Tag: Controversy

  • Suntai: Video clips stir controversy

    Suntai: Video clips stir controversy

    •Pictures, videos of governor are fake, says group

     •No, they are not- Commissioner 

    Some stakeholders in Taraba State have met in Abuja to perfect their plot to remove ailing Governor Danbaba Suntai from office.

    They are of the view that the state is stagnating on account of the Governor’s long absence from work on account of his hospitalisation, first in Germany and now the USA, for multiple injuries he suffered in a plane crash late last year.

    His supporters are pushing hard to frustrate moves to either cause the State Assembly to impeach him or the State Executive Council to remove him.

    They are believed to be the brains behind the circulation of pictures and video clips of the governor to give the impression that he is fast recovering.

    The Taraba Justice Forum (TJF) is not convinced by the pictures and video clips, dismissing them as fake.

    It challenged those circulating them to come up with credible evidence of recuperation or stop sharing false pictures and clips.

    The Nation gathered that the Taraba stakeholders, comprising some political leaders including federal legislators met between Tuesday and Thursday in Abuja on how to remove Suntai without rancour.

    A court is currently hearing a suit to stop the planned removal of the governor.

    Sources said that at a point, the stakeholders went to Kaduna on Wednesday for consultations with some influential citizens of the state.

    The priority of the stakeholders, sources said, is how to “guarantee a seamless transition for the acting Governor, Alhaji Garba Umar.”

    One of the options agreed upon is “a comprehensive consultation with ethnic associations, Christian groups and the Muslim community in the state.”

    A timeline of one month was set for the consultation before the removal of Suntai is effected.

    Similarly, the stakeholders agreed to present an action plan on the issue to the presidency and the Peoples Democratic Party any moment from now.

    One of the sources said: “We have agreed to replace Suntai with the acting governor in line with Section 189 of the 1999 Constitution.

    “Having met for three days, the stakeholders designed an exit plan for Suntai, including the readiness of the state to bear his medical bill.

    “We will present our proposals to the presidency and PDP leadership any time from next week.”

    Asked if they were no longer interested in the legal process to remove Suntai, the source said: “Our political decision will even hasten the legal action in court. Once, we are able to build consensus, Suntai’s fate will be sealed in court.”

    Justice Elvis Chukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja had, during the week, referred the suit to remove Suntai to the Federal High Court in Jalingo, Taraba State.

    He said the matter ought to have been heard in Taraba State in the absence of insecurity issues in the state.

    He declared that in line with the new policy direction of the Federal High Court, cases are to be heard in jurisdictions from where they emanate

    In dismissing the governor’s pictures and clips shown on NTA, the general secretary of the TJF, Mr. Abulus John said the circus show would lead the state nowhere.

    “The game started when a picture of Governor Jonah Jang with Suntai was released with the Plateau State governor assuring that Danbaba will soon return to the country to resume work. Four months after, Danbaba is yet to return. That is false propaganda one,” he said.

    “Few months ago and on more than three occasions, the Commissioner for Information, Mr. Emmanuel Bello, went on air to boast that he would put the governor on telephone once he reached Germany. Danbaba is well and he will soon be back, Bello told the whole world. The next thing we heard was that the governor has been flown to USA for intensive care

    “Up till date, Bello has not put the governor on telephone for Channels or any other medium. The next thing was a picture of the governor and his wife and another of the governor cutting birthday cake. All such pictures confirm that all is not well with Danbaba.”

    He added: “The last circus show was on NTA. It was so embarrassing that even the NTA had to apologise that the audio quality was bad. Why will there be a good visual without good audio? The fact is that the governor cannot talk or converse correctly because he is brain damaged.

    “If truly the governor is okay and recuperating why not take Channels and NTA along to USA so that they can independently interview the governor? Why are they bringing all these fake clips to further embarrass Taraba?

    “The fact is that the governor is not suffering from physical deformity but he is brain damaged and so medically incapacitated.

    “This is the bitter truth that Bello and others are trying to cover up. But the matter can no longer be swept under the carpet.”

    Responding to the allegation, the Commissioner for Information, Mr. Emmanuel Bello, said: “The pictures and videos showing Governor Suntai are not fake. I don’t understand. Are they saying anyone who visited the governor is also fake because all those who visited the governor took pictures with him? So, are they all lying?

    “In any case, those who say the pictures and videos are fake should prove their point. The onus of proof is on them. They are the ones making the charge.”

     

  • Fed Govt blames JAMB, NECO controversy on mischief makers

    The Federal Government yesterday blamed the controversy over the alleged move to scrap the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) and the National Examinations Council (NECO) on mischief makers.

    The Minister of State for Education, Mr. Nyesom Wike, spoke in Abuja when he appeared before the Senate Committee on Education.

    Committee Chairman Uche Chukwumerije had explained that the minister was invited to throw light on an alleged proposal by the Federal Government to scrap both examination bodies.

    The lawmaker said the invitation stemmed from the fact that the Senate was “very much interested in what happens to education in this country”.

    Wike told the committee that no decision had been taken to scrap NECO and JAMB. He dismissed the allegation as unfounded.

    The minister of state explained that part of efforts to reposition the education sector was the establishment of the Stephen Oronsaye Committee.

    He said the committee was expected to recommend how to streamline government agencies that were duplicated.

    Wike said the Ministry of Education defended all agencies and parastatals under it, adding that there was no time the government scrapped NECO and JAMB.

    He said: “I do not know where people got the information. The fact remains that we have not met to say NECO will go or NECO will stay; that JAMB will go or JAMB will stay. There has not been any such decision.

    “If the government decides that NECO or JAMB will go, the government will give reasons. We have not met and no decision has been taken about scrapping NECO or JAMB.”

    Besides Wike, JAMB Registrar, Prof Dibu Ojerinde and NECO Registrar, Prof Promise Okpala, also attended the meeting.

    Ojerinde and Okpala defended their organizations, insisting that they should not be scrapped.

    The minister also explained the position of the Federal Ministry of Education on the matter, saying: “We support the existence of JAMB and NECO. They are still carrying out their functions.”

    Wike assured that the government would do everything to ensure that Nigerians are happy.

  • Achebe departs in a blaze of controversy

    Achebe departs in a blaze of controversy

    I see Chinua Achebe differently from how others see him. Some see him rightly as the grandfather of African fiction, and others simply but also accurately see him as the father of African literature. Yet others remember him as the hard-hitting literary critic that in 1975 disembowelled Joseph Conrad for his book, Heart of Darkness. But most people, whether critics or plain connoisseurs of great books, remember him as the delightful author of Things Fall Apart, an incomparable book that has sold more than 10 million copies and has been translated into more than 50 languages. Chinua Achebe (1930-2013) lived well and died at a ripe old age after bidding his country goodbye with a rousing, controversial book, There Was a Country. In a literary career spanning more than 50 years, Achebe churned out scores of works in nearly all areas of literature.

    Achebe’s death on Friday morning is of course bound to elicit great obituaries from gifted editorial writers, many of them enchanted by the literary giant’s life and times. The death will also unleash a cornucopia of reviews and criticisms of his works, complete with projections of how relevant he would be in the decades and centuries to come. Most of the reviews will of course focus on his five novels, some of his essays, and his controversial non-fiction memoir on the Nigerian civil war viewed from the Biafran perspective. A few may attempt comparisons with contemporary writers, and others will unearth salient themes from his works to enrich future generations and provide cultural and political anodynes for a country in distress. Of course, too, most of the analyses and tributes will attempt a balanced examination of the writer, his on the one hand weighed against his on the other hand. Indeed, barely hours after his departure, tons of essays on the legend, many of them probably prepared beforehand, have been broadcast or published.

    Shortly before There Was a Country was released, I had written a short but questioning review of the controversial book. The review was limited, as it concentrated on a small aspect of the book released by the publishers to tease the public. It turned out in the end that that teaser was central to considerations of the book’s strengths and weaknesses. In my limited review, I was careful not to use it as a measure of Achebe’s literary endowment, whether that endowment is constricted or expansive, or use it as an indication of his life and times. That would have been most inappropriate, for a man of such copious output and prodigious talent could not be sensibly dismissed or characterised by one book, let alone a section of that book. I am not also going to pretend to use all or nearly all his works to define his essence, for that would also be a presumptuous endeavour. Nor would I attempt to compare one of his books with another, say, the gentle accessibility and simplicity of Things Fall Apart with the brilliance and complexity of Arrow of God.

    Whatever anyone may say of Achebe’s learning and worldview, whether he was deep or needed to be deeper, or whether he was thematically narrow in range or breathtaking, or whether he was controversial and disagreeable as a person or open-minded, gregarious, agreeable and universalist as an author, the important thing for me is that he had character and, needless to say, a curious and familiarly exciting point of view. There is no point trying to examine his literary competence. By every yardstick, he was an exquisite and exceptional writer, and he contributed immeasurably in birthing and giving fillip to the African perspective of literature. There are many fine writers the world has forgotten, or with time will forget. But there are a few who, regardless of the classicalness or mundaneness of their works, will be remembered for a long time. Like politicians and conquering generals, there are always a few additional and indescribable intangibles that qualify a man for greatness. Once these intangibles are absent, there is no amount of genius that can redeem the situation. And once they are present, there is no amount of ordinariness or lesser qualification that can attenuate it.

    Achebe’s character can thus be viewed from two perspectives. One is in terms of his character as a person, and the other is in terms of his character as a writer. What I find impressive about Achebe is how passionately he exuded both characters, as a person and as a writer, shorn of contrivances. Indeed, it seems to me that the leitmotif of his life and work could not be divorced from his Igbo identity. However, embracing that identity was a matter of choice for him, not compulsion. It coloured some of his works, just as his politics could not transcend it. It may be too early to determine what influence that identity would have on his legacy now or in the future, but it made Achebe the enigmatic and mercurial person he was. It didn’t matter to him that critics pointed out the dissonance between his lofty image as a great writer and the limiting parochialism of some of his pet views; all that mattered was that he summoned the fortitude to stick to his views. He had an unquenchable zeal to be himself, and he had the talent to nurture and sustain that zeal.

    As a writer, he cared even less what reservations anyone might have about the messages he furnished in his works or how trenchantly he projected his point of view. He belonged to the old school of great writers who despised taking refuge behind harmless, defanged words and imageries. His criticism of Conrad, for instance, was strident and, in some parts, downright abusive. In the same manner, his characterisation of some of the key political players during the Nigerian civil war was sweeping, exuberant and pugnacious. You may not agree with him, but you could not ignore him, for he had a poignant way of conveying his views. You may disagree vehemently with him, but you had a sense of his presence, his convictions, and his character. After all, I disagree with the American poet and critic, Ezra Pound’s impressionable theory of economics, and find his admiration for fascism shocking, but who could deny or resist the exquisiteness and brilliance of his poetry, particularly the Pisan Cantos, notwithstanding the circumstances in which the poem was penned shortly after World War II?

    Achebe was a pathfinder, and, as I indicated in this place when I wrote a short review of his latest work, his reputation as a writer is secure, notwithstanding the multiple indiscretions of indulging in historical fallacies. As much as the inimitable Mark Twain tried to philosophise in some of his works, notably The Mysterious Stranger, and as classical and supremely engaging as many of his works were, such as Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, Old Times on The Mississippi, and Innocents Abroad, he never rose to the level of a philosopher of any appreciable talent. Achebe, too, never quite made it as an original thinker, nor perhaps ever tried. But he achieved greatness as a writer of immense ability, as the general editor of the Heinemann African Writers Series, and as a mentor, literature teacher and trailblazer.

    His books did not win as many prizes as he probably coveted or merited. But those books are with us for all of eternity to help sustain his huge legacy. His aspirations for Nigeria were left unfulfilled, and he even spurned the half-hearted attempt by the Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan governments to honour him, but he departed these shores with the consolation that he repudiated his country’s maladies as vigorously as he could manage and as cathartically as he felt he needed to mitigate the injury occasioned in his mind by widespread leadership incompetence.

    It is no mean achievement that Achebe departed at 82, the second of the famous literary quartet God bestowed on Nigeria, Christopher Okigbo having achieved immortality ahead of the rest. As the many panegyrics written in honour of Okigbo have proved, absence really does make the heart grow fonder. From now on, many panegyrics will be written to the departed Achebe. Britain may no longer have its Dickenses, nor Russia its Dostoyevskys, nor France its Molieres, nor Ireland its Shaws, for the world has become a parched or at best middling literary landscape, but at least we still have our Wole Soyinka and J.P Clark, the two surviving members of the quartet. What we do with them is up to us.

    Achebe’s life and death symbolise the continuing mockery of our inexistent national identity. There is no poet’s corner in Abuja to bury the legend, or any other legend for that matter, for neither do we have a national identity to subdue individual ethnic identities, nor do we have leaders with a sense of history to conjure symbols that could underscore that identity. Achebe will probably be buried in his hometown, the final act in his repudiation of a country that has neither proved itself worthy of its great sons nor risen to an enviable height by the cumulative and stirring effects of the accomplishments of its great daughters.

  • Ebonyi lawmaker’s suspension stirs controversy

    Ebonyi lawmaker’s suspension stirs controversy

    Ogbonnaya Obinna in Abakaliki reports that supporters of suspended female member of Ebonyi State House of Assembly, Mrs. Lilian Igwe, are threatening state wide protests if she is not re-instated immediately

     

     

    The leadership of Ishiagu Community Development Union (ICDU) and other political stakeholders of Ivo Local Government Area of Ebonyi State have declared a seven days praying and fasting aimed at seeking the face of God to intervene in the continued suspension of its female lawmaker, Hon Mrs. Lilian Igwe, who was suspended nine months ago by the State House of Assembly over alleged act of drunkenness, an act considered embarrassing to the House of Assembly.

    In a release signed by the President of the union, Mr. David Ajah, and the Secretary, Mr. Sunday Chukwu, and made available to newsmen at the end of its emergency meeting held at the community, the town union regretted that for nine months running, the state constituency has not had representation at the State House of Assembly, describing it as undue marginalisation of the people.

    According to the release; “The union expressed surprise at what it described as current conspiracy of silence over the unjust and mischievous suspension of the lawmaker, Hon Igwe from the House of Assembly.

    Similarly, a Human Right group based in the state, Center for Peace and Defence of Human Right Abuses, said it would soon mobilise all civil society groups in the state, all women groups and other groups to protest the continued suspension of the lawmaker without recourse to the constituency she represents.

    Speaking with newsmen in Abakaliki, the State Chairman of the right group, Comrade Chigbo Nwaeze, noted that the suspension of the female lawmaker has denied the constituency any representation for a period of nine months describing the allegation against the lawmaker by the State House of Assembly as baseless and unfounded.

    “They said she was found drunk, that she drank her self to stupor, fell inside a gutter and some student came and carried her put her inside a tricycle and brought her to the House of Assembly. Did PDP know she was a drunk and gave her ticket? We have urged the House to present any prove to the allegation. None of them is yet to do that.

    Our investigation reveals that she was suspended because she did not support the impeachment of the former speaker, Mr. Ikechukwu Nwankwo,’ the group said.

    Meanwhile, the leadership of the House is reportedly insisting that the suspended lawmaker must come to the floor of the House and tender an apology before the House will consider her case. But the rights group found this unacceptable. ‘This is a happily married woman with grown up children, apologizing means acceptance. What becomes of her happy family? They are bent on tarnishing the image of the woman and we must stand up against that,’ the group said.

    Also some concerned groups have petitioned the President, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the wife of the President, who is championing 35 percent affirmative.

    When contacted, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Chukwuma Nwazunku, said that no amount of petition or protest would force the House of Assembly to recall the suspended female lawmaker without any formal apology letter from her.

     

  • A coup and its unending controversy

    A coup and its unending controversy

    The collapse of true federalism in Nigeria has its root in the military incursion into politics on January 15, 1966. Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU revisits the fall of the first legitimate government and the crisis of nation-building the military coup unleashed on the polity.

     

     

    It was a day of confusion in Lagos, the former Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The city was enveloped in panic. Many civil servants on their way to work in the morning turned back. Markets closed abruptly, almost at sunrise. Around Ikoyi and Obalende, which was a stone throw from the State House, people ran helter sketer. Political, economic and social activities were instantly paralysed.

    Ministers were woken up by gunshots from aggrieved soldiers. Some of them were alerted to the danger earlier, but they had ignored the warning signal. Some of them stayed in doors, waiting for information. Others drove to their offices in boldness. But the Federal Secretariat Complex, Ikoyi, was empty. Those outside Lagos were trapped in their destinations because there was no movement. Nigerians were seized by anxiety and tension.

    Before January 15, 1966, coups were not new in Africa. But a political scientist, Prof. Isawa Elaigwu, said that “this date marked the effective explosion of the military on the Nigerian political arena”. Bloody mutinies have been reported in Sudan, Egypt and Togo. But the coup of the five majors still dazed the political class. Soon, the news was all over the place that the Prime Minister, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, was missing. Many hours later, it was confirmed that the Head of Government had been killed and his body deposited in a bush on the Lagos/Abeokuta Road. Simultaneously, a pall of gloom descended on Northern Nigeria. The Premier, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, had been killed. The same tragedy had befallen the Premier of Western Region, Chief Ladoke Akintola, and Minister of Finance Chief Festus Okotie-Eboh was the only minister killed by the army. Also killed by the rampaging soldiers were some senior military officers, including Brigadier Maimalari, Brigadier Ademoyega Ademulegun, and Col. Ralph Sodeinde.

    Anger was bold on the face of the coup leader, Major Chukwuemeka Nzeogwu, who had come on air to inform anxious Nigerians about the forceful change of government. He cited many reasons for the change of government. The ring leader and his allies; Emeka Ifeajuna, Adewale Ademoyega, and others, accused the government of corruption, tribalism and lack of discipline. They promised hard times for the ‘ten per centers in high places. To reposition the country, they said, was a priority. Nzeogwu and his colleagues portrayed the soldiers as modernising agents.

    However, the euphoria was short-lived. On the second day, January 16, the tune changed. Due to human error, there was a hollow in the execution of the coup. Killings were restricted to the North and West. Since no prominent Igbo politician was killed, the uprising was decked in an ethnic garb. Thus, it has been observed that the way the coup was executed created suspicions and stigmatised it with ethnic colouring. Up came the General Officer Commanding the Nigerian Army, Major-General Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, who tricked the mutineers to come to Lagos, where he asked them to surrender to him. Although he became the beneficiary of the mutiny, he claimed that the coup plotters deserved punishment to restore discipline to the military and appease the North for the death of their political and military leaders. As part of his scheme to assert authority, later, the politically ambitious G.O.C asked the Council of Ministers, at gun point, to resolve to hand over to the military. The ministers, led by the late Dr. Kingsley Mbadiwe, could not muster the strength to resist the military’s incursion into politics. The Acting President, the late Dr. Nwafor Orizu, was also helpless. Having correctly interpreted the body language of the power-thirsty soldiers, they caved in. The parliament and council of ministers went with the wind of change.

    Had the civilian leaders taken decisive steps ahead of the tragedy, the destruction would, probably, have been averted. The Minister of Information, the late Chief Ayo Rosiji, had been inundated with complaints of a likely coup by junior officers by Brigadier Ademulegun in Kaduna. The Ondo-born Army officer had urged him to convey the information to Balewa in Lagos. He advised that the Prime Minister should act with speed, warning that delay could be dangerous. Ademulegun emphasised that the lives of senior politicians and military officers were in grave danger. Rosiji’s biographer, Nna Mba, stated that when the former minister mentioned it to the Prime Minister, Balewa, “gave a characteristic fatalistic response”. He admittedly dismissed it with a wave of the hand. Perhaps, Balewa was preoccupied with the preparations for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government holding in Lagos that month. The Prime Minister said he was not afraid because death would be the ultimate end of existence. Also, in his memoirs, former Inspector-General of Police Alhaji M. D. Yusufu recalled that similar warnings by the police were blatantly ignored by the Prime Minister.

    The result was disastrous. Following the coup, Nigeria was instantly assailed by a monumental crisis of nation-building. Ironsi’s first step was threatening to federalism. Soldiers of northern origin were angry that the coup masterminded by the Igbo officers was aimed at shifting power from the North to the East. The inexperienced military Head of State dismantled the federal structure and foisted on the country a centralised, unitary system when he enacted Decree 1, 1966. He appointed four military governors; the late Col. Adekunle Fajuyi (West), Col. Usman Katsina (North), Col. David Ejoor (Midwest) and Col. Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu (East). He set up an ad hoc constitutional conference which hit the rock, although he failed to set up a federal cabinet in time. “ It took Ironsi three months to make any political move, but actually five months for him to opt for greater centralisation of power through unitarism”, recalled Elaigwu in his book titled: “Gowon: The Biography of a soldier-statesman”. “In a way, it may be argued that General Ironsi was a victim of circumstances which required the quick use of his mental capacity and political subtlety-two traits Ironsi did not possess in adequate amounts”, he added. Besides, Eliagwu pointed out that “the political pulls within the system may have made Ironsi vacillate in making radical changes in the federal-regional relations”.

    Barely six months after the first coup, Ironsi was killed in Ibadan, capital of the Western State, when he was guest of Fajuyi. In the retaliatory coup, Fajuyi, who was defending Ironsi, sacrificed his life. He was killed by soldiers of northern origin avenging the murder of Bello and Balewa.

    Senior officers were not prepared for the challenges imposed by the sudden regime change. Following Ironsi’s death, a succession battle rattled he top hierarchy. Young military officers from the North refused to take orders from the second-in-command to Ironsi, the late Brig. Babafemi Ogundipe. They insisted that the Chief of Army Staff, Col. Yakubu Gowon, should assume the reins. The governor of the Eastern State objected, saying that it was against the seniority principle. He warned that a dangerous precedent, which could erode discipline, was being set.

    Gowon succeeded Ironsi as the Head of State. Tension later brewed as cases of mistrust among the various officers from the diverse, heterogeneous country were rife. Ojukwu advised soldiers of eastern origin to return home, since their lives were no more safe outside the region. The chain of events cumulated in the declaration of the Republic of Biafra by Ojukwu, who proclaimed himself as the Military Head of State and Commander-In-Chief of the new country he carved out of Nigeria. A bitter civil war ensued, with heavy casualties recorded on both sides. No fewer than one million lives were lost. Although Nigeria won the secession battle, it did not win the battle for national unity.

    Analysts have reflected on the justification for the first coup. Was it the best option at the time? Were soldiers in government better than the civilians in the first 13 years and later, 15 years of military rule? Today, coup is old fashioned, but historians have always noted that Nzeogwu may have acted out of patriotism, although the coup could also have been executed with minimal casualties. But the coup was infectious. Other coups and blood-letting activities of the military in July 1966, 1967, 1975, 1983, 1985, 1986 by Major Gideon Okar’s group, the pre-emptied Vatsa coup of 1988, and Gen. Sani Abacha’s displacement of the interim contraception headed by Chief Ernest Shonekan, were built on the foundation laid by the five majors.

    On all counts, soldiers deviated from the cause of moral decency. Seized by greed, they pillaged the treasury and did incalculable damage to public discipline. For example, the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Jos, Prof. E.U. Emovon, noted that Gowon’s method of a blend of militarism and humanism yielded under the stress of corruption and nepotism perpetrated by his lieutenants. Major-General Muhammadu Buhari, who had resolved to restore confidence in government by fighting corruption, breached human rights in the process. His successor, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, presided over a corrupt administration which wrecked the economy. Gen. Abacha became a despot.

    Observers pointed out that, had the foundation laid by the civilian authorities been sustained, the coup may have lacked justification. But the warring civilian leaders, who fired salvos from their ethnically-inclined political parties, had their own inherent weaknesses. The polity witnessed political stability when the federal government and the regions shared powers in an atmosphere of cooperative federalism and critical inter-governmental relations. But electoral tensions and recurrent suspicion between the North and the South, which complained about domination, later heralded political instability. Renowned historian Dr. Mba contented that there is substance in the criticisms that they lacked courage, conviction and vision of the society they had hoped to lead after the attainment of independence. She also agreed that “the political elite had also been held responsible for promoting ethnicity for political gains”.

    Mba also agreed that, in the First Republic, “corruption was practised and not checked”, adding that the inability or lack of will on the part of Balewa to insist on all his colleagues observing the rules contributed to the general demoralisation and breakdown of the government’s authority.

    To avoid repeating past mistakes, the historian advised that leaders should ensure that politics is based on principles and issues, not on personalities or ethnicity, and should be conducted according to enforced rules of fair play. Mba also advised that personal ambition must not be allowed to supersede the communal or national good, and power must not be used only or even mainly to further personal ambition. The historian had solid advice for youths who would drive the ship of the fledgling nation-state in the future. Young Nigerians must learn to unlearn the ethnic prejudices which had burdened previous generations so that they may work and socialise together freely. By so doing, they may create a more egalitarian and just society in the future,” Mba said.

     

  • Okorocha’s N500m ‘Xmas gift to security agents stirs controversy

    The  N500million Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha gave security agents for the last Christmas has caused a controversy among civil society groups and other stakeholders.

    They have described the governor’s action as a “misuse” of public funds.

    Okorocha, during an expanded security meeting with security chiefs and traditional rulers late last year at the Ahajioku Centre, distributed N500 million as Christmas gift.

    The governor said this was to motivate security personnel, including the police, the Army, the State Security Service (SSS) and other paramilitary agencies.

    The Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO) condemned the cash gift.

    It stressed that the security agencies, especially the police and the SSS, would have been better off if the “largesse” was spent on providing security gadgets for the poorly equipped officers.

    CLO National Acting President, Comrade Uche Durueke, noted that the N10,000 per security agent would not have any direct consequence on the deteriorating security situation in the state.

    He said N500 million, if judiciously applied, would go a long way to reposition security and fight crime rather than misappropriate it for vain political glory.

    Durueke said: “We want to know the source of the money. If it is the security vote, we will also question it, if that is the best way it should be spent. We cannot continue to blame the security men when we have not done our own bid by providing them with the necessary equipment to work. So, the largesse won’t in any way assist in the fight against crime.”

    The Southeast Chairman of the Campaign for Democracy (CD) Uzor A. Uzor, described it as a “subtle bribe” intended to becloud the reasoning of the people and make it appear as if the state was fighting insecurity, especially kidnapping.

    Uzor said: “In our last investigation, Imo State had the second highest rate of kidnapping in the Southeast. As we speak, the police do not have the equipment to track down kidnappers but still depend on crude ways of intelligence gathering. But the governor has N500 million to splash on security agencies as Christmas gift. It is uncalled for and should be investigated.”

    Uzor also frowned at the flagrant display of wealth by public office holders.

    But the Special Assistant to the Governor on Media, Mr. Ebere Uzoukwa, described the gift as the governor’s way of appreciating the efforts of the security agents.

    The governor’s spokesman noted that the security agents have worked hard to secure the state in the last one year.

    According to him, the government has done more than the previous administration in the fight against crime.

    Uzoukwa said: “Governor Okorocha, on assumption of office, bought 100 Hilux vans for security operatives in the state. He has continued to support them to tackle crime through various interventions.”

     

  • A culture of disputation and controversy

    A culture of disputation and controversy

    Whether Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s election is sustained or not, President Olusegun Obasanjo now knows it is clearly impossible for him to stay on in office. His ambitious manoeuvres to extend his tenure have been roundly and comprehensively defeated by the collective and unanimous spirit of Nigerians. Because of this, he hasn’t been as sprightly as he used to be or as radiant as his modestly passable looks could manage now and again. He has engaged in a feverish award of stupendous contracts and defended it as one who knows he has but a short time. But he knows he is going all the same. He has disembowelled his lay and clerical critics with as much venom as he used to produce in his early days in power, but he knows he can’t conceivably stay in power. He has begun to feel the same panic Gen. Ibrahim Babangida felt in his last weeks in power, and he is greatly discomfited by it. His smiles are less broad, his jokes lack colour and bite, and even the amiable rural aura that bathed them are thinner and inauspicious. He is more morose these days, more bitter against his traducers, and though he has not aged beyond his real (not official) age, he is distinctly ageing and aged.

    Obasanjo hasn’t been quite as composed as even his critics would like. This tremulousness often comes with the realisation that one hasn’t lived up to expectation. And nothing illustrates this nervous composure as his winding defence on Monday of the April general elections and his rage against his critics, chief among whom was apparently Pastor Tunde Bakare. Though a newspaper reported that the president was unfazed by the criticisms against his administration, it was clear from his recent looks and the lack of passion and conviction behind his arguments that he felt unsettled by the much more vigorous and acerbic criticism of the foreign media. He tried to mitigate the effect of the criticisms from abroad by granting interviews to any sundry reporter who cared to travel down, but they were still unsparing. They not only wrote off the elections as fictitious and fraudulent, they even described him as a failure.

    In the next two weeks and some days, Obasanjo will be going back to his expansive and now thriving farms and gilt-edged investments all over the country. He expects, naturally, to retire on good standing, a fulfilled, self-satisfied and adored statesman. I doubt whether his wishes can be granted. He is vow very wealthy, of course, but he has lived all his life posturing as a good and courageous man without taking one sound step to justify the name. Those steps he considered courageous were nothing but bold steps to alienate his friends and harden his enemies. As for whatever goodness he felt he had, no one knows about it, indeed, no one has seen it. Worse still, he will go back to his farm deprived of the customary goodwill that often accompanies a retiring leader loved by his people. Nor will he have many friends to accompany him home. Even the billionaires and millionaires he has made early in his government and in the closing weeks of his presidency will carefully read the lips of his successor to know whether to fraternise with him or to freeze him out of their circles. He seems destined to retire to solitary and somnolent existent as well as bucketful of lawsuits and acrimonious controversies over land and shares, some of which were extracted on the pain of incarceration.

    His views at the commissioning of the new wing of the National Assembly complex on Monday are quite instructive. His most salient view on the occasion is a typical reflection of the philosophical foundations upon which he has constructed his life, guided his ambitions, and wrestled his enemies. According to him, it is in the character of the Nigerian to whip up sentiments, controversies and disputations over elections. He had observed this since 1959, he said. Beyond the mendacious characterisation of the Nigerian as habitually quarrelsome and insatiable, Obasanjo seems to be saying in another more vigorous breath that bureaucratic incompetence was ingrained in us. And so as he counsels us to accept our character of being controversial and disputatious and not allow anyone to come and say ‘rubbish’, he also defends slothful electoral conduct.

    President Obasanjo has always been a poor student of history, perhaps because he is military-trained engineer. At the said commissioning, he asserted that “this was one election we had where nobody is talking about North or South… where nobody is talking about Christian or Muslim, and where nobody is talking about ethnicity as a factor.” The president is very forgetful. During his own election both in 1999 and 2003, none of us could recollect ethnicity or religion being a factor. He was a Christian as Chief Olu Falae, Alex Ekwueme and a few others were Christian.

    If he forgets his own election, the best election ever conducted in Nigerian in 1993 was perhaps the best chance we had to lay the ghost of religion and ethnicity to rest. Nigerians elected their candidates in 1993 without talking of the divisive factors Obasanjo thought was absent from his poorly planned, heavily manipulated and incompetently conducted 2007 elections. It was in fact his military constituency that arrested that political growth and sophistication. And from what we heard, it was an intervention he nodded and winked at. The president also failed to understand that a more pressing evil – rigging and manipulations – had distracted the electorate from looking at and discussing the other factors surrounding the elections. Obasanjo’s government never wanted the elections to be free or fair, otherwise commentators would have looked at the value of a Jonathan Goodluck on the Yar’Adua ticket compared with the electoral weight of, say, Senator Ben Obi on the Atiku Abubakar ticket. Contrary to the opinion of the president, we did not make any progress in 2007. None whatsoever.

    It is ironical that Obasanjo ruled Nigeria for eight years but does not understand what Nigeria’s political culture Nigeria should be. Put more simply, he is unable to explain the functions of a political party in a country where there are other political parties and various interest groups. At the National Assembly complex commissioning, the president said of the PDP: “We as a party, we formed the party in such a way that the party will work in close collaboration with the members of the PDP and the Executive who are products of the PDP.” The president must be reminded over and over again that he was neither at the formation of the party nor has he tried to imbibe the spirit and culture of the party. One the contrary, he led a ruthless takeover of the party and sacked all the principled political leaders who founded and led the party to its first victory in 1999.

    This takeover explains why the party no longer has a moral or philosophical core, nor any principled leader to rally the country behind the ideals of the party. It explains why its leaders promote the principles of party brigandage, elevate expediency over morality, and canonise godfathers, strongmen, garrison commanders and a motley menagerie of political thieves and compromisers. It explains why even Obasanjo himself is more fanatically PDP than patriotic, though he is president of about 150 million Nigerians. Why the president can’t see these weaknesses of his, why he can’t rise above the pedestrian philosophy of a village party official, why he can’t tell the difference between party and country, is hard to tell.

    These disabilities also explain why the foreign media have just arrived at the conclusion long reached by the local media, that Obasanjo did not make a success of his presidency. He was weighed down by party expediencies, bogged down in the maze of bitter fights with his friends, enemies and other passers-by, and entangled in many self-created moral, religious, cultural and political contradictions.

    We must hope that the in-coming National Assembly dominated by the PDP will not be swayed by the president’s uninformed admonitions that the senators and representatives must show unalloyed loyalty to the PDP. Their loyalty, if we must remind them, is to the nation and its constitution. Their bond with their political party is to promote, not impose, the principles and ideals of the PDP, and to see how Nigeria can best be shaped into a great nation within the ambit of the PDP platform. The PDP legislators should discountenance the president’s threats and intimidation. If he was used to giving unlawful orders when he was in the military and he found soldiers to carry them out, he should be reminded that his broken reforms, discordant ideas and collapsed values all reflect his inability to comprehend the fundaments of politics and democracy. He will leave office with his head bowed, his heart bleeding, his mind suffused with regrets, and, if he likes, shudder at our mocking conclusion that he was a soldier and farmer who found himself in the wrong vocation at the wrong time.

     

    •First published on May 13, 2007 under the headline “They say it’s our culture to be disputatious and controversial.” Palladium is under the weather and, feeling nostalgic, he wants readers to regale themselves with this piece from over five years ago.

  • Ojukwu stirs more controversy in death

    Ojukwu stirs more controversy in death

    November 25, 2011 started like any other day. But when news came from a London hospital about the demise of former Biafran leader Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, the day literally ended in the entire Southeast. Although the East is known as the land of the rising sun, that day, the reaction to the news of the man who became a folk hero among his people at a young age, portended an eclipse of the sun. It was thought that the world had come to an end. In one year, however, political, economic, social and religious activities have resumed, even at his home town, Nnewi, Anambra State.

    Last Sunday, November 25, a one-year commemoration service was held for the late Ikemba Nnewi at the Saint Michael ArchAngel Catholic Church, Umudim Nnewi.

    It brought together Igbo leaders from the five states in the region. Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), leader Chief Ralph Uwazuruike and his Deputy Chief Romny Ezeonwuka led their “troops” to Nnewi. It was a beehive of activities as Biafra war veterans and members of MASSOB, clad in a black and green attire, with the Biafran Flag, sang war songs, eulogising the defunct Republic..

    Political leaders at the service included Anambra State Governor Mr. Peter Obi, Mrs.Virgy Etiaba and the national chairman of the crisis-ridden All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Chief Victor Umeh, among others. Notably, the one year commemoration of Ojukwu’s death, afforded both Governor Obi and Umeh the opportunity of close contact for a very long time.

    Governor Obi, who had been at the forefront of Ojukwu’s remembrance, said that the memory of the great Ikemba Nnewi would stick in the memory because he lived for something worth remembering.

    Others, according to Obi, who lived such life were Napoleon Bonaparte, King Louis XIV, General MacArthur, Alexander the Great, King Philip of Macedonia and many others. “You know that Ojukwu’s motto was ‘to thyself, be truthful’..

    “For us to have a better and prosperous Nigeria, we must be truthful to one another and confront the problems that face us in the spirit of truthfulness” he said.

    The state chairman of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Chief Patrick Orjiakor, hailed the qualities of Ojukwu even in death.

    He said if the late Ikemba Nnewi had been alive, the crisis rocking APGA, would not have happened. He added that since his demise, things had fallen apart for the party. Orjiakor called for unity of the people of South East.

    But the remembrance was without four of the region’s governors, namely Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha; his Abia counterpart, Theodore Orji, Ebonyi’s Martin Elechi and Enugu State’s Sullivan Chime.

    No reason was given by anybody for the absence of the governors and no apology was sent. They had actively participated in the burial of the Igbo leader. Sources in Nnewi confided in The Nation that though the family had been entangled in squabble over the estate left behind by Ojukwu in recent times, the Nnewi community had waded into it to ensure an amicable settlement.

    Many traditional rulers in the state equally offered respect to Ojukwu even in death as they all attended the Holy mass, including the traditional ruler of Nnewi, Igwe Kenneth Orizu III. Umeh pleaded that everybody should give peace a chance as Ojukwu stood for peace and love. “They should know that Ojukwu hated persecution and intimidation, he hated lies being told against anybody, we encourage people to work hard and reap from where they worked”.

    He said that Ojukwu never humiliated anybody, and that, rather, he encouraged all parties while alive. He asked those influencing the crisis in APGA after the demise of the founding National Leader of the party to think twice.

    At his grave side, Rev. Fr. Cletus Chukwuemeka said that his soul will have eternal rest, while his son Chukwuemeka junior commended Obi and others for being with the family since the death of their father.

    The noise and parade by the MASSOB members added colour to the event, with the Director of Information of the group, Uchenna Madu saying, it was part of the respect for their hero.

    Squable over estate

    Ironically, the Ojukwu anniversary failed to quell the raging war in the family over property inheritance even though his will was made public last week and there is no enough assurance that the crisis in APGA has come to an end.

    In the Will read last Friday in Enugu by the Chief Registrar, Enugu Judiciary and Probate Registrar, Mr. Dennis Ekoh, the late Ojukwu not only literally disowned look-alike ‘son’ Debechukwu Odumegwu Ojukwu but also shocked all by acknowledging a hitherto unknown daughter, Teny Harman.

    Widow of the late Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, Bianca, was mostly favoured. Moreso, Emeka Ojukwu (Jnr.) only got a property in Nnewi.

    Bianca, the late Igwe of Oraukwu, Emeka Ojukwu and James Chukwuneme were listed as trustees and executors of the Will, while the names of Ojukwu’s children were next.

    Besides, the deceased stated that only those listed as his children in the Will, and no other person, should be regarded as his children.

    Those listed as his children are Tenny Harman, Emeka Ojukwu, Mmegha, Okigbo, Ebele, Chineme, Afam and Nwachukwu.

    The Will awarded Ojukwu’s GRA, Enugu mansion, ‘Casabianca,’ in her favour. She also got two properties located at Plot 20, Jabi, Abuja, with Certificate of Occupancy number 4405, as well as another located at Kuje, Abuja.

    The late Ezeigbo gburugburu also willed to Bianca all personal effects, money and cars for her upkeep her children’s. He also allotted to her two hectares of land at Umuezeani Umudim Nnewi on the condition that she does not remarry.

    His strange daughter, Tenny, was allotted Jubilee Hotels in Kaduna State, but when the codicil was read, it was observed that the hotel had been sold, thus she would receive the proceed from the sale.

    The deceased further willed a hectare of land each to all his daughters but directed that his Nnewi property is “to remain a binding legacy to us for generations to come.”

    The Will, expectedly has sparked real crisis within the family.

    Ojukwu’s kinsmen of Umudim Nnewi and kinsmen of the mother of Ojukwu’s son, whose name was conspicuously omitted in the Will, Debe are out for a show down with the said administrators of the Will.

    Ojukwu’s kinsmen are not favourably disposed to the contents of the will, hence a traditional crises is likely to brew in the family.

    The Umudim Nnewi who fully recognise Debe as Ojukwu’s son and relate with him as such were wondering how Ojukwu could have willed his obi to a woman.

    According to a source close to the late Biafran leader’s hometown, “we will not allow a sacrilege on our tradition as it’s unheard of that a woman occupies the obi of the husband after his death.”

    They insisted that the first son is the proper person to occupy the obi and not the wife, “will or no will.” Doubting the contents of the said Will, the source said he agreed with Emeka Ojukwu (jnr) that the Will was doctored and wondered why it was only the widow of Ojukwu that was present during the reading. We will straighten out things when we get back home. And for the information of the public, Debe is one of us and we recognise him as Ojukwu’s son. Is there any of his children that looks more like him? Time will tell,” said the source.

    And Debe’s mother’s kinsmen from Ezeagu, Enugu State, yesterday met and resolved that they would not allow their “grandchild” humiliated just because of the “greed of an individual.”

    Debe, who is a Lagos legal practitioner said he is not perturbed that his name was not listed as Ojukwu’s children in the Will, adding that through a DNA test a person could lose his paternity if it is proved that he is not the rightful child of his father.

    Debe had dragged the Ojukwu family to court for preventing him from performing ‘dust to dust’ rites at his father’s burial.

    In a sworn affidavit to enforce his fundamental human right before a Federal High Court in Lagos, filed on his behalf by Chief Mike Ozekhome, (SAN) Chief Debe averred as follows:

    •That he was born on August 3, 1956 to the late Chief Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu and his late wife, Margaret.

    •That his father was then an Assistant District Officer at Udi, Enugu State, and his mother a primary school teacher at Udi.

    • That he is the first and the eldest surviving son of the late Odumegwu-Ojukwu.

    • That after his birth, his poor mother was responsible for his welfare and upbringing from her meagre income as a school teacher.

    • That he joined the police as a recruit in 1976 and through hard work he went to the University of Nigeria, Enugu, and was later called to the Nigerian Bar in 1986.

    • That his promising career in the Nigeria Police was abruptly truncated when Professor Joseph Okwuabudike Ojukwu, Engineer Emmanuel N. Ojukwu, Mr. Lotanna Ojukwu and Mrs. Margret Nugbo invited and begged him to come and manage the business of Ojukwu Transport Limited on their behalf despite the fact that they did not contribute anything to his upbringing.

    • That Chief Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu during his lifetime never contested newspaper publications recognising him as his first surviving son.

    • That when his father became ill in 2010, he donated blood to him at the University Teaching Hospital, Enugu, before he was flown abroad for further treatment.

    • That he, thereafter, visited him in London with his wife and children.

    • That upon the demise of his father on November 26, 2011, a meeting was convened by Professor Joseph Ojukwu with a view to reaching an amicable settlement as to who should control and manage the personal property owned by Ojukwu Transport which belonged to their grandfather, Sir Louis Ojukwu, and the ones belonging to their father, Emeka Ojukwu.

    • That there and then, Professor Joseph Ojukwu, Engineer Emmanuel Ojukwu and Lotanna Ojukwu threatened to maim or kill him if he did not cease forthwith from interfering with the management of the property owned by Ojukwu Transport and the late Sir Louis Ojukwu.

    • That they also barred him from attending the burial of his late father despite the fact that he spent over N100 million during the funeral.

    • That up till today, they are still threatening him on the basis of the circumstances of his birth, claiming that he is not the legitimate son of his late father.

    • That this has caused a great distress among his peers and his business partners.

    Joined in the suit are Ojukwu Transport Limited, Professor Joseph O. Ojukwu, Engineer Emmanuel N. Ojukwu, Mr. Lotanna Ojukwu, Emeka Ojukwu, Mr. Patrick Ojukwu, Mrs. Margret Mogbo, Nee Ojukwu, the Inspector-General of Police and Mr. Ibrahim Mukhtar, former Commissioner of Police, Anambra State Command, now an Assistant Inspector-General of Police.

    Debe prayed the court to restrain the defendants and their agents from threatening to kill him, if he does not cease from interfering with the will and personal property of Ojukwu Transport Limited and Sir Louis Ojukwu.

    The presiding judge, Justice Okon Abang, has adjourned the case to December 13, for hearing. If Ojukwu’s time on earth was marked by controversy, he stirs even more, now in death.

     

  • Controversy trails Boko Haram’s dialogue proposal

    Controversy trails Boko Haram’s dialogue proposal

    SHOULD the Federal Government dialogue with Islamic sect Boko Haram, which last Thursday waved the olive branch?

    This was the poser yesterday amid reactions to the sect’s proposal for talks wit h the government.

    The Senate endorsed the talks; former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) National Chairman Solomon Lar gave conditions for the dialogue and Oodua Peoples Congress founder Dr. Frederick Fasehun rejected the sect’s choice of former military leader Gen. Muhammadu Buhari as mediator.

    Last Thursday, Boko Haram opted for dialogue with the government and proposed Saudi Arabia as the venue.

    It picked Buhari, Dr. Shettima Ali Monguno, Ambassador Gaji Galtimari, Mrs Aisha Alkali Wakil and her husband Alkali Wakil and former Yobe State Governor, Senator Abba Bukar Ibrahim as mediators.

    Ibrahim said yesterday that he had not been contacted by the sect.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Information, Media and Publicity Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, responding to a text message by our reporter, said the Senate was delighted to read about the sect’s proposal for dialogue.

    He said: “The Senate will support any measure that will bring peace to all parts of Nigeria.”

    Ibrahim, Chairman, Senate Committee on Housing, Land and Urban Development said since he had not been contacted, he “cannot say anything based on newspaper publication or television broadcast.”

    The senator said a similar thing happened in the past when some newspapers published that the sect named him and others to dialogue with the government on their behalf.

    He said: “The earlier one ended without any result. One group was reported to have called for dialogue and allegedly named some people to negotiate on its behalf.

    “Another group denied it and the whole thing ended up just like that. I cannot say any thing based on publication by newspapers or television broadcast.

    “Nobody has contacted me for any dialogue.

    “But I hope that this time around, this one will work and produce result.

    “I hope that this one will work and not end up like the earlier one.

    “That is what most Nigerians have been praying for, a dialogue to ensure peace in the country.”

    Lar said the talks should take place only after members of the group revealed their identity.

    He told reporters in Kaduna that talking with the group when it has chosen to remain faceless does not make any meaning.

    Lar said: “I disagree completely (with dialogue) unless they show their identity that Mr. X, Y, Z is Boko Haram. For them to name some people to be their representatives, who are they? They are faceless people, let them come out and reveal their identity”.

    He said it was not enough for the sect to nominate people to negotiate on its behalf, urging them to identify themselves rather than remain faceless.

    Lar wondered whether Buhari, Monguno and others picked as mediators have accepted the job, asking:

    “Has Gen. Buhari agreed? Is Gen. Buhari their representative? Is Ali Monguno their representative? You see, I didn’t want to mention names, but if they (Buhari and Monguno) said yes, they are their (Boko Haram’s) representatives, we would know.

    “But have they agreed to represent them? Let them come out. During the Niger Delta militancy, some people came out and said they were the leaders of the militants. That was very reasonable and that was how the late President Umar Yar’Adua was able to tackle the problem of militancy in the Niger Delta. The Niger Delta militants were not faceless like Boko Haram. Why didn’t Boko Haram follow the example of the militants by showing their faces?” he said.

    Fasehun, who spoke after a public lecture by the Ife Business School in honour of the Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuwade, urged the government not to allow Gen. Buhari to be in the negotiating team in the interest of peace and tranquility.

    Buhari, he said, was not qualified to negotiate on behalf of Nigerians or the government.

    Fasehun, who agreed that the government should dialogue with the sect, said Gen. Buhari’s presence in the negotiating team, would aggravate things.

    Referring to Gen. Buhari’s alleged disaffection with the government over his defeat by President Goodluck Jonathan in last year presidential election, Fasehun said the former military leader could not represent the interest of the government and Nigerians well in the negotiating team.

    “Buhari should not be part of the negotiations because he has a serious grouse with the present administration. His grouse is because he was not elected the president of Nigeria. How can such a fellow represent the interest of the government and the good people of this country if he’s part of those that will negotiate and dialogue with Boko Haram.

    “I would rather advise the Federal Government to set up a formidable team comprising responsible Nigerians to dialogue with the sect if the government wants to end terrorism and insecurity. Also, the government should be civilised in its discussion with the sect members to ensure absolute peace in the land. The dialogue between the Federal Government and the sect, if well handled would bring about peace in the country.”

  • Privatisation controversy

    Privatisation controversy

    IT was expected that the privatisation of the power sector would be dogged by controversies. However, the threat by the quartet of Governors Adams Oshiomhole of Edo, Emmanuel Uduaghan of Delta, Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti and Olusegun Mimiko of Ondo to prevent winner of the Benin Electricity Distribution Company (Disco) – Vigeo Power Limited – from operating has, no doubt, brought a dangerous dimension to the privatisation story.

    The governors’ angst stems from the failure of their consortium, the Southern Electricity Distribution Company to clinch the bid for the distribution company. The governors had alleged manipulation of the process in favour of the preferred bidder. Specifically, they charged the Bureau for Public Enterprises (BPE) with using a set of criteria that had never been used before to create room for manipulation.

    There were other allegations about the figures said to have been put forward by the preferred bidder as being “shady”. The winning consortium was also described as lacking the technical know-how and the financial capability to handle the project.

    Indeed, Governor Oshiomhole passed off the entire exercise as “a racket that’s inconsistent with running a transparent government”. Rather ominously, he stated on behalf of the four that having invested taxpayers’ money in the electricity distribution projects, they would not sit idly by and watch the investment lie waste.

    The Technical Committee of the National Council on Privatisation (NCP) chaired by Atedo Peterside responded to the allegations last week. The body denied allegations of manipulation and lack of transparency just as it stopped short of describing the governors’ tales as a case of sour grapes. It insisted that the ground rules for the process were well circulated among the investors. The rules, the body also noted, were in accordance with the Request for Proposals (RFP) which all the bidders were given the opportunity to comment on and which were accepted before they submitted their technical and commercial proposals.

    Accusing the governors of bad faith, the chairman of the technical committee of NCP charged: “They never made any allegations of lack of transparency until after the race had been run via the commercial bid opening ceremony which was televised live”.

    As for the criteria used in picking the bid winners, the NCP insisted that it approved the privatisation strategy as far back as June 11, 2010 and that “the advertisement soliciting for Expressions of Interest (EOIs) emphasised that the BPE would use this strategy”.

    Is the NCP like Caesar’s wife – above reproach? Only if we accept that the governors’ consortium was actually privy to the rules as stated by the NCP. However, the idea that the exercise was not guided a priori, by a set of agreed rules, or that the consortium would undertake the exercise – blindfolded as it were – would seem ridiculous – hard to accept.

    We do not here suggest that the fears of the governors are unfounded. The point however is that they will better help the cause of the public and that of the privatisation process by supplying proof of the infractions observed beyond general statements. A possible option is for the governors to register their concerns with Vice President Namadi Sambo in his capacity as chairman of the privatisation process.

    In the alternative, they could seek redress in court. There is also a third option – pressing for higher stakes in the distribution companies through negotiations. Either of the three would seem a far better strategy than the threat to prevent the preferred bidder from operating. Of course, the idea that the governors’ consortium must win no matter what, is wrong.