The Nation Newspaper

Tag: emergency

CBN refutes report on criticism of emergency rule

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) yesterday refuted a report insinuating that the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), under the chairmanship of the CBN Governor, Mallam Sanusi Lamido, at its meeting on Tuesday condemned the emergency rule recently declared in three Northern states of Yobe, Borno and Adamawa.

In a statement signed by director, corporate communications, CBN, Mr Ugochukwu Okoroafor, the banking watchdog expressed concern over a news report purportedly emanating from the communiqué of the MPC claiming that “Sanusi Condemns Emergency Rule”.

The apex bank stated that the lead story of the Abuja-based newspaper was a complete misrepresentation of the content of the MPC Communiqué No. 89, issued on May 21, 2013.

“The said MPC communiqué never, in any form, condemned the state of emergency in the affected states. For the avoidance of doubt, and in reviewing the likely factors that could influence economic dynamics in the coming months, the MPC communiqué, cited the fiscal implication of the state of emergency, which is a likely increase in government spending, thus making it imprudent to embark on monetary easing at this time,” the apex bank stated.

May 23, 2013
Issues in emergency rule in Adamawa

I read a news story in Thisday of Thursday, May 16 credited to Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, the national chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as saying that the state of emergency imposed on Adamawa State is justified. Giving reasons for the justification, Tukur posited that as a border state to Borno, there is need to create a buffer zone so as not to allow insurgents operate in Adamawa. He further claimed that border areas in Adamawa share the same ethnic and religious affinity with Borno State, hence the need for the emergency rule in the state.

With all due respect, I disagree with the justification given by the PDP chairman. I consider the reasons given as factually false and operationally illogical. In the first place, the four local government areas of Adamawa bordering Borno State are Madagali, Michika, Shelleng and Gombi. Apart from Shelleng, all the other three LGAs, and especially the communities on the borders, are predominantly Christian, or at least non-Muslims. It is therefore false to claim they share religious affinity with the Islamic insurgents.

Furthermore, states of Gombe, Bauchi, Kano and Plateau also share borders with Borno and Yobe, and have much closer religious affinity with the Islamic insurgents than Adamawa. Besides, there are more violent attacks and killings in these states than in Adamawa. It would have been more logical to create this so-called buffer zone in these states than in Adamawa, or at worse alongside Adamawa. But to leave such states and clamp down on Adamawa does not, in my opinion, make any sense whatsoever.

As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no justification for considering Adamawa as deserving of emergency rule and the other states do not. While the reasoning is incongruous to the reality on ground, the action is out of all proportions to the violence or threat of violence in the state. It only gives the impression that it is political rather than strategic considerations that informed the decision to include Adamawa among the states for emergency rule. This has the tendency to politicize the exercise and ultimately defeat its essence. This must be discouraged at all costs, if the objective is to succeed.

In addition, one necessarily does not have to be a lawyer or a judge to see that the act conflicts with the principle of necessity and proportionality under Subsection 33(2) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011. Worse of all, the imposition of curfew from 6pm to 6am on the entire state by the military authorities is also in conflict with the principle of reasonability as enshrined in Subsection 41(2) of the 1999 Constitution.

At this juncture, it is important to state other reasons why I oppose emergency rule in Adamawa. We are all living witnesses to cries and accusations of extra-judicial interrogations, detentions, tortures and killings of innocent persons by the operators of emergency rule since the eruption of insurgencies in the North in 2009. We have also witnessed the morbid disruption of normal economic, social, political and religious activities in states affected. No person would wish such for their states. While we all crave for insurgencies and terror acts to be nipped in the bud, we cannot accept the violation of people’s rights or innocent persons losing their lives on account of anti-terrorism measures employed by the authorities – because we know that terrorism can be obliterated without necessarily getting society suffer all the negative effects outlined.

A counter terrorism measure that limits or derogates from human rights, like the right to freedom of movement can only be reasonably justified in a democratic society if and only if it can be shown that the limitation or derogation do not deprive or threaten to deprive citizens of their economic, social, religious or political rights, and more so if such deprivation or threat to it can create conditions conducive for the spread of terrorism. In other words, the operators of emergency rule are duty bound to apply the principle of necessity and proportionality in their measures to proffer solution to terrorism. That is why I oppose the imposition of curfew on Adamawa from 6pm – 6am by the military authorities in the state. The order is clearly insensitive to the religious rituals of our people. Such restriction of movements as contained in the order will blight citizens’ rights to worship. For the Muslims, they cannot perform three of their obligatory [Magrib (sun set), Ishah (night) and Subha (morning)] prayers. I believe it will also hamper on some Christian denominations and faithful who undertake late evening and early morning congregations. This curfew period, therefore, certainly would be unacceptable to such believers, most especially the Muslims, and can generate cause for friction with authorities rather than the desired cooperation. To this end, I call on the military authorities in Adamawa to reconsider the curfew period while the state of emergency lasts, suggesting instead a period from 8pm – 5am. This would allow all reasonable congregational prayers over; and will help engender people’s cooperation and avert conflict with emergency rule operators.

We all acknowledge that the adverse effect of terrorism in our society is direct and substantial, i.e. it endangers the rights to human life, to personal dignity, to liberty, to freedom of movement, conscience and worship, to pursuit of wealth and happiness, etc. However, it is not contemplated and acceptable that measures taken to counter terrorism should have adverse impact, in the same way terrorism has, on the lives of citizens, or activities of society. If that happens, then it becomes a double jeopardy to the people. The primary duty of government to rid the society of terrorists and terrorism is not more sacrosanct than its duty of protecting the lives and property of innocent citizens, and maintain peace and harmony in the society. In carrying out this responsibility, the federal government must not only be able, but also must be seen to be able, to effectively balance the two elements.

Finally, to attain this balance, all actions must be taken to ensure that Nigeria complies with Resolution 60/288 of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy in which member-states are required as a matter of necessity to take measures aimed at addressing conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. Such measures, according to the resolution, include the entrenchment of rule of law in public matters, preventing and punishing of violation of human rights, enhancing the welfare of citizens, reduction of poverty in the society and ensuring that all measures employed to counter terrorism comply with obligations of International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law and International Refugee Law.

•Dr. Ardo a PDP stakeholder, writes from Adamawa State

May 23, 2013
Emergency rule: Did Jonathan follow the law?

EVER before last week’s broadcast, many had expected President Goodluck Jonathan to declare a state of emergency in some Northeast states, especially Borno, over the Boko Haram insurgency. To such people, it came as a relief when he took that step. Many are, however, questioning the rationale behind the President’s action. They contend that he did not follow the Constitution in declaring emergency rule in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states.

To some lawyers, the President does not have the constitutional backing to declare emergency rule in any state without the governor’s request. They said he could only do so when the country is at war.

Others said he erred in law by not suspending democratically elected structures, such as the houses of assembly, governors, local government chairmen and councillors.

Another group argued that the president does not have the power to declare emergency rule without passing through the National Assembly or publishing his intent in an official gazette. For others, there is no precedent for Jonathan’s kind of emergency rule. Their arguments are based on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the same section President Jonathan invoked in declaring the emergency rule. Following troops deployment in the three states, the military swiftly imposed curfew on Adamawa and Borno states. The curfew did not go down well with the antagonists of emergency rule. According to them, the imposition of 6pm to 6am curfew contravenes the principle of necessity and proportionality under Sections 33(2) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 and 41(2) of the 1999 Constitution. They said it was also an abridgement to Resolution 60/288 of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy, which Nigeria is a signatory to.

However, some lawyers, citing the same Section 305, are of the view that the president acted in consonance with the law.

They maintained that Jonathan would have committed a constitutional blunder if he had toed the footsteps of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who in declaring emergency rule on May 18, 2004 and October 19, 2006 in Plateau and Ekiti states respectively, pursuant to (the same) Section 305 suspended the governors and state houses of assembly.

The former president was accused of breaching the Constitution by not adhering to the provisions of Sections 11(4)(5), 188, 189, 109 and 110 on the removal of elected public officers, which states that such officers can only be removed either by impeachment by the state house of assembly; death; ill-health or resignation. They insisted that the President would have been dragged to court if he had over stepped his bounds by suspending democratic structures.

To them, the absence of precedence does not make a situation wrong, as the mere fact that it has never been done does not nullify the legality or rightness of an action.

Declaration of emergency rule is not peculiar to Nigeria. The United Kingdom (UK), the United States (USA), Egypt, Syria, among others, have or are still experiencing one form of emergency or the other.

In the UK, the British Sovereign, the Privy Council, or the Prime Minister can proclaim emergency regulations under the Civil Contingencies Act, 2004, when there is fatal threats to the human welfare, human society or environment such as; war or terrorism.

Declaration of a state of emergency in the USA is contained in Section 32 of the US Constitution, as well as Insurrection and National Emergencies Acts.

Under these laws, a state governor or local mayor has the power to declare an emergency rule within their jurisdiction during disaster, while the US President declares a federal state of emergency.

Presently, the US is formally in a limited state of emergency that began on January 24, 1995, with the signing of Executive Order 12947 by President Bill Clinton.

It was further extended by Proclamation 7463 of President George Bush in 2008, as well as President Barrack Obama’s continuation of national emergency with respect to certain terrorist attacks order of November 11, 2012.

What the law says

The president has the sole power to declare a state of emergency, derived from Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Section 305(1) which states: “Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the President may by instrument published in the official gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof.”

By the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 305, the proclamation can be made only if the federation is at war; in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war; there is actual breakdown of public order and safety in the federation or any part that requires extraordinary measures to restore peace and security; a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public law and order in the federation or any part that requires extraordinary measures to avert; the occurrence of imminent danger or disaster or natural calamity, affecting the community or section of the community in the federation; there is danger which clearly constitutes a threat to the existence of the federation; or when the president receives a request to do so in accordance with the provisions of 305(4).

Governors in accordance to Section 176 (2), are Chief Executive Officers of their states. Although Section 215 (4), empowers them to give lawful directions to a Commissioner of Police in their state or seek federal government intervention, Section 305(3)(g) and (4) constitutionally empowers governors to make a request to the president within a reasonable time for a state of emergency after they must have obtained two third majority of their respective State Houses of Assembly.

A professor of law, Itse Sagay (SAN); chairperson, Nigerian Bar Association-Section on Legal Practice, (NBA-SLP), Mrs Funke Adekoya; Chief Felix Fabohungbe (SAN), Norrison Quakers (SAN), Niyi Akintola (SAN), Bolaji Ayoride (SAN), Yusuf Ali (SAN), Joseph Nwobike (SAN), Dr. Fred Agbaje, Dr. Tijani Ahmed, Chairman, NBA Ikeja Branch, Onyekachi Ubani, Mohammed Fawehinmi and Ikechukwu Ikeji all agreed that the president has the sole power to declare state of emergency.

Quakers said the power of the president to make this proclamation is dependent on the fulfillment of a condition precedent.

“Under the provisions of subsection (5) of Section 305, the president’s power to proclaim a state of emergency in a state would crystallize, when the governor fails within a reasonable time to make a request to the president to issue such proclamation.

“The wordings of this subsection are quite clear and unambiguous. The proclamation made by the president might be brought under this subsection. The word ‘reasonable time’ as used in this subsection is subjective particularly in the light of the incessant bombings and mayhem unleashed in the states and the killing of policemen in their lawful and constitutionally assigned duty.

“No responsible government will stand by until the state or states are engulfed in monumental crisis resulting in the destruction of lives and properties and displacement of persons.’

Sagay said those who are contending that the President does not have such powers are ignorant of the provisions of the law, as it is only the President who can exercise such a power.

Fawehinmi said the President’s action was justified and he acted in compliance with Section 305(3)(a) and (f).

Non-suspension of democratic

structures

The Constitution did not state if democratically elected structures should be sacked or suspended.

While some of the lawyers described the situation as ambiguous and discretionary, others argued that there is no ambiguity especially because there are other provisions on the removal of elected public officers.

Those who said the president was right in not suspending the democratic government, argued that state of emergency only gives the military and the president the power to move with very little restrictions from human rights provisions.

As a result, they declare curfew, arrest and detain people, go from home-to-home without court restrictions and with no effect on the status of a governor or the other democratic structures.

Those against Jonathan’s style said the mere declaration of a state of emergency connotes the suspension of all democratic structures.

Fabohungbe described Jonathan’s proclamation as a partial state of emergency, while that of Obasanjo was complete. He argued that both declarations were correct and constitutional.

“The constitution says the president should declare state of emergency but Jonathan chose not to do it in full. Removing the Chief Executive will be total. I think Jonathan acted the way he did with respect to the seriousness of the matter.

“Section 305 is a general provision and the Supreme Court has not made any pronouncement the issue, so, it is subject to the manipulation or interpretation of the President in a way that will suit the action he may want to take,” he said.

Sagay said there was a no ambiguity, nor was the action unconstitutional. He said the Constitution does not permit either the President or National Assembly to remove or suspend elected officials.

His words: “Section 305 has no such provisions. It only permits the President to declare a state of emergency, which has to be confirmed within 10 days by the National Assembly.

“Based on our experience in 1962 when the Western Region Government was suspended and people were detained and the region’s governor removed by the federal government, the drafters of the 1979 constitution, which is replicated in the 1999 constitution were careful, having learnt the lesson of the abuse of power by the Balewa government, which resulted in the total breakdown of the first republic.

“What they did was to make a clear, express provision in Section 11(4)(5) where it is stated that a state of emergency cannot affect the status of a governor neither can it affect that of the House unless the House is unable to meet.

“It is a straight forward thing. I do not know why this ignorant people are just talking in the air without making reference to the constitution. So, there is absolutely no ambiguity and what the president did is laudable.”

Adekoya argued that it is possible to have a state of emergency without removing executive and legislative structures.

She said: “The method by which a State Governor loses his office is also stated in the Constitution and it can be argued that it would be unconstitutional to remove a governor by any other means, including through declaring a state of emergency.

“In my opinion and based upon my understanding of the Constitution, the actions taken by Obasanjo when he declared a State of emergency does not reflect the true constitutional provision.”

Quakers added that the President should be commended for not dismantling democratic structures as state of emergency does not envisage that.

But Agbaje said democratic structures ought to give way during an emergency rule to avoid parallel administrators, which will not augur well as the citizens will be confused as to whose order to obey.

“Obasanjo did the right thing in declaring emergency in Ekiti and Plateau states; that was why a leading constitutional lawyer went to court against the government of Obasanjo and lost. There is nothing in Section 305 which stops the president from suspending democratic structures and there is nothing there which says the president can suspend them.”

Fawehinmi said the only ambiguity was in allowing a constitutionally elected government to remain, which makes the process a bit tedious.

“When you are in a state of war, the first people you relate with is the defence or security apparatus of the country. The president has sole power to remove any governor without retribution if he feels and knows beyond reasonable doubt that such a person cannot effectively carryout his/her constitutional duties,” he said.

Akintola, who said the president was within the law by not sacking democratic structures, expressed worries that the measure taken by Jonathan may aggravate the current situation.

He added: “What he has done is in anticipation of the National Assembly’s approval. Of course, he has no power to sack any governor or dissolve the State Assembly without the consent of the Federal Legislature. It is a sign of impunity.”

While Ayoride said the President was in order and lauded the move, Ali said the president was right by not sacking the elected officials in the affected states because it would have amounted to punishing the wrong people for the failure of security institutions, which the president alone has control.

“What happened under President Obasanjo was an aberration. It was wrong to have sacked governors, who were not directly found to be the cause of the crisis.”

Nwobike described it as “a limited state of emergency” since elected officials were left in their places. “By not sacking the governors, the president may be right, but this is a half way measure. I describe it as a limited state of emergency,” he said.

Hon argued that state of emergency comes in various shapes and forms. “What happened under President Obasanjo was unconstitutional. State of emergency can be political, economical or constitutional. It depends on what the President seeks to achieve with it.

“What people should understand is that under emergency, some basic rights are suspended and security agencies, like the police can arrest and search your premises without warrant; people could be detained beyond the permitted period. So, let us not condemn yet. Let us watch and see. He is the President and the issue of security is his responsibility,” Hon said.

Ubani believes the declaration was extreme and contradictory.

He said: “The declaration is not holistic since the democratic structures of the executive and legislature are still intact which is not different from what was obtainable before now.

“The declaration of emergency rule, therefore, may not end the crisis in the north. If care is not taken more troubles await the nation,” he added.

Ahmed said the discretion is entirely the President’s, subject to the approval of the National Assembly, adding: “The different perspectives to it are healthy. It shows people are concerned and interested in what is happening around them. I don’t think it is unconstitutional not to dismantle existing democratic institutions,” Ahmed said.

Ikeji the confusion was as a result of the fact that Section 305 did not provide for the actions that can be taken by the president. “Yes, we can have a state of emergency without removing the executive and legislative structures of a State. Conversely, we can still have one where the structures including, judicial, are suspended, not removed,” he said.

Lawyers seek amendment

Lawyers called for an amendment of the constitution as well as the enactment of an Emergency Act that will clearly state the effect of a state of emergency.

Adekoya said the ambiguity can best be regulated by legislation such as the State of Emergency Act (1997) in South Africa or similar legislations in other countries. She was of the view that a regulation that stipulates the powers that may be invoked during a state of emergency should be put in place by the National Assembly extends the period.

Fabohungbe said there should be a law to break down the procedure without amending that Section of the constitution.

To Agbaje, the National Assembly should address the discrepancies by enacting a National Emergency Act that will spell out what should be done or what should not be done.

Ikeji urged the National Assembly to enact an Emergency Act as obtained in the United States and Canada so as to provide for details of what should happen during different levels of emergencies.

He added that the long term solution to insecurity and poverty is fighting corruption and convening a national dialogue, especially with respect to the fact that the constitution lacks authenticity as it tells a lie against itself and the Nigerian people.

May 21, 2013
What’s in emergency?

Before the proclamation of state of emergency in the three states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa by President Goodluck Jonathan Tuesday May 14, the insurgents may have imagined that by scaling up their terror machine, the typically weak-kneed Jonathan administration would literally be on its knees begging them to come to table for discussions. Going by developments in the past week, they may have tragically misfired. Not only does it seem unlikely that things would go their way in the near term, even more unlikely is the prospect of gaining an upper hand – ever.

Recently on this page – that is, shortly after the so-called Baga massacre of April 16, I had predicted an escalation of the crisis. My simple reason was that the insurgents would most certainly misread the outrage over what was generally perceived to be the military Joint Task Force’s excessive use of force to upscale their offensive. Of course, with the military left to rue the aftermath of the unfortunate situation, the opportunity to cash upon the condemnations provoked by that military action would seem too good a chance to miss – by the insurgents and their sympathisers – to further pin the JTF’s back to the wall. Don’t forget that the amnesty committee had also started work on the purpose-made amnesty for the mass murderers days before; for the group, the strategy became one of coming to table only on terms that they find agreeable.

That was the premise of my prognosis of possible heightened hostilities. Well, it turned out a bull’s eye four weeks later. On May 7, the insurgents staged another high profile assault in Bama that left 55 people, mostly soldiers and policemen dead. Since then, it has been regular tales of unrelenting skirmishes.

I have followed the various shades of the argument either to justify or declaim the emergency. I can only say that we would not be the complex people that we are said to be without the typical hair-splitting debates over nothing of substance really. So what – that the federal government is finally standing up to its duty of routing the band of savages?

And the arguments? Some say that the emergency is unwarranted. They cite the fact that the affected states are already heavily militarised which makes the proclamation superfluous. Should that be a problem?

Others on the other side of the continuum insist that the emergency did not go far enough, that the democratic structures should not have been left intact. So, how about drawing an iron curtain around the three states for effect?

Admittedly, those in the category of the former are a negligible minority; however, that alone does not necessarily make them wrong. What makes their prescriptions far off the mark is the understatement of the nature of the problem, a lack of appreciation of how far deep the roots of the insurgency lies buried in the communities North-east, and, if I may add, the denial that any prospects of resolving the security challenges stands a no-hoper without a strong, deterrent force firmly on the ground.

As for the latter group, I do not think that anyone should be in doubt about what an emergency is supposed to achieve. The main idea is to restore normalcy to the states affected by the insurgency. Aside the requirement of the need to restore law and order, hence the authority of the government, nothing in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) even remotely suggest the supplanting of the democratic order by any other arrangement. In any case, removing the elected functionaries in the circumstance would have pronounced them complicit in the crisis – and this unfortunately so in a situation where they have no control of the police and other security agencies all of which are under the direction of the federal government.

Now, just by the carnage unleashed by the terrorists in Borno and Yobe in the last few months, Tuesday’s action by the President would appear several months late in coming. The exception would be the inclusion of Adamawa – a relatively peaceful state among the states under emergency rule. Even then, the government has since clarified that the latter’s proximity to Cameroon and the need for the military to have a wide area of coverage justified its inclusion.

The issue of course is that the nation is at war. Those preferring to live in denial are free to choose whatever to believe. What cannot be denied is that the war is being fought on land and in the skies; and we are told that both sides have the most lethal arsenal available for modern warfare. As for the prospects of a negotiated peace, this will certainly come – but only after a decisive tilt in the scale of battle.

Now, my sympathy goes to those dreamy-eyed Nigerians who still nurse the dream that the nation would at some point be able to tap into the inherent goodness of mass murderers. Or that the Boko Haram would one day be amenable to reason without unleashing the awesome power of the federal government as we have seen in the past week. Unlike them, I suffer no blind faith that the terrorists who freely lob bombs into places of worship, those deranged fellows who have been unrestrained in the use of weapons of mass destruction, would overnight become purveyors of peace. I have argued elsewhere, it won’t happen. It has to be made to happen.

To me, the whole point about the emergency is to make the cost of the insurgency so unbearable to the elements of the Boko Haram as to make the option of peace desirable. Now, with the JTF boots firmly on the ground, the citizens of the communities – yes, the innocent victims – have one good chance to demonstrate good faith: to assist the JTF to rid their territory of the brigands. It seems to me the only way to shorten their own pains too. That is what citizenship demands. Any other suggestion is bunkum.

Feedback

Re; Madam Rufai’s other children

Dear Mr Oni, do you know that there is a department of Business Administration in each of our tertiary educational institutions? What businesses are these army of graduates to administer? Short-term: enhance artisanship and convert the hordes of educated unemployed to artisans. If you have reliable SUREP links, there are credible trainers with fast track programmes.

Medium to long-term: overhaul the NUC for a planning-driven platform. Femi Fadairo

Your position on Madam Rufai’s lamentation as regards inadequate tertiary institutions to absorb candidates is timely and commendable. I am not surprised however because lamentation is the beacon of Jonathan’s administration. We should truly go back to the vocational trainings of yore. Government should ensure that discrimination against HND vis avis degree certificates should be discouraged. Let us de-emphasise paper qualification because it leads to all manners of malpractices. Agaba Okpe

May 21, 2013
STATE OF EMERGENCY Women’s League Board gives Adamawa 24-hour ultimatum

•Over security issues

ADAMAWA Football Association on Monday received a letter from soccer authorities over security concerns in the state.

The Nigeria Women’s League Board is demanding for adequate security for its forthcoming matches.

A letter signed by the league’s secretary, Isaac Ajisafe, has given the FA uptill Wednesday May 22 to respond to its request.

The call for proper security became necessary following the resumption of the second stanza of the women’s league across the country this weekend.

Most importantly the emergency rule declared by President Goodluck Jonathan last week following the spate of killings in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states.

“Further to this, we wish to draw your attention to the last nationwide broadcast of President Goodluck Jonathan declaring State of Emergency in three states including Adamawa.

“It is in view of the above declaration that we write to request you to kindly forward to us as a matter of urgency a written confirmation that adequate security will be provided for players and officials of both the home and away teams before, during and after the NWFL matches in Adamawa State,” part of the release read.

One match that may be affected is that between Adamawa Queens and Delta Queens scheduled for May 25.

“If we do not hear anything from them by Wednesday, we would have to shift the match and if after five days there is still nothing from FA, then the board will take a decision,”Ajisafe told SportingLife.

Both Delta Queens and Adamawa are in Group A of the league.

May 21, 2013
The emergency that Nigeria needs

Whenever the President, the Senate President, the Speaker House of Representatives, the Governors and the Speakers of the state Houses of Assembly and other top political office holders smile into the camera at public functions, I am tempted to believe that they are not aware of the grave security challenges, that Nigeria under their care faces. Consider that those of them from what is called the core north cannot freely take a walk in their constituencies for fear of the cruelties of the Boko Haram; neither can those from the south-east and southsouth do same for fear of kidnappers and attacks by armed groups. Compare these calamities with the emerging kidnap scare in the south-west and the religious/cattle hustlers’ induced mayhem in the middle-belt, to appreciate how violence and insecurity is gradually running a ring around Nigerians.

Add the degeneration into armed robbery and gangsters by our unemployed and unemployable youths to the mix, and you will appreciate that unless our leaders wake-up from their sleep-walking, the Nigerian state is heading to hell. The problems are well beyound the current efforts of President Jonathan and other political actors, considering their partisan interests. What is urgently needed is for the Presidency, the National Economic Council, the National Assembly and the state assemblies to patriotically declare a state of national economic emergency, to stem Nigeria from self-destruction.

To lead the charge, the political leadership across board must first exorcise itself from the cruel and criminal self-aggrandizement and appropriation of our common resources, just because they can get away with it. It must then gather a crop of competent non-political actors to draw an action plan to galvanise a national political-economic revival. One quick way forward is to create massive employment opportunities, by using direct labour for infrastructural and agricultural development, at every level of government. Our country must then force temporal exemption from World Trade Organisation, created to exploit the tenuous economies of third world countries; to boost our agriculture and local production. I have little doubt that unless there is a massive increase in economic opportunities for our youths; forced restraint on corrupt enrichment and practices by our political and economic elites and a fair and equitable spread of political and economic opportunities for all ethnic nationalities in the country; similar patches of emergency situations as we are witnessing in the northwest will keep reoccurring in other parts until the whole country is engulfed in crisis.

In the meantime, President Goodluck Jonathan acted well within his powers to declare emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, under the provisions of Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. Unfortunately it is also the only immediate option open to the country, even when the current insurgency is substantially the consequences of years of mismanagement at all levels of governance.

While the enabling factors for the crisis in Nigeria were not created by the current political actors, it has been exacerbated by the criminal impudence of some of them. I can bet that if you call the local government administrations in the states now under emergency to account for just 25 per cent of their receipts from the federation account in the past ten years, they will not be able to. Reports show that the local authorities merely gather at the end of every month to share the receipts.

As many commentators have rightly argued, the constitution did not expressly authorise the President to remove elected state officials after declaring a state of emergency, as former President Obasanjo did in Plateau and Ekiti states. Indeed under Section 305(4), the governor of a state may with the sanction of the two-third members of the House of Assembly request the President to issue a proclamation of a state of emergency, in a state. But it can also be rightly argued that where the elected officials are prima facie the cause of the actual or potential breakdown of public order and safety, their powers can be swept away by the emergency declaration. Of course the constitution provides the circumstances under which the President can declare an emergency, and gives authority to the National Assembly to approve such declaration.

While the President has exercised his constitutional prerogatives, it must be presumptuous for him to think that he has solved the problem of insurgency in the north-east, by what the Americans would call military-surge in that area. The simple reason is because the objective circumstances that gave rise to the crisis cannot be solved militarily. One reason is because the protagonists of the crisis as in other climes have craftily engraved its foundation on a shifty ground – religion. Second is that the crisis has grown beyound Nigeria’s boundaries, and also that the warriors having been schooled on self-immolation can not easily be overwhelmed as in modern warfare. The greatest tragedy is that many ordinary folks in the north-east pummeled by poverty and state neglect may have out of frustration joined the insurgency.

To any discerning observer the Nigerian project is a huge tragedy so far. The northern power elites, who held power longer than all the other regions combined, left the north the most underdeveloped part of the country. The southsouth, which has political control for the first time under President Jonathan, is hell-bent on taking an overdose of the lollypop. The south-east which has been crying against political marginalisation, despite being one of the big three groups in the country, has seen their mantra appropriated by other zones and is now acting frustrated. The tepid attempt to carve a politically independent north-central is under serious religious/ethnic conflagration. The southwest seethes in angst, as their early lead after Independence has been wasted. The result is a divided country run on templates of blackmail.

May 21, 2013
After emergency rule, what next?

The controversy that has trailed the commencement of emergency rule in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States is not altogether unexpected. Opinions are naturally divided over the desirability of the measures announced last Tuesday by President Goodluck Jonathan. Majority, I believe, endorse the proclamation not because it is the best one would wish for, but, because at this juncture, there is hardly any viable alternative. The insecurity and wanton killings in the North since 2011 cannot be divorced from the prevailing political environment.

The North feels aggrieved that it has been outsmarted on the political scene by Jonathan and his kinsmen. The leaders told a bewildered nation after the last general elections that they would make the country ungovernable. That Boko Haram grew confidence thereafter and became more deadly could have been a coincidence, but it is instructive. It is my opinion that the terrorists could not be checked earlier as a result of a combination of the incompetence of those in charge at the centre and the tacit support they got from Northern elders.

Had Jonathan moved fast enough after the election to soother frayed nerves, assured all that he would be working in the overall interest of the Nigerian people and, most importantly, disarmed critics and enemies by governing well, the insurgents could have been isolated and smoked out easily. Rather, he chose to alienate the people of the North East and their leaders. At a meeting with them while on a visit to Maiduguri, he actually had a face-off with the traditional, religious and political elite. The outcome was that the troops found it more difficult to operate and the battle got fiercer at great cost to lives on both sides.

It cannot be argued that the President has acted within his powers. As he pointed out, he is covered by section 305 of the constitution and he has done very well in at least symbolically keeping the democratic institutions in place. It is fraudulent to argue that the section gives power to the President to whimsically declare emergency in the federation or any part thereof and thus proceed to sack democratically elected governments. The governors of Borno and Yobe States were elected by their people in 2011 and the process by which they could cease to hold office are spelt out in sections 180, 188 and 190 of the constitution. Declaration of state of emergency is not one of such conditions. The people took a conscious decision to have All Nigeria Peoples party governors and legislators as against the wish of the Peoples Democratic Party to take over. This fact should not be lost on all in this debate.

The logic is very clear. The relevant section on emergency rule says it could be declared in the entire federation or any part thereof. If state of emergency were to be declared throughout the federation, would the President proceed to step aside, while equally suspending the National Assembly? That would certainly be an absurdity. The supreme law also says the governor of the state could invite the President to impose emergency rule and deploy troops. Is it thus intended that the governor would be inviting the President to sack him?

On previous occasions when emergency rules were imposed on regions and states, the federal authorities had seized power not conferred on them to remove the democratic institutions. This was the case in 1962 when the late Dr. Moses Majekodunmi was posted as administrator to the Western Region, in 2004 when Joshua Dariye was sacked in Plateau State and replaced by General Chris Alli by the government of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo and 2006 when the Fayose government, too, was pushed aside and replaced with General Adetunji Olurin as administrator of Ekiti State.

Under the Jonathan administration, there has been a limited application of emergency rule in 15 local government areas of four states of the federation. In that case, since it did not involve state governments and Nigerians had become unfortunately used to illegal rule at the local level, there was little protest.

The question to ask is, on those previous occasions when the centre had acted ultra vires by usurping the power of the electorate, how well were the crises resolved? In the Western Region, autocracy was defeated by the Peoples’ Will. Despite Obasanjo’s crude intervention, the insurgency in Plateau has continued. Till date, the governments are still at sea on how to end the sectarian strife that gave rise to such extreme measures.

At this point, what should engage the minds of the political leadership of the country is how to build consensus post-emergency rule. All political parties, politicians and patriots must be recruited to restore order in all parts of the country. The atmosphere appears better now that those who had given tacit support to Boko Haram at the initial period have seen that we would all be losers at the end should the insurrection be allowed to fester. It is therefore time the federal government, while wielding the stick through emergency rule, dangled carrots, too, to check the menace.

President Jonathan and his advisers should realise that the country is greater than anyone and anyone’s ambition. Besides, whatever any leader cannot achieve in six years, would remain out of range in eight or ten years.

It is time real tacticians were invited to put on their thinking caps in this war against terrorism and incompetence.

May 19, 2013
From Nigeria factor to emergency? (1)

‘Nigeria Factor’ has delayed taking decisive against Boko Haram

At the beginning of the Boko Haram menace, it was not too difficult to foresee what we now have: emergency declaration in three of the states that had given birth to the country’s most lethal terrorist group. If it had not been for the prevalence of the Nigeria Factor, we might not have gone this far before reading the riot act to a group that must have set out to destroy the federation.

As a hydra-headed concept, the Nigeria factor has always included a belief in the capacity of the average Nigerian or Nigerian institution to escape the laws of physics, the type of belief that makes it normal to hope that problems may go away on their own or that problems can get solved by talking them to death or praying them out of existence. Sometimes, the factor encourages us to feel that money can be used to solve all problems. In all cases, the tendency grows among the ruling elite and many of the people they rule that the symptom of a problem is synonymous with the root cause of such problem. In the end, applying the Nigeria factor always succeed in changing the form of (rather than solving) the problem to which it is applied.

When the seed of what became Boko Haram mentality was sown in the first term of Obasanjo’s post-military presidency, we looked away from the issue. When some northern governors declared their states as Sharia states, President Obasanjo ignored them, saying that the decision was a political fad that was destined to fizzle out with time. Some pundits observed then that the decision was to make governance difficult for Obasanjo while others pointed out that the decision of northern governors to declare their states Sharia units was dangerous for the federation and its commitment to secular government. Obasanjo could not be bothered; he continued with his international travels that he thought would clean up the image of Nigeria that was sullied during Abacha’s brutal dictatorship, and the rest is history.

Then came the militancy of youths in the Niger Delta. The root cause of the militancy was the injustice in allocation of revenue from petroleum and gas. Niger Delta youths, who believed that the region was the victim of the country’s only extractive business, called for restoration of the principle of revenue by derivation that was part of the constitution upon which Nigeria agreed to be one country at independence in 1960. Obasanjo looked away from the cause of the problem. He was quick to attack Odi which he saw as the community that hosted the killing by Niger Delta militants of law enforcement officers. Consequently, media attention shifted to the sack of Odi and not the cause of the violence by Niger Delta militants.Obasanjo called a political reforms conference that also avoided paying adequate attention to the grouse of the Niger Delta militants, particularly their demand for adequate compensation for the destruction of the region’s ecosystem by oil exploration and exploitation, and the rest is history.

Furthermore, killings of Beroms and other groups in Plateau State came to national attention during Obasanjo’s rule. But the government looked away from addressing the cause of the killings that had since become a part of the culture of Plateau State. Suddenly, the federal government declared a state of emergency in Plateau State for six months, but the situation remained the same, even up till today. This was despite calls on the federal government by citizens committed to a federal republic to focus on the root of inter-ethnic violence in a multiethnic federation. Nothing changed and history rolled on inexorably.

In the era of UmaruYar’Adua, there was a resurgence of militancy in the Niger Delta. Yar’Adua responded to this with amnesty. Militants were given money in exchange for their weapons and their passion for justice in the allocation of revenue to a region that has been de-natured by decades of petroleum exploitation and gas flaring. Again, the focus was on the symptom, not the cause, as the Yar’Adua government created, in addition to amnesty, federal agencies to bring development to the Niger Delta, and it appears that the rest is also history.

After Goodluck Jonathan became president, despite the controversy over PDP’s rotation agreement that the presidency was still to go to the North after Jonathan completed the term of UmaruYar’Adua, a new group, Boko Haram surfaced. The popular or forced belief was that the group was conceived to make the country ungovernable for the president who had prevented the North from moving power back from the south to the north. Pundit’s insistence that the worldview advertised by Boko Haram was too dangerous for a federation of plural cultures was largely ignored. But whenBoko Haram became very violent and lingered longer than most people had expected, new theories about how to deal with the country’s most violent terrorist sect emerged, one after the other.

First was the theory that Boko Haram was restricted to the Northeast where it was born and would evaporate with time. Next was the view that President Jonathan was treating the Islamic terrorists with soft hands. General Obasanjo called for more stick than carrot as the best way to end the menace, reminding the nation of his own style of intervention in Odi. Shortly after, the former chairman of the board of trustees of President Jonathan’s party called again for more carrot or dialogue.

Then came the call by modern and traditional rulers for amnesty. The whole country was encouraged to swallow any pride and beg the terrorists to abandon their worldview, in exchange for money and promise to bring more development to the North. Northern leaders in particular brushed aside calls for a country-wide dialogue or conference to discuss the issues of Boko Haram’s worldview and demands along with those of other nationality and religious groups in the country. Boko Haram waxed stronger by the day. Warnings from international friends of Nigeria about Boko Haram not being just a local group to solve a local problem were also eclipsed by strident calls for amnesty. The result is that we are now at the stage in which President Jonathan believes that the country’s sovereignty has been divided, some left to him and his legislature, and some being seized by Boko Haram terrorist group.

Finally, an emergency has been declared in three of many more Boko Haram states. What if the military with additional powers given to it by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces succeeds in keeping Boko Haram quiet? Would that be the end of the interrogation of Nigeria’s multicultural federation that has been at the center of Boko Haram’s agenda to turn Nigeria into a Sharia country and outlaw western civilization, the source of Nigeria as a country?

May 19, 2013
Jonathan’s emergency

The question is no longer whether it will come, but how far it can go

For once, President Goodluck Jonathan did something, at least within the ambits of the law, with his proclamation of emergency rule in Yobe, Borno and Adamawa states on Tuesday. This was a decision that was even late in coming, given the havoc that Boko Haram has wreaked on the nation. At this point, we have to call a spade a spade, and not just a farming implement. And we shall do just that today.

If political Boko Haram is real (as I believe it is), perhaps the genesis is in the emergence of President Jonathan as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2011 election. I have said it before that I do not believe in zoning; I stand by this. But then, I can say that without the heavens falling because of who I am. Everything may look good on a fowl’s neck, definitely not a rope. A PDP stalwart cannot say this in all honesty because he or she knows that is not the position of their party. So, when the party chiefs did wuruwuru to the answer to prop up the present president as the party’s candidate, saying that zoning was dead or that it never existed, other party chiefs should have cried foul. They didn’t. They should have asked when zoning died in the party; where it died, whether it died of natural or other causes; they should have asked who did the autopsy, or when it was buried, where and other matters. They did nothing of the sort.

Rather, they slept facing the same side, with the northern political elite that thought it was their natural turn to produce president feeling marginalised. Please do not get me wrong; nothing I have said should be taken to mean that the south-south from where President Jonathan hails did not deserve to produce president at that time; no. As a matter of fact, if any region of the country has been marginalised with respect to the presidential office, it is that region from where the money spent in the country comes. But the process should have been tidier; with the party resolving the issue of zoning long before the election and giving zoning a befitting burial once they agreed that it was time to kill it.

But what the PDP did with regard to zoning then is the same fraudulent way the country has been run. The only difference in this case is that it hit some of their own, and that is why we cannot sleep with our two eyes closed ever since. It is for this simple reason of dishonesty, among many others, that it will be easier for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for this country to make progress. Americans, as permissive as they come, care so much about who they put in leadership positions. If any party did what the PDP got away with here in 2011 in the name of politics in a civilised country, that party may lose votes simply on account of such infidelity over little things. Americans, for instance, would not trust that such a party which can trample on its own clothes would not tear theirs into shreds without batting an eyelid, if voted into office.

Boko Haram may jolly well be the result of the loss of our moral soul as a people. But it is also a case of thunder aiding the bomb. If the northern economy has not been as bad as it is, that is, if the northern leaderships in the past had done the needful to lift their people from poverty, there may not have been a ready army of suicide bombers that would want to die over nothing. If the people had received the right education, they would not have been as ignorant as they are to want to lose their lives in anticipation of the privilege of enjoying some beautiful virgins if they die in the course of whatever they are fighting for. They would have known that this world is too sweet to depart so soon, and that some of the best of the beautiful virgins fthat they are rushing to heaven to enjoy are theirs just for the asking right here on earth. As a matter of fact, it is in the north that some of these virgins are already being enjoyed, considering the number of under-aged girls put in the family way in the name of early marriage. So, if the men are not having the desired sensation, it is probably because they are not allowing the virgins to ripe before plucking them. With a little patience, these virgins will be ripe and mature with age, and with the appropriate tantalising statistics for the believers in the heavenly virgins to enjoy right here on earth, and without any blood on their hands!

It seems the northern elite know that they are responsible for this whirlwind that the country is paying for, hence their inability to openly condemn Boko Haram but would rather speak from both sides of the mouth when talking about the sect. The only unfortunate thing is that the sinners responsible for this crisis are not suffering as much as the innocents. If we have reaped more bloodshed in the Jonathan presidency, it is as a result of that little unfaithfulness. May be the president himself realised this, hence, his being slow to come up with emergency rule in the troubled states. But if some people support him now that he has proclaimed emergency, it is not because they are unaware of this fact; it is just that they know it is better to first drive away the thief before telling the owner of the stolen property that he too did not keep his property well.

As a matter of fact, there does not seem to be any alternative, especially as the insurgents have rejected amnesty. It was only in those days when we still had our sanity intact that a thief would run away if pursued; these days, the thief would turn round to challenge the owner of the stolen property and get some of the best senior advocates to argue his case. Emergency rule is good to the extent that it is able to achieve its aim of bringing about peace in the affected states. This is a sine qua non for meaningful development.

But, should there be any Nigerian who thinks power will last forever in any part of the country as it was in the past; that is wishful thinking. And, should there be people behind this mindless orgy of violence in the country, such people will pay dearly for the shedding of innocent blood just to make cheap political points. The mere fact that they had this power which they never used well in the past, leading to where we are today, is enough to convict them in heaven and on earth for the innocent blood they are causing to be shed daily, needlessly.

However, President Jonathan must honour his promise that the wolves in human skin that delight in killing human beings will not go unpunished. I have said it several times that when a leader speaks, his words are like those of the oracle. On this score, I am with the President. But when the handshake is getting below the elbow again, it would be ‘to thy tent, Oh Israel’! The fear of many is that the emergency rule is a step towards full blown dictatorship. Given where we are coming from, that fear is both real and potent.

May 19, 2013
Thoughts on the emergency

As is to be expected, the declaration by President Goodluck Jonathan of a state of emergency in the Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states, continues to generate considerable heat for all manner of reasons.

What on the surface seems like a surgical procedure against a cancerous growth threatening national security and unity is open to be interpreted as equally dark political manouver – depending on which side of the fence you sit.

While many have expressed surprise that Jonathan would pull the emergency stunt barely a fortnight after celebrating with much fanfare the inauguration of the Boko Haram amnesty committee, I take the position that his latest action was inevitable. In fact, what is amazing is that it took him so long to take the decision to move against the insurgents in a more muscular fashion.

In the end, the decision was virtually made for the president as before his very eyes huge chunks of the nation were becoming no-man’s land where gunslingers was lords of the manner. In other parts where there was no organised insurgency the fear of kidnappers has virtually paralysed society.

What I get from much of the criticism of the emergency declaration is that it hinders the smooth running of our democratic structures. The harsh truth, however, is that democracy had ceased to function where the insurgency was hottest. Many local government officials had fled their bases, and newspapers were beginning to carry headlines like ‘Boko Haram: Fear of kidnap grips governors.’

It has also been argued that the latest move will not solve the problem. While I agree that the best we can hope for from the military action is pacification of the troubled spots in the short term, I don’t agree that what Jonathan was doing prior to sending in the troops was the right thing.

Frankly, he was floundering – one day talking tough and denouncing the terrorists as ghosts who needed to show their faces in order to be taken seriously as potential partners in a peace process. The next minute he’s caving in to pressure after a night time visit by prominent northern elders, and accepting to offer amnesty to the same “ghosts” he just refused to do business with.

Rather than make life easier for Jonathan, Boko Haram kept thumbing their nose at the government with series of lethal strikes that embarrassed the security establishment.

While the killing at Baga may have represented a frustrated military straining at the leash to engage the foe, the insurgents sortie into Bama – in which 55 persons were killed – represented an unprecedented display of strength by the terrorists.

The question which critics of the emergency have not addressed their minds to is what other option was available in the short term? A national conference of whatever hue, provisions of full employment for all the hungry and disaffected youths in northern Nigeria would take a long time to put together.

Something needed to be done urgently. The insurgents were beginning to hold ground – even planting strange flags on territories they had conquered. Senator Ahmed Khalifa Zanna has been quoted in the media as saying 23 of the 27 local government areas in Borno State had fallen to the sect.

Every time the insurgents carried out a fresh and audacious attack, and were greeted with pacifist sermons from Aso Rock, they became emboldened. They never showed either by their utterances or actions that they were remotely interested in the pack of goods Jonathan was peddling. To have delayed action a day longer while innocent people were being indiscriminately executed would have been a more criminal act.

So much has been made of the brutal ways of the members of the Joint Task Force (JTF) in the conflict zone. The fact that these soldiers are fighting the bad guys does not make human rights violations and extra-judicial killings acceptable on their part. But then Nigeria has shown that it has the capacity to bring to justice members of the security forces who derail. That is evident in the trial of policemen fingered in the killing of the late Boko Haram leader, Mohammed Yusuf.

What is so disappointing in all of this is that thousands of Nigerians had to lose their lives before the president came to the conclusion that the country was at war. No war is every pretty: people will lose their heads and accidents will happen. Sometimes even your friends shoot at you. We should not be surprised therefore if there are more tales of JTF excesses. But that is not enough justification for the government to sit on its hands and do nothing.

Some have argued that if the January 2012 declaration of state of emergency in 15 local government councils failed, there was no reason to expect the latest exercise to be an improvement. I disagree. What Jonathan did at after the Christmas Day bombing at the Catholic Church in Madalla was to give emergency rule a bad name.

What was done was not only badly conceived, it was ill-timed and executed halfheartedly. The soldiers were so thin on the ground they were virtually invisible. It was no hard task for the insurgents to simply drift into surrounding local councils and states and carry on business as usual.

Anywhere in the world where an emergency proclamation is made the intent is to prevail and restore order; not just make an announcement in the vain hope that your tormentors will simply disappear because you made a speech. What Jonathan is doing now is what he should have done in January 2012: go against the insurgents with sufficient force to calm the situation and restore some semblance of order.

In the course of the week, some northern elders led by the increasingly vocal former Vice-Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University, Professor Ango Abdullahi, likened the emergency proclamation to a declaration of war on the region. They would rather the peace track being pushed by the amnesty committee had been maintained.

Unfortunately, while the said committee were roaming around like tourists, the insurgents never let up in their brutal killings. Should those atrocities have been left unchallenged because we are talking peace? If by the government’s action war has been declared on the region, should we take it then that what Boko Haram had been doing all this while was spreading peace and love?

Ultimately, we need to address the root causes of the insurgency in the North-East and rampant insecurity in other parts of the country. This is not just about poverty and unemployment, underlying the Boko Haram agitation is a battle for the right of some people to live and run their lives in a particular way.

They should not be denied that right. But by the same token they must be made to understand that no Nigerian can be browbeaten into accepting any religion or way of life by force. It can only be through a negotiated settlement. Until they understand that they cannot prevail by force of arms, I cast an unqualified vote for the ongoing crackdown.

May 19, 2013