The Nation Newspaper

Tag: diatribe

  • Kachikwu/Baru diatribe

    Perusing the response of Group Managing Director of the NNPC (GMD-NNPC), Maikanti Baru to allegations against him by Minister of State for Petroleum, Ibe Kachikwu shows clearly that the matter cannot be resolved in the court of public opinion.

    With yawning gaps and inability to address some of the substantive issues to the letter, an independent inquiry is the way to get at the root of the matter. Since Baru’s response following President Buhari’s directive raised new issues and therefore cannot put a seal to the controversy, it became difficult to fathom how the new issues will be addressed especially in the unlikely event that Kachikwu will come public with fresh facts.

    For a man still battling suspicion of having leaked his letter to the president to the media, he will be definitely hamstrung in taking on Baru to clear some of the new issues, inaccuracies and distortions he may find in that response. The dilemma is: should Kachikwu have responded to the new issues or not? If he did, he would be adding to the credibility baggage of a government whose image was badly dented by the weighty and scandalous disclosures. It could also be construed as a further attempt to discredit the government and enough grounds to associate him with the leakage of the letter.

    If he did not, he would have played into the hands of Baru and the government especially given the attempt in some quarters to dismiss the allegations as lacking in substance. There is no doubt that the government is uncomfortable with the turn of events and would seek every avenue to fault Kachikwu. Baru himself has been busy renting support as is evidenced by the solidarity visits/support for him by labour unions in the industry even when the allegations are yet to be determined.

    And one begins to ponder what business the unions have in a matter that is still unfolding. Or is it part of the culture of division and fear the minister referenced upon in his letter?

    Apparently to unknot this dilemma and save Kachikwu the burden of allowing Baru get away with some of the gaps; inaccuracies and inability to address some of the troubling issues, associates of the minister would not let go. They have come up with searing posers to show that the issues are not as simple as Baru has made the public to believe.

    The substance of Baru’s response is that extant laws and regulations do not mandate him to consult either the minister of state or the board of the NNPC in the award of contracts. Hear him: “the law or rules do not require a review or discussion with the minister of state, or NNPC Board on contractual matters”.

    He believes that since the president combines his executive powers with that of minister of petroleum, he has no business letting Kachikwu into the running of the affairs of the organization. And since he claimed no money was lost to the organization, it is deemed all the necessary and sufficient conditions for transparency and due process has been satisfied. He armed himself with the further claim that Kachikwu followed the same process when he held forth as the GMD of the NNPC.

    Hiding under this legal angle and the fact Buhari combines the portfolio of the petroleum minister with his executive position; Baru would want to be cleared of any wrongdoing even if he loses nothing taking the minister of state and the board into confidence. Ironically, that is not all there is to the legal dimension.

    Attention has been drawn to Section 130(2), 148(1) of the constitution and Section (1) of NNPC act. This section of the constitution deals with the powers of the president. Nowhere did that section allot the portfolio of the minister of petroleum to the president. In other words, it was not intended by the framers of the constitution that the president should usurp the powers of the minister of petroleum. So Baru cannot find safe haven in the legal angle since the constitution takes precedence over and above the NNPC and Procurement Act.

    Even then, issues have been raised regarding the claim that the Tenders’ Board rather than the Board of the NNPC has the responsibility to award contracts. The technicalities of these cannot be resolve here as they should be left to a commission of inquiry. But even without apportioning blames, it is obvious that Baru made a desperate attempt to take refuge under technicalities to evade the scandal of having the tenders’ board solely appointed by him as the final authority on contractual matters without reference to NNPC board.

    The same NNPC Act also stated that “the affairs of the corporation shall be conducted by a Board of Directors of the Corporation” and has overall supervisory powers of the corporation. How possible is it then to contend that these supervisory powers preclude the award of contracts. And what interest is served by ousting the board such roles in matters of contracts running into billions of dollars? Or put differently, what does Baru stand to lose if the board is taken along in such awards? Again, is the course of due process and transparency not advanced by openness rather that secrecy?

    Baru’s contention has to be taken with a pinch of salt given that even when he sidetracked the minister of state and presented some of these to the acting president for approval, he was duly advised to clear them with the minister. But he would not have any of this. It was therefore obvious that Baru was more interested in short cuts to circumvent the prying eyes of Kachikwu in the affairs of the corporation. Such conduct cannot further transparency and due process irrespective of the legal loopholes under which he sought to take refuge. There is more to it.

    He claimed Kachikwu as the GMD of the NNPC followed the same reporting line. In this, he is economical with the truth as the situations were quite different. As at the time Kachikwu reported to the president, there was no minister of state and no board for the NNPC. So, citing the instance to justify his situation cannot hold water. At best, it is an attempt to conceal information and deceive discerning members of the public.

    But even if Baru could conveniently hide under legal technicalities on the award of such humongous contracts, what laws supported the key appointments he made without either reference to the minister of state or the NNPC board he chairs? Is it surprising that he evaded aspects of this allegation against him? The fact of this casts serious slur on whatever point he sought to make on the position of the law on the award of contracts in the corporation. And as we have seen, even his claims are still largely provisional.

    Since new facts were adduced by Kachikwu’s loyalists to throw more light to the claims in Baru’s reply, the NNPC has come forward again with new claims associating the minister with some of the contracts it awarded and other decisions of the corporation. We may yet be treated with another response from those loyal to Kachikwu and the altercation will have no end.

    That is why an independent inquiry such that the Senate has promised to initiate points to the way forward. Such a panel of knowledgeable and legal minds will have the comfort of mind to go through our laws and make recommendations that will put a check to some of the embarrassing disclosures emanating from the current controversy.

    Beyond this, it is very clear Baru was merely exploiting gaps in extant laws to run the affairs of the NNPC as a sole proprietorship. The motive cannot further the course of due process and transparency. Even if one was tempted to give him the benefit of doubt on the position of the law in the award of contracts, the fact that he sidetracked both the minister of state and the board in making the controversial key appointments exposed the duplicity of his motive. Or is it surprising that the appointments excluded the South-east in the same manner Buhari excluded the zone in the composition of the board of the corporation.

    The government might be making efforts to cover up this huge embarrassment as was with similar cases where key officials of the regime were accused of corruption. But it cannot afford to leave the weighty allegations hanging without dire consequences to its touted war against corruption.

  • Season of diatribe

    It would appear the spectre of incendiary attacks by sections of the country set in motion by a coalition of Arewa youths is not about to abate. Not with the recrimination that has inundated the nation’s political space despite the deft moves by acting President Yemi Osinbajo to stem the tide.

    Not only have such attacks increased in momentum, they are assuming such a complex texture that could further complicate issues and rupture the fragile peace in the country. The same Arewa youth that issued the quit order to the Igbo resident in the north has had other outings as potentially explosive as their first. Masquerading under groups in the coalition, sundry persons claiming leadership positions have come up with statements that have had the net effect of heating up an already tensed polity.

    One Gambo Gujungu purporting as the national president of Arewa Youths Forum, issued a stern warning to politicians in the south-west to stop any game that may rob the north of its rightful slot to the presidency in the interest of peace and unity. He said the north was aware of plans by the south-west to push out Buhari through a campaign of calumny using his health as a cover and vowed that they would resist any plan to take over power from them either now or in 2019.

    “These south-west people think we don’t understand the politics they are playing, we will shock them when the time comes. Some people want to show us that they understand the game of politics more than us. But they are in for a surprise”, he averred.

    Another group of northern youth led by one Abdulazeez Suleiman said in a press conference that they have written the United Nations UN to declare the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra a terrorist organization. It wrote the UN “to invoke the relevant statutes to which Nigeria is a signatory to pronounce Kanu and IPOB as terrorist outfits; proscribe their activities and initiate criminal actions against them”.

    Keen watchers since a coalition of northern youth ordered the Igbo to vacate the north by October 1, may begin to construct a correlation between that order and the staccato of incendiary statements emanating from sundry northern youth groups. Due to the relative ease with which they got away with their initial provocative threats, the coalition quickly dissolved into amorphous groups issuing statements on behalf of the same north. Curiously, nobody has come out to distance that part of the country from some of these reckless and ridiculous statements. It is however, getting increasingly clearer that there is more to this cacophony of voices than ordinarily meets the eyes.

    There must be an issue of interest the north is seriously committed to that has given rise to the recruitment of sundry characters to foul the political air. In this wise, the agitation for self-determination by the pro-Biafra groups may not be the real issue. It may have been deliberately raked up as a launching pad for the actualization of a very selfish and parochial agenda that is at serious straits at the moment.

    The question that is yet to be answered especially in respect to the threat by the northern youth against the Igbo is, on whose behest were they issuing the warning order?  If those seeking self-determination want to exit the Nigerian federation, is it in the place of the youth from a geo-political zone to appropriate that challenge on behalf of the federal government? Is there any exclusive loss they stood to encounter over and above other federating units that should warrant the indecent haste in appropriating a challenge to the Nigerian state? Or what stakes if any, do they have over and above other federating units to the point of taking up a fight on behalf of the federal government?

    Perhaps, the clue to this riddle can be found in the threat issued by Gujungu against the south-west. In that statement, he spoke of plans to deny the north of their right to the presidency either now or in 2019 with a vow to resist them. As if the threat was not enough, he chided the south-west for living under the illusion that they understand politics more than the north with a promise to show them northern dexterity in the art and game of politics. Call it the usual arrogance associated with northern stranglehold on power and you will be right. Call it kite flying and you will also not be wrong.

    There has been no response from the south-west even as the purport of the statement is not lost on them.  The issues in contention are clearly not in doubt. They pertain to the current predicament wrought on the nation by the failing health of President Buhari. With little information on the exact state of health of the president after many weeks of medical treatment abroad, there are fears of the north possibly losing power.

    This is more so given that the acting president is from the south-west. There is fear of the possibility of acting President Osinbajo taking over power in the event of the worst outcome. So what the youth are saying is that if the need arose for the constitution to be activated in this regard, that would not happen. We do not pray for the worst case scenario. All well-meaning people sympathize with President Buhari and wish him very quick recovery.

    But, it offends public sensibilities for the northern youth leader to simulate calamity and on that basis prescribe situations that would amount to a subversion of the grand norms governing this country. If we show such disdain for the constitution of the country, then we are definitely in for grave danger. We have trod this dangerous path before. But for the intervention of the National Assembly, the consequences would have been very catastrophic. Nobody should again take us through that ominous path.

    We say so given that a couple of weeks back, the Chief of Army Staff complained publicly of attempts by some people to drag the military into some unconstitutional action. It would appear the scenario painted by Gujungu can only come through unconstitutional action. And that is where the danger lies.

    If the above portends grave danger for our democracy, the call on the UN to classify the IPOB as a terrorist outfit is not only dangerous but a great disservice to this country. It would appear the youth, in desperation to get even with the IPOB, lost sight of the dire repercussions of the UN labelling that group a terrorist outfit. By their calculations, once the UN makes such a pronouncement, our security forces will now move in their equipment to wage an asymmetric warfare in the section of the country the IPOB canvasses self-determination for.

    We will now be faced with another war with consequences more grave than what presently obtains in the north-east. Then, the northern youth group would have achieved their devious aim. But in canvassing such a position, they displayed crass ignorance of what constitutes the objective conditions for terrorism. Whatever one may wish to say about Kanu and his group, violence is not part of their agenda. They have made that clear for the umpteenth time. Those who seek to associate them with terrorism aim at settling scores by all means including the sinister.

    The call is a clear and potent danger. Another terrorist group in the country would have satisfied both the necessary and sufficient conditions for Nigeria to be classified as a terrorist state. That will come with dire repercussions. Apart from being a disincentive to foreign investments, it will expose our citizens to profiling-the type the US government is currently pushing against some countries. That was why for many years, Boko Haram insurgency was not labelled terrorist outfit until their international affiliations came obvious. The menace of the Fulani herdsmen should have come first if we are looking for terrorist outfits. These are potent dangers we face settling parochial scores through unwholesome means. We can do with less of this diatribe.

  • The Mail-on-Line’s diatribe

    In the past few days, a couple of my friends have drawn my attention to what they consider a demystification of President Muhammadu Buhari by a so-called Mail-on-Line medium in the United Kingdom. Upon reading the story, I got thoroughly disappointed, not at the story, but the fact that some well educated Nigerians could be taken in by what is no more than a red herring masquerading as the smoking gun that it pretended to have unearthed.

    What is the story? What are the facts leading to President Buhari’s unwarranted vilification by the Mail-On-Line newspaper? There appears to be a four-count charge against the President of Nigeria by a newspaper that ought to be more preoccupied with the Panama Papers and the uncertain fate of Britain in the European Union, aka Brexit.

    Count 1: That he sends his daughter to a 26, 000 pounds a year school and, perhaps without the approval of Mail-on-Line, had allegedly spent 150 thousand pounds on the education of his daughter Zahra, a University of Surrey student.

    Count 2: Without recourse to Her Majesty’s media, Buhari had allegedly allowed his 16-year old daughter, Hanan, to indulge in the royal privilege of flying first class from London to Abuja when her father had banned ‘public officials’ from the same privilege. Perhaps, she should have travelled by sea or better still, through the Sahara desert escorted by some Bedouin Arabs.

    Count three: Buhari’s anti-corruption claim is spurious and sectional unlike what obtains in Britain where the election of Saqid Khan, a Muslim, as the new mayor of London, is being ‘applauded’ by all Britons.

    Count Four: The Mail-on-Line describes Buhari, the popularly elected President of Nigeria as “the self-styled people’s President”. By implication, he is an impostor.

    What is my take on this? First, as a Nigerian, I am conscious of the public image of our leader, whomsoever that person may be; in this instance, it is President Buhari. I concede that not every Nigerian agrees with his policies, his style or his actions. The same applies to David Cameron, Prime Minister of Britain. I will also be the first to admit that there is no consensus among Nigerians on these matters, including Buhari’s achievements. But that does not warrant this spurious attack on his person to the extent that he is being described as a “self-styled people’s president”.

    Pray, was he not elected by the people? Yes, he flew the flag of a political party. But once elected, had he not become the president of Nigeria and its peoples? To the best of my knowledge, at no time has Buhari ever arrogated to himself the title of the ‘people’s president’, if, by that, the Mail-on-Line was referring to a long disused epithet by maximum rulers of old. The paper can conveniently spew its pejorative gibberish because Nigerians choose to be gullible and refuse to draw the line between partisan disagreement and patriotic consensus on matters of national pride and survival. If that had not been the case, for a medium in a country that taught Nigerians the ignoble art of corruption (read Professor Peter Ekeh’s Colonialism and the Two Publics), for a newspaper in a county that, for long has provided safe haven for funds stolen from Nigeria, the newspaper would have adopted greater circumspection in talking about Nigeria or President Buhari whose anti-corruption credentials date back to over three decades.

    My take on the story is that it was timed as a distraction from the unprecedented anti-graft war taking place in Nigeria; the fact that in the past few weeks, millions of dollars have been traced to shoddy processes and transactions. Coming on the eve of the London conference on corruption, one is tempted to suspect that the Mail-on-Line’s poorly executed diatribe could have been timed to take the sail from whatever presentation the Nigerian leader planned to make at the conference. In that case, we are bound to ask: whose interest is the newspaper serving?

    I do not necessarily subscribe to the style of the Buhari administration. But it will amount to sheer perfidy for any Nigerian or friend of Nigeria, to ignore the uncontroverted revelations of misuse of public funds by public officers of all political colouration. If the Mail-on-Line speaks for Nigerians, it must be the tiny cabal that turned our collective patrimony into personal wealth and turned all of us beggars either as individuals or as a country. Had that not been so, the medium wouldn’t have had the temerity to talk about the British government giving 250 million pounds to Nigeria over a period of one year because, under Buhari, there wouldn’t have been need for that.

    The Mail-on-Line should be told that the anti-graft war is achieving results, one step at a time. Nigerians are not under any illusion that this is just one event, no, it is not. It is not a sprint; not even a marathon. It is a process, a long term engagement with the future of the country; a process that Nigerians of every persuasion must not just buy into but take complete ownership of, if the future promised by the change agenda is to be guaranteed.

    The good news is that the anti-graft war has started in earnest, with all its imperfections. Back home in Nigeria, over one trillion naira has been recovered, discovered or saved. That is far in excess of 250 million pounds. For any medium that is worth any credibility not to see this as a step, in the right direction, and to mock the effort as the Mail-on-Line has done smacks of outright mischief, professional amnesia or culpable duplicity.

    I am tempted to take the view that the Mail-on-Line is being misinformed by those Nigerians who shamelessly plundered the national till for selfish reasons. It is convenient today for people to pander to ethnic, political or every other perceptible subterfuge for their woes. But how many of them obtained the permission of their restricted groups before dipping their itchy and insatiable fingers into the public purse? How many of them deployed such proceeds of official malfeasance towards satisfying the legitimate needs of their primordial groups rather than oppressing them?

    I do not think we should waste our time on the little matter of Buhari’s children as the Mail-on-Line provided us with no evidence of any wrong doing on the part of the President. The newspaper did not claim that Buhari, a former head of state, a former governor, a former minister of petroleum resources, a very successful farmer and a pensioner, dipped his hands into the public till to pay the fees of his children or fund their travels. If I read the medium correctly, it is simply saying that for Buhari’s anti-corruption war to receive its endorsement, he must first commit class suicide and subject his family to the same level of penury as the poorest Nigerians. That is utter hogwash. It sound’s completely illogical and uncharitable.

    If the Mail-on-Line is honest in its love for Nigeria, if it is not singing the tune being dictated by some unseen malevolent sponsors from Nigeria, the newspaper should back Buhari’s effort to repatriate all of Nigeria’s money stashed away in Britain and other Western countries. When that is done, I can assure the paper that Nigerians are prepared to swallow any home brewed bitter pills to take us out of the present situation.

    There are times I begin to wonder if the media in the western world is not bothered that some of their financial institutions look and act like receivers of stolen goods. In Nigeria, receivers of stolen goods are treated as suspected accessories to the crime. But Buhari has not threatened to take the British financial institutions to the dreaded Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in Nigeria. All he is asking is for the looted funds to be repatriated to Nigeria to prosecute the agenda of his government. Therefore, Buhari should walk tall to the London conference and, with the support of the Mail-on-Line newspaper, boldly announce to those holding our money and our relatives to release them to us now!

  • Diatribe against Soyinka

    SIR: Most Nigerian youths nowadays suffer from memory loss – reason why they tolerate polemicists, demagogues and proselytes to redraft history for them: of course for selfish reasons.

    I have read many a diatribe from government spokespersons, laymen and many others who love to impugn the image of the revered Nobel Laureate Professor Wole Soyinka. The professor is a major stakeholder in the Nigerian project and is in his own right to express his views, for the right reasons and, for the growth of country.

    The sage, many decades ago as a young man before the Nigerian Civil War, crossed over enemy lines at a time when others could not, to persuade Colonel Odumegwu-Ojukwu not to go to war.  He was subsequently locked up by General Yakubu Gowon because he visited the supposed adversary of the Nigerian state.

    Only a man with a genuine love for the unity of his country could do that. How many of today’s numerous pseudo-analysts named the professor a ‘traitor’ when he, (Soyinka) called the bluff of General Sani Abacha, by calling for the enthronement of democracy even when his life was in danger? How many knew how he fared when he went under during those dark days but still campaigned for democracy through international channels like CNN?

    To ask the professor to sit on the fence and play “siddon look”, when the country is in a deep hole is derisory.  Didn’t today’s beneficiaries of the rewards brought by democracy play “siddon look” at a time when men needed to be counted? Of course, they were in their comfort zones, without a care for country back in the day.

    How many of today’s numerous pseudo-analysts called the professor a quisling when he sacrificed for this country as officer in charge of the Federal Road Safety Corps suffering private economic overheads to ensure that the agency functioned without gremlins.

    How many of today’s young, bogus, experts could at the professor’s age, a moment ago, challenge the nameless cabal that tried so hard to prevent Goodluck Jonathan from ascending to the presidency after the sudden death of that good man, the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua? Could they at his age have gone on those protestations? That professor was a superman before these decriers at that moment, but a reprobate now.

    He is a wrong doer, only because he expressed misgivings on the leadership style of the current president.

    That professor was not a troublemaker when he joined issues with the Nigerian military when some of their members a moment ago went wild beating up people in Lagos over the death of one of their own.

    Some have swiftly branded him an ally of the opposition but having observed this man from a distance, it is easy to deduce that he won’t spare any party his fiery bombardments, should they decide to engage in the politics of jibber-jabber.

    I do not celebrate his foibles because we all are subject to human frailties. But that said, the sum of the respected professor’s appeal is more than the sum of his weaknesses. Some positions in life come with a lot of responsibilities and that of a Nobel Laureate is no less.

     

    •Simon Abah,

    Port Harcourt.

  • Ikem’s diatribe against Imoke

    Reading the piece entitled “Redrawing Cross River Political map”, written by Venatius Ikem, former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and published in The Nation of October 21, where he sought to play the role of a hatchet man, one cannot but conclude that it was a puerile effort of a man who is cognitively challenged.

    By Bassey Ofem

    pon sighting the caption, I had intuitively salivated at the prospects of savouring fresh insights on the political transformation currently going on in my state. But lo, I was let down when I discovered that the author was merely out to mislead and misinform his undiscerning readers with his cant.

    Indeed, his outing in The Nation was a classic piece in contradiction and obfuscation.

    In the piece, he tried feverishly to portray Governor Liyel Imoke as manipulating the political process in Cross River State to suit his personal interest.

    However, in his febrile and desperate effort to demonize the governor and tar him with a brush of a manipulator, Ikem, ended up confusing the readers.

    It is imperative to mention that ever since Governor Imoke booted him out of office as Commissioner for Works in his cabinet, Vena, as he is called by his associates no longer sees any good in the governor and what he does.

    It would be recalled that Ikem had demeaned his exalted office when he unabashedly engaged in a fight with a hapless young man at a party. He had reportedly stabbed his victim, an aide to Senator Ben Ayade in the head with a broken bottle. This disgraceful incident was lavishly reported by the media, including the Punch on January 2, 2012. The Governor considered his action untoward of a public office holder and swiftly gave him a matching order.

    This was the ‘mortal sin’ Governor Imoke committed against Ikem, setting the stage for the pathological hatred from Ikem.

    Since then, he has seized every opportunity and deployed every available media, both conventional and social to insult his governor.

    The piece in The Nation is at best a display of intellectual handicap and a ventilation of a frustrated and beleaguered politician.

    For instance, Ikem claimed that his preferred aspirant, Jeddy Godwin Agba was haunted (sic) out of office as Group General Manager, Crude Oil Marketing of the Nigerian National Petroleum Cooperation (NNPC). He, however, recanted in the same sentence by saying that his current benefactor (Jeddy Agba) voluntarily retired from NNPC.

    Poser: If someone was haunted as he ignorantly used the word or did he mean to say hounded out of office, could he at the same time voluntarily retire? As governor of Cross River State, does Governor Imoke also superintend over a behemoth such as the NNPC? Where does Imoke derive the power to hound, or to borrow Ikem’s own terminological inexactitude, haunt Jeddy Agba out of office?

    Again, another contradictory paragraph that exposes Ikem as a man who is not native to truth but one weaned on mendacity is his claim that current state PDP chairman, Ntufam John Okon should not have become the party chairman, because according to him, the man had just retired as Clerk of the state House of Assembly a few months before becoming the state PDP chairman.

    How hypocritical could Ikem be to raise issues about Ntufam John Okon’s position as the state party chairman while not considering it inappropriate to support his principal and aspirant, Jeddy Agba for the governorship of the state, despite that he was until a few months ago a staff of the NNPC?

    Is this not a clear case of Ikem trying to approbate and at the same time reprobate? While it is fine for his paymaster to aspire to the office of the governor of Cross River State, even as he was still in the employ of NNPC, it was sacrilegious for the state party chairman to have aspired and become the party chair, following his retirement as Clerk of the state House of Assembly. For Ikem, what is sauce for the geese should not be sauce for the gander?

    For Venatius Ikem, it is expedient to seek to confuse the debate over Governor Imoke’s laudable effort to open the democratic space, and allow the people to take ownership of the democratic process. Yet he wants Nigerians and indeed Cross Riverians to see him as a democrat who is only interested in the ambition of his patrons.

    It is in this context that it becomes pretty difficult to rationalize Ikem’s discomfort, unhappiness and distaste with the decision of John Owan Enoh to seek to represent the Cross River Central Senatorial Zone in the senate.

    Ikem’s claim that Governor Imoke does not want a ranking senator in Cross River to return to the senate so that he can continue to rule the state by proxy is ludicrous and lacking in substance.

    Perhaps a victim of selective amnesia, Ikem forgot that Senator Teslim Folarin from Oyo State was also the Senate Leader. But neither the senate nor Oyo State went kaput on account of his failure to return to the upper legislative chamber.

    Another issue Venatius Ikem raised and which rightly portrays him as one who plays politics of hatred is his confusion as to how Governor Imoke, who is a leading member of the PDP and according to Ikem, acclaimed bosom friend of the President and member of his kitchen cabinet, can still keep friends such people as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon Aminu Tambuwal, ‘a ring leader of a rebellious group’.

    For those familiar with Imoke and his style of politics, the governor sees politics as a game, pure and simple. So, while he might disagree with someone politically, he will never personalize such disagreement. This is what Ikem cannot understand.

    Ikem is not done yet with his myriads of laughable claims, but this time it is President Goodluck Jonathan’s failure to pay a visit to the state, since his assumption of office because, according to him, Governor Imoke has nothing for him to commission.

    Ikem, as a former member of Imoke’s cabinet did not really know his boss. If he did, he should have known that he is not a leader given to playing to the gallery. The governor does not commission projects because it does not make sense to spend taxpayers’ money on projects commissioning when such funds could be put to better use to improve the lot of the people.

    Apart from Nigeria where elected political office holders commission as little as well water project and dredging of gutters, where else is this done?

    That the governor does not commission projects is not to say there are no projects. With hundreds of kilometers of roads constructed and in use across the state when Ikem was Commissioner for Works, how many of those roads were ever commissioned?

    Today, the Institute of Technology and Management in Ugep, has commenced academic activities. Was the institution commissioned? The civil servants housing estate in Akpabuyo is today fully occupied; was there a big or lavish ceremony called commissioning? Does it also mean that the over 200 rural communities in the state enjoying rural electrification without commissioning are not citizens of the state or was it that the projects were not executed in Cross River State and deserving commissioning?

    Today, there are women and children in four local areas of the state who no longer die during childbirth due to improved quality healthcare made possible by the administration of Governor Liyel Imoke. This is despite the about 810 health facilities spread across the state. Should the citizenry have waited for their commissioning which will never come before accessing the facilities? Perhaps Ikem needs to be taken on a facility tour of the various projects to justify their presence in the state.

     

    • Ofem is a Calabar-based lawyer.

  • National Conference, Tinubu and Presidency’s diatribe

    This Presidency will perhaps go down in Nigeria’s history as the most averse to its people asking questions of it. Yet again I read with amusement, its response to legitimate questions posed by Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu on its proposed cryptic “constitutional conference or dialogue”. All the mainstream dailies carried screaming headlines such as “ Presidency, Tinubu in slugfest over conference “,  “Presidency attacks Tinubu”, “Presidency, Tinubu clash over National Conference” etc and I thought to myself, what manner of Presidency is this ?

    For me where a whole institution of the presidency takes on a single individual (Tinubu), who made it clear he was merely stating his opinion (though his opinion was in line with that of many discerning Nigerians), apart from reducing its stature, it unwittingly was paying Tinubu a back hand compliment. It is even worse when its response to legitimate questions is a non sequitur in form of diatribes. One would have thought it was an opportunity for the presidency to further explain issues concerning the controversial “conference” but no.

    So let’s try again.  It is often said that the devil is in the detail. Unfortunately it appears in this case there are no details and so it’s even more difficult to search for the devil even though you know he or it is in there somewhere, but search we must.  Yes it appears the presidency has perfected the more you look the less you see format but we will continue to ask questions no matter whose ox is gored.

    Perhaps the most important question Tinubu asked which was never answered was the auspiciousness and timing of the conference.  Why now?  Common sense, logic and intellect do not agree with the planning and execution of two major, delicate and difficult projects in any country within one year.  A national election and a national dialogue? How feasible are these?  Even with the best of intentions, will the planning and execution of one not take away from the other? Or is this a mere smokescreen or subterfuge? Why is this coming at the time the President’s party is disintegrating and his chances of winning re-election are dimming by the day? At what point after years of playing the ostrich did the President change his mind about the desirability of a conference? Why is the outcome of the conference going back to the National Assembly for legislative imprimatur as the President has now told us, suggesting that the exercise could be a waste of time if the National Assembly disagrees with its output.  How then is it different from the constitutional amendment exercise we have just gone through which gulped several millions of naira? Pertinent questions that require answers.

    In looking at the history of several countries including the 13 colonies of the United States that have sat together to fashion how to live together, such conferences have been done at auspicious times and not during the pendency or imminence of an election.  The best time for the conveying of such a conference that could have far reaching implications for the country would be the very first year after an election in this case between 2015 and 2016 and definitely not 2014 a year to elections and few months before party primaries, especially when you have an interested party in the outcome of the elections.  There is a rat somewhere and it stinks to high heavens.  Hear Mr President: “those who continue to say that the initiative is diversionary or aimed at promoting certain political ambitions are in error. Our sincere objective is to create an acceptable and workable platform for a national dialogue or conference that will help us to resolve the issues that still cause tension and friction in the polity, reinforce the ties that bind the countries many ethnic nationalities and ensure that Nigeria’s immense diversity continues to be a source of strength and greatness”

    Mr President, good talk but a year to a major election?

    Whilst the President’s statement sounded presidential and conciliatory, hear the other one of his aides: “We wish to state categorically that President Goodluck Jonathan has shown convincingly that he is a credible, reliable and capable leader by his unprecedented achievements in such a short space of time. He most certainly does not flip flop as the opposition politician insinuates blah blah blah” Oh really?

    Now the closest attempt to address issues was made by Kingsley Kuku, the amnesty guy. He detailed accomplishments of the amnesty programme.  I do not know Kuku and I have nothing against him but on this one he missed the point. Simply put; a drain pipe is a metaphor used in ferrying money out of the treasury or if one is to be more charitable a way to suck money from the system unnecessarily.  The point he missed is that even where you are able to show that certain things have been done in the name of amnesty, such does not negate the “drain pipe” fact. To put it in ordinary language easy to understand, if I am able to show as a governor that I have bought syringes for all government hospitals in my state at the cost of 500 naira when the actual cost was 10 naira per syringe, does the fact that all hospital now boast of syringes negate the fact that the programme of syringe purchase is a drain pipe? Ditto Sure P.

    If our President is desirous of having a national dialogue, I can give him some suggestions on major critical areas demanding dialogue which will be less impetuous and which can be started and finished within three months with no implication on the coming elections. He can start by convening a national dialogue on education (ASUU strike), Power, non implementation of budgets, oil theft and a national dialogue on our true finances as a country and whether or not the country which has been unable to pay its bills or allocate states their revenue for three months is broke.

    Hon Gbajabiamila is the leader of opposition, House of Representatives

  • Dialogue or diatribe?

    William Isaacs in 1999 did a seminal work entitled “Dialogue and the art of thinking together”, yours comradely shares his perspective of dialogue as “a conversation with the centre, not sides”. Many thanks to the respected columnist Segun Gbadegesin for mainstreaming my side talk or “off-the-cuff remarks” (in his words) on the controversial national conference during interaction with some correspondents recently in Ilorin. Certainly a conversation with my main thoughts on the issue, not necessarily with a reported side talk would have been more fruitful. Whatever it is worth, Gbadegesin came out as a chieftain of a boring monologue. He is definitely not a promoter of conversation. Witness his posted “NLC vs. The people” of October 4, in The Nation. He generated more heat than light in his unhelpful commentary and a “reload” of a predictable old position. It is unacceptable for him to pitch my constituency, NLC against “the people” on account of what he terms my “off-the-cuff remarks”. With millions of organized members, NLC and “the people” are certainly not mutually exclusive. The received wisdom has it that those who demand for equity must at least come with some clean hands. If you espouse dialogue (or is it conversation?) from the roof top, kindly lift those of us below out of polarization and channel our energy towards some better understanding. The bane of the modern proponents of Sovereign National Conference (SNC) with its ever altered and distorted variants is their aversion to the very principles of dialogue. The late Alao Aka-Bashorun, my mentor, lawyer and one time NBA President initiated the demand for a national conference in the mid-80s. It was then not as fashionable. It was even riskier. Under the military dictatorship ala IBB, Aka-Bashorun courageously envisaged genuine conversation as part of the broad progressive strategy to ease out authoritarianism. Today with a constitution and its imperfections, over 50 political parties, 35 state assemblies, Senate and the House of Representatives, Aka-Bashorun would have opted for deepening democratic process through improved elections rather than parroting the present day fashionable mantra-dialogue already discredited over the years by embattled regimes of varying persuasions and their pen of uncritical supporters.

    “Protest rallies on a regular basis” by labour must have captured Gbadegesin’s imagination.  But genuine observers of labour market issues know that social dialogue is the hallmark of trade unionists including me. After signing scores of thousands of plants, national and continental collective agreements over the years, through collective bargaining and genuine social dialogue, covering wages, hours of work, health and safety standards, gratuity and pension, maternity and child rights, I dare say I am a tested convert to dialogue. Present day SNC proponents are the ones who need a sermon on dialogue not labour. They often talk and reason but with themselves not together with others. And that may very well be the downside of the new conference. They   polarize and fight, instead of winning new hearts.

    My legitimate concern is that President Goodluck Jonathan’s latter day embrace of a national conference is an opportunistic and indeed belated diversion from the surmountable governance challenges he was elected to solve. I stand to be convinced to the contrary through greater persuasion not a feverish dialogue-phobia, unhelpful polemics and smear.

    Happily President Jonathan was more measured in his response to the concerns of the sceptics like me than the pen warriors of dialogue. In his address inaugurating the 13-man National Dialogue Advisory Committee, the President assured that “no voice is too small and no opinion is irrelevant”. He reassuringly observed that “the views of the sceptics and those of the enthusiasts must be accommodated”. Gbadegesin cannot be holier than the new Pope of national conference who also modestly accepted to be “one of those who exhibited scepticism on the need for another conference or dialogue” in recent past. “If indeed this ”Conversation is a People’s Conversation”, as President Jonathan assured, nobody dares shut some out through cheap diatribe.

    It is part of conversation too to express doubt about the so-called national dialogue as the likes of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Bishop Mathew Kukah and Professor Ishak Oloyede audaciously did. It would amount to literary terrorism to say APC is against the people, just because Asiwaju Tinubu said the proposed dialogue is a diversionary “Greek Gift”. To say the church and Supreme Islamic Council are against “the people” just because Bishop Kukah and Professor Ishak Oloyede (one-time co-chairmen of similar failed project under OBJ) respectively expressed doubt about national dialogue, would amount to dictatorship of monologue.

    The critical question begging for answer; is National Dialogue  a genuine governance imperative or another unbudgeted diversion? As measured and conversational the President was in his address, he was still not convincing. We must first hold President Jonathan accountable for his electoral promises made without pressures before we can consider new issues he latched on under duress mid-term in office.  I search in vain for a National Dialogue, National Conversation or National Discourse at his inaugural address in 2010.  On the contrary, I read about “our total commitment to Good Governance, Electoral Reform and the fight against Corruption”.  Indeed the President promised “ensuring the sustenance of peace and development in the Niger Delta as well as the security of life and property around the entire country…” Also in equal measure we had presidential “pledges to improve the socio-economic situation through improved access to electricity, water, education, health facilities and other social amenities”.  High sounding “National Dialogue” at this hour is not just a diversion from the above pledges, it also unacceptably adds to already high costs of governance.  For as long as this new debate continues, the President’s full time report on all these issues that affect the working class and Nigerian people in general may also suffer with all the implications for the development  of the country.

    Are we a debating society or a functional productive republic? We promise to be part of the 20 leading economies in seven years. Are the other 19 economies agonizing through a wasteful divisive conference of ethnic nationalities or working tirelessly to combine growth rates with job creation and poverty eradication? President Jonathan was very upbeat about the gains of the previous conferences. Labour’s experience is not as encouraging. The latest constitution review actually set to deform labour when at the behest of some self-serving governors, labour was whimsically removed from the exclusive list by the senators thus eroding labour gains and standards. I think the President needs genuine SWOT analysis of these past conferences. The weaknesses might very well outweigh the strengths. Even now the threats are higher for Nigeria.  With the likes of Gbadegesin exhibiting nostalgia for the lowly trademarks of ethnicity and language (not even class) and getting romantic with failed state projects like Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union, we may very well be convoking a dangerous diatribe in place of useful dialogue for a better Nigeria and a greater Africa.

    • Aremu, mni, is Vice President of Nigeria Labour Congress

  • Governors should respond to Jibril Aminu’s diatribe

    Senator Jibril Aminu, a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, is a man of unlimited candour. That candour has served him well over the years. Not minding his age, he is certain to go on speaking his mind candidly until his last breath. Last Saturday, according to the Vanguard newspaper, he took on the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, describing them as malevolent busybodies who were undermining Nigeria’s young democracy and attempting to extend their budding suzerainty to the presidency. Said he: “The governors are against all of us and the president. They have organised to stop the government from doing what is right for this country. You can see that they have organised to stop anything functioning in Nigeria without them…Governors are the ones imposing things on the rest of us. The problem with the governors is that they meet regularly and have their way by threatening the president that they would not support him for second term…Number one, they have stopped the local government from functioning. They decide what amount to give to the local governments under their control. They decide what the LGA chairmen should spend, up to the last kobo…”

    Even though in their campaign against the President Goodluck Jonathan government, the governors have received the support of a great majority of Nigerians, it is hard to ignore the senator’s salient views. But let us ignore his sweeping generalisation that the governors are against the president and the rest of us; and let us also dismiss his contention that the governors are imposing themselves on us and preventing the country from functioning. However, there is little doubt that his observation that the governors have virtually emasculated the local governments is unimpeachable, and the governors will be tongue-tied to gainsay him.

    But Aminu was not done. Hear him: “Unfortunately, there is nobody to call the governors to order because they have already swallowed the Houses of Assembly that would have served as a check on them. Today, nobody gets any job or appointment at the state level without the approval of the governors. Even election into the National Assembly is controlled by governors. So they have super powers and nothing gets to anybody except the governor approves same. Not satisfied with the powers they have already usurped, the governors now want to extend their power to the president.” Brilliantly put, but is the president, his great idol, not even more powerful and rapacious? Did Chief Olusgeun Obasanjo, for instance, not attempt to play more than God in enthroning and dethroning public officials, including governors? It would not be a bad idea if the governors were restrained, for they have sometimes acted so impetuously and imperiously that you begin to wonder whether we are in a democracy. After all, the Nigerian president has also nearly always acted like a monarch. If governors must be restrained for democracy to survive, it is even more necessary for the president to be bound with new and strong fetters if we are not to be ruined.