than wealth (right); Practice makes perfect (wrong); Practice makes perfection (right); All hands on deck (wrong); All hands to the pump (right)

  • Of ambition and destruction: Truncating the “change” we desire

    On June 9, Bukola Saraki and his co-travellers, including his former friends in the PDP, executed their plan to acquire the Senate presidency and the Speakership of the House of Representatives. In an apparently well choreographed move, Saraki along with some APC mutineers joined the PDP senators and elected Saraki as the Senate President and Ike Ekweremadu of the PDP as Deputy Senate President contrary to the APC’s well-publicized preference for Ahmed Lawan and George Akume. Once the Senate coup was executed, the House of Representatives followed; it elected another PDP turncoat called Yakubu Dogara as the Speaker of the House of Representatives also against the party’s preference for Femi Gbajabiamila and Tahir Monguno.

    In yet another big slap on the face of his party, Bukola Saraki in a letter dated June 25 to the chairman of APC relied on some arcane recently conjured Senate standing rules to justify his continued defiance of the party’s preference. He said his “hands were tied” by Senate standing rules, which prevented him from acting on APC’s preferred candidates for the senate principal offices. He then went on to pledge loyalty to President Buhari etc.

    This letter was yet another example of a self-serving attempt by Saraki to defy the same party that gave him a ticket to run. Again Yakubu Dogara and his supporters took cue and engineered the disruption of the sitting of the House of Representatives thereby truncating the adoption of the APC’s preferred candidates for the principal offices in the House of Representatives.

    The APC Constitution anticipated this level of treachery and disloyalty and made copious provisions. Article 21 (A)(i,ii,iii,vii), (B)(i&ii), D(i,f,g,h & ii) of the APC constitution comes readily to mind here:

    Article 21 lists the offences against the Party as including the following:

    i. A breach of any provision of this Constitution;

    ii. Anti-Party activities or any conduct, which is likely to embarrass or have adverse effect on the party or bring the party into hatred, contempt, ridicule or disrepute;

    iii. Disobedience or negligence in carrying out lawful directives of the Party;

    vii. Flouting the rules, regulations and decisions of the Party; engaging in dishonest practices, thuggery, continuously being absent from meetings to which he/she is invited without reasonable cause; carrying out anti-Party or other activities which tend to disrupt the peaceful, lawful and efficient organization of the Party or which are inconsistent with the Aims and Objectives of the Party;

    In the same manner, Article 21 B (i and ii) establishes the disciplinary procedure:

    i. A complaint by any Member of the Party against a Public Office holder, elected or appointed, or another member or against a Party organ or officer of the Party shall be submitted to the Executive Committee of that Party at all levels concerned which shall NOT LATER THAN 7 days of the receipt of the complaint, appoint a fact-finding or Disciplinary Committee to examine the matter.

    ii. The Executive Committee concerned shall not debate or discuss the complaint or allegation before sending it to the Disciplinary Committee or fact-finding

    Committee which shall hear, determine and cause its decision to be transmitted to the relevant Executive Committees of the Party concerned.

    Section D spells out the PUNISHMENT for ERRING MEMBERS thus:

    i. The Party shall have power to impose the following sanctions on members in accordance with the nature and gravity of their offence:

    Reprimand;

    b) Censure;

    c) Fine;

    d) Debarment from holding Party Office;

    e) Removal from Party Office;

    f) Suspension from the Party;

    g) Expulsion from the Party;

    h) Debarment from contesting Office on the Party platform.

    ii. Where it is proposed to expel a member of the Executive Committee, political office holder, or a member of a Legislative House from membership of the Party, such a proposal shall be submitted to the National Executive Committee, which after deliberations on the matter may confirm or reject the proposal;

    iii. A decision to expel a Member of the Party taken or confirmed by the National Executive Committee shall be submitted to the Board of Trustees for ratification;

    iv. The National Executive Committee shall on receipt of the report of the fact- finding committee make a decision on the matter within fourteen (14) days;

    v. Any member who files an action in court of law against the party or any of its officers on any matter or matters relating to the discharge of the duties of the party without first exhausting the avenues for redress provided for in this Constitution shall automatically stand expelled from the Party on filing such action and no appeal against expulsion as stipulated in this Clause shall be entertained until the withdrawal of the action from Court by the Member;

    vi. Each organ of the Party shall have power to remove a Party officer or officers as the case may be from office at that level for failing to discharge his/her responsibilities, neglect and dereliction of duty or misconduct during his tenure of office through a vote of no confidence passed against such officer/officers by a two-thirds majority of the members of the appropriate organ and voting subject to such officer’s right to fair hearing.

    It is clear from the above provisions that Bukola Saraki, Yakubu Dogara and their co-travellers have crossed the “red line” and need to be sanctioned very quickly to prevent the dissolution of the APC.  The mutineers are clearly caught by the provisions of Article 21 (a) i, ii & iii); the disciplinary procedures leading to expulsion from the party must be immediately followed to bring sanity and discipline to the party.

    What happens when the culprits are expelled from the party? The renegades will have the option of defecting to another party and invoking section 68 of the 1999 constitution to prevent their seats from being declared vacant claiming that the party is in crisis.

    Will the PDP accept them in order to swell their ranks and claim majority in the Senate and House of Representatives? If they do will they allow them to retain their Presidency and Speakership or will David Mark and other carpetbaggers re-emerge to truncate the change we desired? Will Saraki, Dogara and their shadowy sponsors and co-travelers float another party to split the APC for the benefit of the PDP?  Will they go to court to stall their expulsion and create a “Chinese standoff”?

    Will Saraki’s sins be resurrected in order to whip him in line? Will the APC close ranks and vote Ekweremadu out as Deputy Senate President? Will Buhari change his principle of non-interference? Will a new crisis be resurrected in the PDP? Will APC receive new defectors from the resurrected PDP crisis in order to checkmate Saraki and others? Will Saraki and others prevail; defy the party and cause John Oyegun’s removal?

    Is Saraki’s real aim the takeover of the party machinery at the national level? Is Buhari’s anti-corruption stance the real target of Saraki and his co-travelers?

    These questions and many more need to be answered very quickly or we shall be looking at the complete disintegration of the party known as APC.  What then becomes of the dreams of patriots like Ogbonaya Onu, Bisi Akande, Muhammadu Buhari, Nasir El Rufai, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Rochas Okorocha, Kayode Fayemi, Audu Ogbeh, Aminu Masari , John Oyegun Chris Ngige and several others who fought for change on the platform of the APC ?

    In this unfolding sad movie Bukola Saraki and Yakubu Dogara are the villains and no amount of whitewash can turn them into heroes in the eyes of the APC faithful. They betrayed the party and are well on their way to truncating the change we desire.

  • Prepare for permanent change, Osinbajo urges Nigerians

    Prepare for permanent change, Osinbajo urges Nigerians

    Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo on Monday called on Nigerians to be patient with the Federal Government in order to bring about the desired permanent change in the country.

    He spoke with State House correspondents on his first day in office at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

    According to him, Nigerians must show understanding on what the government needed to do for the general good of the society.

    He said that change is not an easy task as he urged leaders to set examples for all citizens to follow in order to achieve the desired permanent change.

    He said: “Change is not going to be an easy process. So, there will be a great deal of patient that is required and understanding of what we need to do.

    “And we are going trying to bring about permanent change it also means that people are also going to change, that the people will also change.

    “But, I understand clearly that it is the leadership that must set the example and we are prepared to do that and we will do that,” he added.

    He said that the nation needed straightforward leaders like President Muhammadu Buhari, and assured of the readiness of the government to fulfill its campaign promises to Nigerians.