The Nation Newspaper

Tag: game

  • Changing shares’ rules of the game

    One share, one vote; that’s the norm that rules the corporate decision-making, especially in the representative management of publicly quoted companies. By poll or by show of hands, the size of shareholdings largely influences decisions at the general meetings; minority dissent is registered but the majority consensus carries the vote. That appears to be the equity of the equity holdings. But new rules being proposed by the capital market regulators are set to change the rules of the game-majority shareholders, directors and shareholders with substantial equity stakes will have almost no influence on crucial decisions at special general meetings. Capital Market Editor, Taofik Salako, reports on the wider ramification of such paradigm shift in the context of market and stakeholders’ concerns

    Public limited liability companies are owned by several investors, whose shareholdings and stakes in the companies are proportionate to their initial and subsisting capital contributions to the companies’ business operations. While the authorised share capital of a company represents the ceiling of the probable capital that it may seek in the future, fully paid up share capital refers to the capital contributions by shareholders. The fully paid up share capital is the basis for the shareholding structure, which outlines the proportionate shareholdings of each member of the company.

    A person in whose name a shareholding is registered is duly recognised as the person with the prima facie authority to take decisions on the shareholding. He exercises all rights relating to the shareholding including voting right, collection of cash payout and scrip issue and many other transactional and managerial decisions. But he also assumes the risks and liability that come with the business operation.

    Given the large size of shareholders, a public limited liability company (Plc) is managed by selected representatives of the shareholders. These members of management may also hold or not hold shares. Thus, the management of a company is seen as representing the views and opinions of the multitude. The logic is that since shareholders appoint the board and the board appoints the management, which determines the employment of every other person in the company, the shareholders are the ultimate decision maker. In all these, the underlying maxim is: the larger the capital, the higher the risks and vice versa. Shareholders hold the board and management to account through periodic reports and meetings.

    Investors’ meetings are broadly classified into two categories- ordinary general meeting and extra-ordinary general meeting (EGM). Ordinary general meetings, such as annual general meeting, are held to consider ordinary businesses that entail review of operational and status reports and exchange of views by investors and directors without no change to the ownership structure or basic outlines of the company. An EGM is held to enable investors consider and approve a transaction, which usually may lead to changes in ownership or holding structure of the company as well as its basic outlines and existence. Such EGM includes meetings for new or supplementary equity or debt issuance, mergers, acquisitions, shares restructurings and delisting. Issues that come under EGMs often have more pronounced impact and substance on the risk and returns profile of a company and as such EGMs usually generate more interests than ordinary meeting.

    At both the ordinary and extra ordinary meetings, decisions are reached by voting; either by show of hands or by more strenuous poll voting. Under the extant laws, voting by show of hands can only take place if all the shareholders agreed to such method; otherwise a dissent to show of hand will automatically lead to poll voting. As such, crucial and contentious issues are usually done by poll voting, equalizing the capital contribution with the number of votes. Many registrars have introduced technologies that allow electronic voting, which further eliminated the possibility of miscalculation or misrepresentation of the majority’s view.

     

    New offside rules

     

    But under new rules currently being reviewed by the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE), a version of an idea earlier muted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), major shareholders, directors and their related persons and institutions may not be allowed to vote at specially-convened meeting for significant public interest transaction that requires approval of shareholders. This, unlike the traditional view of the ‘put-your-mouth-where-your money-is’, will leave such crucial decisions to minority shareholders.

    New draft rules on “meeting convened to obtain securities holders approval” being finalized by the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) exclude all related and interested parties, entities, associates and proxies from exercising their voting rights, even where they hold fully-paid shares. The new draft rules represent major paradigm shift from the current practice where such excluded persons and entities are allowed to exercise their voting rights and runs contrary to the general principle of one share or unit, one vote. “Meeting convened to obtain securities holders approval” in capital market parlance generally includes extra-ordinary general meeting (EGM). Many companies refer to EGM as court-ordered meeting, where such meeting requires the prior approval of a court such as meeting for consideration of scheme of merger and acquisition, which requires approval of a Federal High Court.

    According to the new rules, where a transaction requires the approval of investors, such approval shall be obtained either prior to the company entering into the transaction or, if completion of the transaction is expressed to be conditional on obtaining such approval, prior to the completion of the transaction. At the meeting, none of each related party, entity or its associate or proxy and each interested person or entity or and its associates or proxy “shall exercise any voting rights in respect of the transaction nor accept appointments as proxies” even though they are holders of fully-paid shares or unit of investment.

    Where such persons or entities are representing other unrelated or uninterested persons and entities which are qualified to vote at the meeting, their representations will only be valid if they have specific instructions as to voting, according to the new rules. “The notice convening the meeting shall state that related parties or interested persons shall abstain from exercising any voting rights at the meeting,” the rules stated. Meanwhile, all other rules relating to regulatory approval, notification, publication, documentation, venue, time, period, conduct, rights and privileges and procedures amongst others in respect of general meetings will also apply to EGMs.

    While the NSE did not provide descriptive definition of “each related party, entity or its associate or proxy and each interested person or entity or and its associates or proxy”, market operators generally hold that such relate to majority shareholders and management of a company. “By related parties or interested persons, I believe the rule refers to parties related to the majority security holders and the management of the company,” deputy group managing director, BGL Plc, Mr. Chibundu Edozie said.

     

    The rule of the minority

     

    The exclusion of “each related party, entity or its associate or proxy and each interested person or entity or and its associates or proxy” from voting for their holdings appears to imply that such significant corporate decisions would be determined by the minority or non-management investors. For companies with significant bloc shareholdings with majority core investors, it means only shareholders of public float shares will be allowed to vote and determine such significant corporate decisions.

    The revised listing rules of the NSE stipulates that the public shall hold a minimum of 20 per cent of each class of equity securities of a company quoted on the main board, 15 per cent of each class of equity securities of a company quoted on the Alternative Securities Market (ASeM) and 10 per cent of each class of equity securities of a dual-listed company. This rule is known in capital market parlance as public float. Public float is technically a synonym of public shareholder and it generally refers to the shares of a quoted company held by ordinary shareholders other than those directly or indirectly held by its parent, subsidiary or associate companies or any subsidiaries or associates of its parent company; its directors who are holding office as directors of the entity and their close family members and any single individual or institutional shareholder holding a statutorily significant stake, which is five per cent and above in Nigeria.

    Thus, public shareholders and public float do not include shareholders or shares held directly or indirectly by any executive, director, controlling shareholder or other concentrated, affiliated or family holdings. Unless where specifically outlined, “close family members” in capital market regulatory parlance globally mean spouse, parents, grandparents, biological and adopted children, step-child, brothers, sisters, spouses of biological and adopted children, step-child, brothers and sisters; grandchildren; and any such person who is financially dependent on such directors or major shareholders, who are excluded for the delineation of public float.

     

    Practical implications

     

    If such majority-shareholder barring rule is adopted, it means that foreign and Nigerian majority individual and institutional shareholders, which owns controlling equity stakes in most listed companies not be able to vote on major corporate decisions affecting their companies. For instance, where Alhaji Aliko Dangote, and his related parties-Dangote Industries Limited, family members and associates, who owns majority equity stakes in Dangote Cement and the directors of the cement company envision an ambitious expansion plan that may include mergers and acquisition and capital restructurings and are willing, as major risk takers in the venture, to suppress their immediate urge for returns; they can only push, hope and pray that the minority shareholders, who hold less than five per cent of the company, buy into the vision. Where the minority shareholders-including speculators and short-term investors, prefer the current steady returns and are unwilling to risk any such expansive growth plan, then they can hold up the expansion and turn down the major investors by voting against it.

    While the impact may vary according to shareholding structure, the above example will ring through the entire market. Few companies will escape the chain. With the exception of GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Nigeria and Julius Berger Nigeria Plc, which hold less than majority shareholdings, all other foreign investors hold more than 50 per cent controlling majority equity stakes. These major multinationals include Unilever Plc, GlaxoSmithKline, United Kingdom (GSK UK) Plc, PZ Cussons, Nestle SA, Lafarge SA, Heineken NV, Mondel? International, Berger Bilfinger, BOC Holdings, Standard Bank Group, Leventis, Total SA, Mobil Oil Corporation, Siat NV, Affelka SA, Greif International Holdings B.V., United States’ Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation and SAB Miller. For several of the multinationals, minority shareholders with less than 30 per cent equity stakes will determine the growth momentum and there is no guarantee of the duration, motives and identity of these minority shareholders.

    Besides Dangote, other individual and institutional core investors will figuratively hand over strategic corporate decisions to the crowd. These include UAC of Nigeria, Vitafoam Nigeria, Chief Samuel Bolarinde, Dr Muhammad Koguna, Dr. Oba Otudeko, Dr Mike Adenuga Jnr, Mr Femi Otedola, Mr Tony Elumelu, Mr. Jim Ovia, the Subomi Baloguns, Fidson’s Fidelis Ayebae, Abdu Samad Rabiu’s BUA, Cutix’s Ajulu Uzodikes, among others.

     

    Impact on entrepreneurship and

    investment

     

    General Secretary, Independent Shareholders Association of Nigeria (ISAN), Mr Adebayo Adeleke, said the new rules will be counterproductive as they border on over-regulation of the market.

    “Till tomorrow, the rule has not changed: He who pays the piper dictates the tune. That’s what reinforced the concept of poll. You cannot restrain any shareholder-majority or minority, from voting on issues that affect their investment. It will be counterproductive and scare away foreign direct investments,” Adeleke, a director and shareholders’ representative on the Board of May & Baker Nigeria said.

    Boardroom icon and chairman of several quoted companies, Chief Olusegun Osunkeye, said such rule barring major investors from voting their shares would be counterproductive to current efforts at wooing foreign and indigenous entrepreneurs to list their companies on the stock market.

    According to him, capital market regulators and stakeholders need consider the advantages and disadvantages of such rule within the context of the economic development and state of its capital market.

    He said such rule would limit the growth of existing listed companies to minority consideration and expose entrepreneurs to undue influences of portfolio speculators and fund managers whose interests may not be in tandem with the long-term growth plan of the company.

    “We are not ripe for such a rule that majority shareholder should not vote its shares. Jurisdictions differ in terms of their development. We should look at such rule in the context of Nigerian economic evolution, it warrants re-examination,” Osunkeye said.

    Chibundu Edozie, said such rule runs contrary to underlining entrepreneurial spirit and risks and returns assumptions that drive corporate growth. According to him, besides the pride of ownership that motivates entrepreneur, one important reason for owning a majority equity stake in any company is to be involved in major decisions that can make or break the institution.

    He noted that transactions such as mergers and acquisitions have the potential of making the company bigger and more profitable or completely bankrupting the business with significant benefits and losses to the majority owner, depending on the outcome of the transaction. He added that new issues also dilute the ownership structure of the company with profit or loss potential to the owner.

    “Because the investor stands to gain or lose based on these decisions, it is fair that the investor that provides the majority capital for the company’s operation and investments contributes to the decision-making. Although the interests of the minority also need to be protected, this can be done through the process of decision-making which must be inclusive and persuasive based on factual information. While a law that seeks to bar majority core investor -like an investor owning the controlling equity stake and management, from voting their shares in support of crucial voting on corporate decision like mergers, acquisitions, new issues etc may have its merit, it also has a significant disadvantage,” Edozie stated.

    He outlined that while such majority-shareholder-barring rule may be meritorious in consideration for the protection of the minority interest in the company against dictatorial behaviour and the protection of the company from hawkish tendencies of the majority owner, it will prevent risk-taking by the investors as well as reduce the amount and the number of transactions as nobody would like to provide fund and not be able to make major decisions on how the money is spent.

    He urged that the focus of rule-making should be on full disclosure and due process rather than exclusion of critical stakeholders like majority core investor.

    “I am inclined to rather support a law that will specify the process to be followed by companies when major decisions are to be made and ensure the protection of minority investors. A law can also be passed to limit the percentage of ownership of companies in sensitive sectors due to national security. Otherwise, I don’t think the proposed law is good for Nigeria or any country for that matter,” Edozie said.

    Managing Director, GTI Securities, Mr Tunde Oyekunle, said the risk-return profile of investors should continue to determine corporate decisions and votes should be proportionate to shareholdings.

    According to him, all parties that have fully paid shares or their proxies should be allowed to vote at meeting convened to approve resolutions once due compliance with proxy requirement is observed.

    A shareholders’ activist and leader, Alhaji Gbadebo Olatokunbo, however said excluding the core investors and directors from voting on their proposals would protect the interest of minority shareholders.

    “Issues before EGM were those approved by the board and management of the company, before the presentation to the general house for amendment, approval or rejection. Therefore, since the issues were their ideas, motive, vision and agenda; the other stakeholders should have the right and the opportunity to reject or accept such proposal and such opinion must be respected,” Olatokunbo said.

    Market analysts said implementing such rules abridging the voting rights of the majority shareholders may be difficult except the market regulators seek amendment to the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), which generally serve as the operating legal mainstay for corporate management in Nigeria. According to analysts, while their operating Acts variously empower SEC and NSE to make rules for the market, such rules cannot supplant existing provisions of the law, especially as stipulated under CAMA. They cited the inability of SEC to enforce general compulsion of e-dividend and e-allotment as CAMA still empowers shareholders to receive dividend warrants and share certificates. Besides the legal challenge, the new rule may unduly politiciswe corporate governance and decision-making as directors and core majority shareholders may now have to pass major decisions through third-party windows in order to present such crucial decisions as neutral proposals and to allow them to vote their shares.

    Even without such rules that abridge their voting rights and direction of their companies, many core investors that were required by public float rules to sell down or dilute their shareholdings had opted to delist from the NSE. Ecobank Nigeria had delisted due to unwillingness of the parent company to release further shares for public float. In the latest instance, Tourist Company of Nigeria (TCN) Plc, which owns the palatial Federal Palace Hotel & Casino based in Victoria Island, Lagos, has decided to voluntarily delist after the NSE flagged the company for failing to maintain the minimum 20 per cent free float required to sustain its listing at the NSE. TCN had deficiency rate of 18.69 per cent and the core investors would have to divest some 420 million ordinary shares or issue proportionate supplementary shares to dilute their shareholdings.

    While the motives of protecting minority shareholders are laudable, market regulators need to balance the minority interests with the majority interests and risks. Shareholders’ interests can generally be protected if market regulators enforce full and transparent disclosures and hold directors and management personally to account for infringements and abuses.

     

  • When politicians play the hide and seek game

    SIR: The drama that took place between President Goodluck Jonathan and the four northern governors in Abeokuta, Ogun State capital is an ominous sign of what to come. Both actors in the scene arrived in the capital city separately to be anointed by ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo. But the show got twisted when the four governors decided to hide in order to avoid their own President who was holding secret meeting with the same Obasanjo they came for. The drama got more interesting when Nyako said “we have come to greet the most accomplished Nigerian and to consult him for very important matters”. President Jonathan also visited the Hilltop to greet the “Father” and of course, for consultation as well while Obasanjo remain the consultant.

    The irony here is that both actors are from the same PDP and at the same time dribbling themselves using hide and seek tactics to achieve their ambition. It is obvious from their desperation that the actors at Obasanjo’s house are working towards presidency come 2015.

    Why the hide and seek politics if both actors are working towards pushing Nigeria from political and economic doldrums? Why is everybody working in different directions? In the National Assembly, Speaker Tambuwal is accused of playing double standard. In Rivers State, Amaechi is seen as a traitor and a betrayer simply because somebody wants to achieve a personal goal. 2015 is still some miles away, but the political atmosphere is heavily pregnant; the North singing war tune to take over power; President Jonathan is hanging on by all means even though there are clear evidences that he is struggling. But the stark reality is that all these individuals are seeking sectional agenda, not the interest of a decaying generation.

    The quest for personal agenda is our problem. A United States report has just warned Nigeria’s leaders to beware of another civil war. The report says that “parochial interests, cultural, ethnic, economic, regional and political secessionist tendencies are endemic in Nigeria”.

    The birth of the insurgent in the north that is now spreading like wild fire is not accidental. The fact remains that the youths that transformed into the terrorist group in the North and other parts of the country today were used by politicians to outsmart their perceived opponent or enemies, but dumped thereafter.

    Can we ever win the war against the menace called selfishness, the disease that has eaten deep into our marrow? Isn’t the more reason why human beings are slaughtered like Christmas chicken across the country? Governors conducting minor election among themselves only to have the result disputed; a member of parliament using the mace as a weapon against fellow lawmaker?

    How do we move the country beyond where we are when our thoughts and permutations are on how to milk available resources while leaving the masses in the grave yard of poverty? Nigeria is rich; the God-given resources can simply go round if it is not left in the hands of few insatiable and greedy individuals.

     

    • Sunday Alifia,

    Ibadan, Oyo state

     

  • Is it still a numbers’ game?

    In politics, you must be popular to get people to your side. Politics is all about people. It is people that play politics; it is also people that vote in elections. Without people, there is no politics and without politics, there may be no government. In essence, democracy is a derivative of politics.

    This is why democracy is defined as government of the people by the people for the people. So people, politics and democracy are inseparable. The way we play politics in our country is a matter of concern because it goes against the grain of what is obtained elsewhere. In our own democracy, we do things upside down in order to win elections at all costs. Our politicians hate to lose an election. To them, they must win every contest come what may.

    Now, election is a contest of numbers. The winner is usually the person with the highest number of votes. In every democracy, that is the norm. The reverse is the case here. The winners of our elections are not those with the highest number of votes, but those with the lowest score. Did I hear you sigh heavily? Don’t be shocked. What else can one say about our politicians’ attitude to elections, which they treat as do – or – die? They go into every election with a mindset that they must win and in case they lose, they do everything to reverse the outcome or get it annulled if they don’t have their way.

    In the present dispensation, certain persons should be the leading lights of democracy, but what do we have? They are the opposite of the special status their positions confer on them. I am talking of some of our governors who want to bring the country down simply because of who leads them. The governors, for the first time in the history of their 14 – year old Forum, went to the poll last month to elect a chairman. In the past, it was done by consensus and whoever was picked, the others simply followed him as their leader.

    But like everything Nigerian, highwire politics crept into the simple matter of who becomes the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) chairman after the expiration of the first term of Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi last month. Why did this become an issue, you may want to ask? It became an issue because the Presidency thought Amaechi was nursing presidential ambition. Now, if you ask me, that is not a sin. But to the supporters of President Goodluck Jonathan, it is a mortal sin. To them, anybody nursing presidential ambition apart from Jonathan, should be crucified. This is what they want to do to Amaechi.

    They went all out to stop him from returning as NGF chair, but the governors stood their ground that Amaechi remains their man. In an apparent move to stop him from retaining the job, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), with the largest number of members in the group, formed the PDP Governors Forum (PDPGF). The party’s calculation was that with its 23 governors in the Forum, it could easily have its way on any issue, including who becomes the chairman, once the caucus, which is what the PDPGF is, so decides. Its calculations failed because it didn’t reckon with its governors’ resolve to swim or sink with Amaechi.

    The party thought that through the Presidency, it could browbeat the governors to dump Amaechi and create an easy passage for the anointed Plateau State Governor Jonah Jang to become NGF chair. A month before the election, they were made to sign a document backing Jang for NGF chair. Nineteen of them signed that document, but last month when the election took place, only 16 voted for Jang. The 19 ‘votes’ that were prerecorded for Jang became the number of votes that did the magic for Amaechi. Do you see how Providence works? The election was held on May 24, but since then, the nation has known no peace and the Presidency is not helping matters.

    Rather than weigh in on the matter on the side of justice, the Presidency is bent on dealing with Amaechi. The governors, as it were, have spoken with one voice that Amaechi is their chairman, but the Presidency does not agree with them. Despite its initial denials, it is now obvious that the Presidency wants to kill the NGF all because of its ‘’problem’’ with Amaechi. When on May 25 the papers reported that Amaechi floored Jonathan in the NGF election, the Presidency did not take kindly to the report. It issued a statement that since Jonathan did not contest the election, there was no way Amaechi could have defeated him. Yes, Jonathan did not contest the election in person, but he did so through his proxy, Jang.

    Latter day events showed

    where the president’s heart

    lies in this matter. At a Family Dinner he hosted to mark Democracy Day in Abuja on May 29, Jonathan, in his introductory remarks, recognised Jang as NGF chair. The president referred to Jang as ‘’the chairman of the NGF’’. That was all Jang needed to dig deeper as ‘chairman’ of the Forum, knowing full well that he did not win the May 24 election. From his attitude, the president is up to something, but he should be careful not to bring the country down in his desperate bid to cling to power beyond 2015.

    I am not against his seeking reelection if he so wishes as he has the constitutional right to do so, but what I detest is the sly manner he is going about it. He told us he wanted to face governance, but is he doing that today with all these problems staring us in the face right, left and centre? There is crisis in his party, all because of his 2015 ambition; the governors are at war, all because of him and we have security challenge, all because the man at the helm does not seem to know what to do.

    Come to think of it, is Jonathan really the man we need in 2015? With his performance so far, he should go home and rest after 2015. I don’t see him doing that though because of the many political jobbers who are pressing him to seek reelection. Well, let him try his luck again, after all his name is Goodluck, but he should let the election be free and fair just like last month’s NGF election. And that is my fear, will he not reject the result as his anointed candidate Jang is doing after losing the NGF election?

    When Dame came to town

    I still remember. Those days when former Head of State Gen Yakubu Gowon and his wife, Victoria, were passing by, we used to line the streets to joyfully wave at them and they, in turn, acknowledged our greetings with smiles. These days, it is not so. When President Goodluck Jonathan or his wife, Dame Patience is coming to town, the people always panic. You know why? Because the whole place will be, to use the popular American phrase, locked down. There will be no vehicular or human movement because the president or his wife is around. If we understand that of the president, what can we say of his wife? Must the airspace or road be closed because of the First Lady’s movement? The people do not think so, but our leaders will not accept that. About two months ago, Dame was in Lagos and the metropolis was shut down as people were held in traffic for hours. Some even spent virtually the whole day sweating and cursing in traffic.

    Last week, Port Harcourt in Rivers State went through the same thing because Dame came for a wedding in her home state. Both ends of the street where her house is were blocked. Residents went through hell accessing their homes. Motorists could not drive past easily as heavily armed policemen stood menacingly on the road. Governor Rotimi Amaechi, who she took to the cleaners on Saturday at the wedding reception, also could not go out. Just imagine, a governor being treated like a commoner! If that is not a show of power, please tell me what it is. But what kind of power show is this, that brings nothing but suffering to the people? that is my fear, will he not reject the result as his anointed Jang is doing after losing the NGF election?How long will we continue to suffer like this? How long? We see how presidents and their wives move in other countries without treating their compatriots like nonentities.

  • Firm introduces unity game

    Anew game show is coming to Abuja. The game known as Unity Game Show is expected to promote peace, unity and harmony by uniting Nigerians from different ethnic groups.

    The Director of Blacksmith Global Resource Limited, Stephen Nnam disclosed this during a media briefing in Abuja.

    Stephen said: “The unity game show is a weekly reality TV/Radio quiz initiative designed as an effective national tool to promote peace.”

    He added: “We intend to institute in the minds of the citizens the true essence of integration, uphold the unity, increase awareness, encourage tourism, preserve and promote the valuable customs while mending fragile relationships among various ethnicities in the country.”

    The director noted that the concept is a “time-based” quiz platform, adding that:

    “contestants represent themselves and their geo-political zones in a feat to ‘gain more’ points in cash benefits. The questions will be based on issues concerning the contestant’s region and each week‘s show ends with every competitor winning a cash reward.”

    He expressed the hope to partner with the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, government and the private sector for finance and security.

     

     

     

  • Foundation splashes millions on education game

    Foundation for Effective Leadership and Development (FELD), a Lagos-based Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), has given out nearly one-million naira to students in secondary and tertiary institutions who featured in an education quiz game.

    The last set of recording for the game show held at the Dream Factory studios, Alausa, saw Glory Okpara and Emmanuel Onwubuariri winning the secondary school category, winning together N300,000 Jide Odi from Nigerian Institute of Journalism, Jimoh Abubakar Sadiq from Lagos State University, and Anthony Onyeahialam from University of Lagos, also emerged winners in the three sets of recording for tertiary institutions with N550,000 won.

    My Education Quiz Play (MEQP) is a televised quiz show initiated for students in Senior Secondary Schools category, as well as tertiary institutions to earn money that will empower them enough to see their dreams of quality education accomplished. MEQP airs on a local television station Murhi Television (MITV), Alausa, Lagos every Saturday.

    The MEQP project director, Mr Godfrey, said the participants’ performances are indication of brighter hope for Nigerian students in future.

    He said: “Having witnessed over 15 sets of recording of MEQP, and with the level of intelligence the students have exhibited, I can say that the future of this country is very bright. The aim of FELD is to assist as many students as possible with their tuition fee, and also encourage a reading habit amongst our youths. Second stage of recording will start soon, and that excites us because more money will be earned towards someone’s education.”

    Some of the past winners of MEQP include, Ann Ejiegbu (N210,000.00); Emmanuel Idemudia (N130,000.00); Maduka Ebuka (N130, 000.00); Ozomena Akogun (N100,000.00); Chidinma Ezugu (N155,000.00); Precious Onowudijo (N120,000.00); Tolulope Ologun (N30, 000.00); and Ayodeji Opeyemi (N10,000.00).

    In the tertiary category, the winners are: AdeoyeAdesoji (N240,000.00); KelechiNwoku (N210,000.00); Abdulmajeed Kabir (N50,000.00); (Robert Ikhuona); and Olorode Samuel (N20,000.00) respectively.

    To be a participant in MEQP, Godfrey said intending students should simply text EXCEL to 35811 on their mobile phones.

     

  • The waiting game

    It is as if they are the ones on admission. But they are not. Everywhere you turn to, they are there. In the wards, at the dispensary and even the toilet. They are around, they claim, to give succour to their ill relatives, but should that be the case? OYEYEMI GBENGA-MUSTAPHA reports.

     

    The daughter in-law of Mrs Abolore Iyiola (not real name) developed acute kidney injury (AKI) that required a transplant. When the patient was being prepared for the transplant at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Idi Araba, Mrs Abolore chose to be near her daughter in-law.

    There was a snag hospital has no accommodation for people like her. She ended up spending the eight days her daughter in-law’s treatment lasted in the open space where mosquitoes kept her company. She made do with the public toilet provided by the hospital.

    At night, she slept on wooden benches used by daytime visitors. For change of clothing and food she relied on whatever relatives brought from home.

    When her daughter in-law was discharged. Mrs Iyiola was full of joy. “All my efforts were not in vain”. But then what was her in-put? Was her hanging around of any help?

    At the University Teaching Hospital (UCH), Ibadan, mothers don’t have to stay with their children on admission. Reason: a philanthropist donated a building where they can pass the night for as long as their children are on admission. This is not the case in other departments/units.

    At the National Orthopaedic Hospital, Igbobi, Yaba and Federal Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital, Yaba, both in Mainland, the story is the same. Though relatives are not expected to stay with patients on admission, the socio-cultural milieu compels them to go.

    According to an official at the psychiatric hospital, the relatives need not come and subject themselves to such harrowing experiences.

    He said: “The main reason why most stay around is for financial incapability. Other reasons include, praying or offering information to the team of experts. It is equally important to note that the system is not perfect.

    “For instance, patients on admission are expected to be given adequate attention by the nurses and others, including, supplying and administering drugs, once they are paid for by the relatives or the patients. But we found out that it’s the relatives that go to pay for, purchase and even bring the drugs to the wards. It could be as bad as the relatives lifting up or assisting the patient on admission go to the toilet.

    “Can you beat a case of an orthopaedic patient interfering by a novice? It can worsen the patient’s situation. We have heard of cases where relatives administered drugs on a patient that was not part of the prescribed drugs. The patient could not sleep and the relative thinking she was being kind offered a sleeping pill. The patient grew worse on observation.

    “When her doctor got worried and was about taking blood samples for further investigation, that was when the patient offered the information on the pill. The doctor had to reverse her treatment so as to clear off the effect of the pill, before he was able to further commence treatment,” he said.

    At LUTH, a portion of the building housing the Doctors Lounge has been converted to ‘a waiting area’ with benches, that have been turned to beds by relatives of some patients. Efforts to get the hospital’s comment failed as the officials contacted said they were busy, promising to get back. They did not as at the time of filling this report.

    But an observer said for security reasons the hospital should know who passed the night in that section. “This hospital has experienced diverse assaults from rapists, thieves and all sorts. Even we have lost some members of staff to those nefarious activities. The crowd is teeming by the day under that building,” the observer said.

    At the psychiatric hospital, an expert who does not want to be named, said because of the nature of mental health illness, most times, relatives don’t hang around the hospital premises, except at designated time. “Most of the mental disorders are associated with negative stereotypes such as violence and danger. Not only that stigmatisation and discrimination abound in our culture against mental illnesses. For instance, depression, anxiety and eating disorders have been seen as increasing public interest, schizophrenia remains associated with much more negative stereotypes.

    “Schizophrenia has been found to be one of the most stigmatising conditions. To the present, most research on stigma related to mental illness has drawn conclusions on the adverse reactions faced by people with schizophrenia from studies on public attitudes or analogue behavioural studies. The views of those exposed to the stigmatising reactions, however, has largely been absent. Of all mental illnesses, schizophrenia appears to be the most stigmatised disorder.

    So we don’t see many people flocking around the hospital premises. Unlike what obtains in the convention or tertiary hospitals where visitors or relatives may even sleep on the bare floor in very cold weather. As experts, if we see such here, we may want to carry out further investigations to actually ascertain the state of the mental health of such an individual.”

    The expert said the problem has also contributed to loss of manhour because relatives of the patients usually stay with them for most of the period.