President Goodluck Jonathan, Imo State Governor Owelle Rocha Okorocha, Nasarawa State Governor Alhaji Tanko Almakura and Niger State Governor Alhaji Babangida Aliyu during the National Council of State meeting at the State House Abuja yesterday. PHOTO AKIN OLADOKUN
President Goodluck Jonathan yesterday met for several hours with Service chiefs behind closed-door at the Presidential Villa in Abuja.
The discussions at the meeting, the first since the appointment of new Service chiefs last month, were not unconnected with the rising onslaught of the Boko Haram Islamic sect and other insurgents in the Northeast.
The violence unleashed on the residents of the region has led to the death of scores of people with loss of property in tow.
No statement was issued at the end of the meeting.
The Service chiefs declined comments on what they discussed with the President.
At the meeting were: the Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshall Alex Badeh; Chief of Army Staff, Maj.-Gen. Kenneth Minimah; Chief of Naval Staff, Rear Admiral Usman Jibrin and Chief of Air Staff, Air Vice Marshall Adesola Amosu.
Also there were: the National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd.); Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Abubakar Mohammed and Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Sen. Anyim Pius Anyim.
When reporters approached him for comments on the meeting, Air Marshall Alex Badeh declined to speak.
Prodded further, however, he said: “I will only speak if you will allow me to speak in my dialect.”
President Goodluck Jonathan will today meet former Heads of State and governors on the platform of the Council of State to address some pressing national issues.
There were concerns among the governors that President Goodluck sidelined the statutory bodies (including the Council of State) recognised by the 1999 Constitution, for the Economic Management Team (EMT) he created, in taking critical economic decisions.
Investigation by our correspondent revealed that all members of the Council of State, including governors had been notified.
Other past Heads of State expected at the session are ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo; ex-President Shehu Shagari, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida; Chief Ernest Shonekan; and Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar.
It was not clear last night whether Chief Obasanjo and Gen. Buhari would attend the meeting.
There was an open exchange of letters between President Jonathan and Obasanjo which might prevent the latter from attending the Council of State.
Also, Gen. Buhari is actively involved in opposition politics and it was learnt he would want to be careful on his contributions to national issues at such a session to avoid a backlash.
A source, who spoke in confidence last night, said: “We have issued notice to all council members as statutorily required. We expect a full house.
“All I can tell you is that the Council of State is a non-partisan body. And some of the issues which have negatively heightened tension in the country might be discussed at the session.
“The President will also brief Council of State members on some national issues, achievements and challenges facing the country.”
Responding to a question, the source said: “We have not got a firm commitment yet from Obasanjo on his attendance.
“But there is no way some members will not revisit his face-off with a sitting President. The truth is that some of them had intervened in the last one month to resolve the crisis of confidence between the two leaders.
Some of the issues likely to be discussed are:
•the 2014 Budget
•the proposed National Conference;
•the extension of the State of Emergency in three states in the Northeast;
•the crisis in Rivers State and fresh security challenges in Plateau, Borno, and Yobe with attacks on military formations;
• the change of Service Chiefs
•disagreement between the President and ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo on the state of the nation;
•proposed Constitution amendment;
•Reduction of political tension in the country;
•growing intolerance among political parties;
•the ongoing mutual suspicion between the President and some governors;
•the state of the economy, especially accruing revenue from oil and global challenges in the industry, and
•preparations for the 2015 poll which may dominate the third and fourth quarter of this year among others.
It was gathered that the National Security Adviser, Mr. Sambo Dasuki, might brief the Council of State on the security problems nationwide.
Another source added: “Definitely, we will get briefing on the worrisome security challenges in some parts of the country and what had been put in place to address these.
“As a matter of fact, the Council of State session is long over due. Some of us have been calling for it because we believe two heads are better than one if they are not rotten.
A governor said: “We got notice of the meeting but we have been unhappy that the President had failed to convene the Council of State meeting in spite of some challenges. He had been depending on his Economic Management Team (EMT) instead of the constitutionally recognised body like this.
“You can imagine that the Council of State had no input into the 2014 budget. We had no privilege of the economic direction of the nation. This was not the practice in the past.
“Maybe the crisis in PDP might have overstretched the presidency to the extent that it could not summon a meeting of the Council of State.”
Another governor said: “In spite of the agenda, we have some issues to table at the Council of State session. We won’t play fool gladly.”
Sections 5 and 6 of the Third Schedule (Part 1) to the 1999 Constitution say: “The Council of State shall comprise the following persons – (a)The President, who shall be the Chairman(b) The Vice President, Who shall be the Deputy Chairman; (c )All former Presidents of the Federation and all former Heads of Government of the Federation; (d)All former Chief Justices of Nigeria; (e)The President of the Senate; (f)The Speaker of the House of Representatives; (g)All former Governors of the States of the Federation; and (h) The Attorney-General of the Federation
“The Council shall have power to – Advise the President in the exercise of his powers with respect to the – (i) National Population census and compilation, publication and keeping of records and other information concerning the same. (ii) Prerogative of mercy. (iii) Award of National Honours. (iv) The Independent National Electoral Commission (including the appointment of members of that Commission). (v) The National Judicial Council (including the appointment of the members, other than ex officio members of that Council), and (vi) the National Population Commission (including appointment of members of that Commission; and
“Advise the President whenever requested to do so on the maintenance of public order within the Federation or any part thereof and on such other matters as the President may direct.”
The stage is set for the National Conference. As it kicks off on a controversial note, Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU examines the divergent views on its modalities, composition, duration and report ratification.
President Goodluck Jonathan has released the modalities for the convocation of a National Conference with limited powers. Expectedly, criticisms have been trailing the modalities. The seriousness of the Federal Government has been questioned by many stakeholders. The consensus of opinion is that, for another three months or more, delegates will participate in a government-sponsored jamboree in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Since the premise for the national dialogue is not the ethnic nationalities, many have also argued that the exercise is an imposition.
However, pro-Jonathan forces have a contrary view. They believe that the conference will chart a new course for the country. Hailing the President for acceding to the popular request for a national debate, they also said that the conference will lay a better constitutional future.
When the President unfolded his plan for the conference on October 1, last year, many stakeholders queried his real intention. There were speculations that the idea was sold the option to the embattled leader to douse the mounting national tension. But, the sudden change of heart by the Commander-in-Chief still came as a surprise. In the past, Dr. Jonathan had objected to it, saying that a democratic government was in place. The proposal polarised the polity. A section said that the Federal Government was trying to divert attention from its gross failure to restore hope to the beleaguered country. In particular, the advocates of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) were not amused. In their view, the proposal fell below expectation.
Public enthusiasm has been waning since the Presidential Advisory Committee headed by Senator Femi Okurounmu submitted its report to the President. It was a divided committee. A minority report surfaced. It was written by a member of the committee, Chief Solomon Asemota (SAN). The bone of contention was the method proposed for the ratification of the conference report. While the majority report hammered on parliamentary ratification, the minority report emphasised the import of ratification by a referendum. The majority report on the mode of ratification reflected the President’s view. Last year, Dr. Jonathan told the nation that the report will be sent to the National Assembly for ratification. The implication is that the decisions reached at the conference may or may not be approved by the National Assembly.
The fear expressed by critics were confirmed last week when the Secretary to the Federal Government, Senator Pius Ayim, released the guidelines. 492 delegates are expected at the talk show. They are to be drawn from the strata of the society: government, traditional institution, political parties, judiciary, and civil societies. They are to be nominated by local, state and federal governments. Thus, it is “guided conference”.
The ethnic nationalities may not command a strong voice there. Observers have argued that nominees may not have the mind of their own. Since he who plays the piper dictates the tune, the presidential nominees will be his eye and ear at the conference. The delegates may therefore, be manipulated by the government to achieved a pre-determined goal.
The official name of the dialogue is The National Conference. This is antithetical to a Sovereign National Conference. There is a no-go area. The Federal Government is sensitive to the warning by a foreign body that the country may disintegrate next year. Therefore, it stated that the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable. The time frame is also suspect. The government has proposed three months. But, it is evident that the conference will coincide with preparations for the 2015 general elections.
The timeframe for the nomination of delegates is between now and February 20. Wide consultations may not herald the nominations. In outlook, the proposed conference is elitist. The President may have also played a fast game. He is not indifferent to the position of the main opposition party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), on the vexed issue. Therefore, if the 17 APC governors refuse to nominate delegates, Dr. Jonathan, an Ijaw from the Southsouth, will nominate delegates on their behalf. These delegates may come from the ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP). Critics will describe their assignments as “jobs for the boys”.
The delegates are expected to receive remuneration. But, funding for the conference is another hurdle. Although the conference is expected to commence proceedings this month, there is no assurance that the budget would have been passed before next month.
The script was carefully written at Aso Villa, the seat of government. But, The President needed an ally to sell the dummy. He found one in Senate President David Mark, who was saddled with flying the cart. The retired General, who had frowned at the agitation for the conference in the past, based on his belief in the legitimacy of the National Assembly as the anchor of popular rule, suddenly retraced his steps. Thus, many believed that the conference propaganda was designed to gage the public mood.
Historically, at critical points in national history, past governments have resorted to camouflage national debate, talk or dialogue to douse the tension. Indeed, when the dreadful dictator, the late Gen. Sani Abacha, set up a constitutional conference in 1994, the uprising in the Niger Delta stopped for one year. The Abacha conference was made up of 396 delegates. The late head of State nominated 96 members. Although the report of the 1994/95 conference did not see the light of the day, the delegates succeeded in dividing Nigeria into six geo-political zones. The six geo-political regions are not backed by law, but the structure is respected by the political class. Also, when former President Olusegun Obasanjo inaugurated the Abuja Reforms Conference, expectations were high that it would usher in a new dawn. The conference collapsed on the altar of the third term agenda. Of 400 delegates, Obasanjo nominated 50 delegates. Many delegates, who have reflected on the report, have called for the implementation of the report. Former Lagos State Governor Bola Tinubu, who also nominated delegates, has backed the call for the retrieval of the report from the dustbin. He said since resolutions have been passed on many of the issues that the delegates are going to debate in Abuja, the Federal Government should have the courage to implement the 2005 report.
Shortly after he assumed the reins, the first military Head of State, the late Gen. Thomas Auguyi-Ironsi, set up an ad hoc constitutional committee to debate the contentious issues tearing apart the country. The committee was dead on arrival. At the inception of the military rule, soldiers in power lacked the political skills to handle those sensitive issues and problems which the military intervention had compounded. When the Muritala/Obasanjo set up the Constitutional Drafting Committee and Constituent Assembly, the transition to civil rule programme of the regime received a popular acclaim. Even, when the former President Ibrahim Babangida set up the Constituent Assembly in 1989, it calmed down the nerves. But, the report also did not see the light of the day.
President Jonathan’s first step at implementing the proposal was confusing. He named an advocate of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC), Dr. Okurounmu, as the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee to prepare the ground for the talk. But, the committee was on tour of the six geo-political regions to collate views on modalities, the President announced that the National Assembly will debate the conference report. The statement irked many people. But, the members of the committee became deviated from their terms of reference when they were defending the President. When the team led by Okurounmu visited Benin, the capital of Edo State, for consultation with the Southsouth stakeholders, a committee member, Col. Tony Nyiam, took on Governor Adams Oshiomhole. Thus, the committee was censoring public opinion on the conference.
During the debate on the proposed conference, members of the National Assembly were not aloof. In the beginning, they loathed the idea of conference, pointing out that the nation should not waste time on another Constituent Assembly that will be saddled with the business of constitution making at a time the National Assembly is also reviewing the constitution. But, when reality dawned on them that the conference would be inevitable, they indicated a deeper interest. Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu said in Lagos that it will not be a bad idea, if the legislators are also delegates. He explained that federal lawmakers are also stakeholders. However, the agitation for the inclusion of the legislators was doused when the President announced that the report will be ratified by the National Assembly.
According rights activists and leaders of the ethnic nationalities, a conference, on its merit, is not a bad idea. The obstacle to its success in the past was the lack of sincerity by the government. Since it is not going to be a SNC, many rights activists have submitted that the scope of the national dialogue will be essentially limited. There are some puzzles: If a constitution is expected to be fashioned out by the conference, should there be no-go areas? Can a national conference produce a truly peoples’ constitution? Should the government insist that the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable in a country that has not become a nation, 100 years after the amalgamation? How will the suitability and competence of delegates be determined? If they are nominated or appointed by the government and influential elite as it is being proposed by the Federal Government, will their nominations meet the criteria for representativeness and legitimacy? How popular are the delegates at the grassroots? Would they have the mandate of the people who are emotionally attached to the ethnic nationalities? Now that the nomination is based partially on the ethnic nationalities, states, local governments or constituencies, what will be the ratio of representation? Will the proposed single term of six or seven years resurface at the conference for debate?
There are other questions: since delegates be appointed by the governors, what is the criteria? What will be the terms of reference? How will they emerge across the states? Will the conference resolutions be subjected to referendum? If it is not subjected to a referendum, how will the report or resolutions be validated? If it is not validated by a referendum, will it be legitimate? Will recommendations be accepted by the government, if delegates oppose the proposed ratification by the National Assembly? Will the report be thrown into the dustbin as usual? The Federal Government has said that resolutions on contentious issues would be taken, based on the approval of 75 percent of delegates. 75 percent of 492 is 369 delegates. How about resolutions that mainly touch on the lives of the minority tribes, who may not be adequately represented? Will the majority not trample on the wish of the minority?
Since the eighties, the agitation for a Sovereign National Conference had gained prominence. It was first articulated by the legal luminary, the late Chief Alao Aka-Bashorun. The deceased human rights lawyer said that it was possible to hold the conference in Nigeria. He urged the government to tap from the experience of the Soviet Union and the Republic of Benin, which resolved some of its problems by convoking conferences. Throughout the military rule, Aka-Bashorun was harassed for his principled position on the national question and agitation for a Sovereign National Conference.
Also, in the nineties, the former Oyo State governor, Chief Bola Ige, who summed up the arguments for the national conference, raised two questions: “Do we want to remain as one country? If the answer is yes, under what conditions?”. The implication is that a debate is necessary to determine the basis for peaceful co-existence and harmony. Ige said that many national problems could be resolve by debate, instead of resorting to the barrels of gun.
Following the annulment of the historic June 12, 1993 presidential election won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola, there was disillusionment. The cancellation disputed the basis for peaceful co-existence among the competing tribes. The advocates of the SNC expanded the national question. Discussion on the resolution of the identity, integration, participation and distribution crises came to the front burner. Stakeholders came to the conclusion that Nigeria was hanging on a flawed or defective federal system. The unitary system foisted on the polity by the military had created strains. But the interlopers opposed the struggle for a new order with brute force.
Up to now, these questions remained unsolved: Is state or community police not desirable in a big, diverse, heterogeneous country characterised by multiplicity of traditions, customs, and languages? Should the governors, who are the chief security officers of their states, continue to obtain permission from the distant Inspector-General of Police to maintain law and order? Should an Igbo or Yoruba, who was born and bred in the North be denied political and economic rights, owing to the tension between indigeneship and residency? Should a Fulani/Hausa, who had lived in the South for 30 years be edged out of the participatory political process? It remains to be seen if these questions will be answered by Jonathan’s National Conference, which has limitations. Does the President needs a conference to fight the infrastructure battle, tar the roads and fund education and public hospitals efficiently? Does the President needs a conference to build refineries, fight corruption and resolve the crises that have engulfed his party? Does he need a conference to guarantee power supply?
When the National Leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu returned from a medical trip abroad last year, he picked holes in the National Conference. Happenings after that and now have shown that his fears were founded.
What is your reaction to the National Conference being proposed by President Goodluck Jonathan?
This dialogue is for who and by who? Government is about trust. I am standing with the governor of Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola. Go to Osun and look at his programmes and you will see that his people trust him. If Aregbesola says a road will pass here today, people believe him because the road will pass there immediately. The level of deception in the country is very high. Now, they have adopted public deception as their strategy. How many months to the elections? How long have we been talking about it? Why suddenly? Now, there is something in political history and social history. They say beware of Greek’s gift. It is only a very smart rodent in a house full of little crumble of poison that will survive the trappings of the owners. Let us, first of all, ask series of questions. But I need to consult with my party , but I see a contradiction here. I will discuss with my party. I see a diversion here. I will discuss with my party. I see deception here. I will discuss with my party. I see lack of honesty and integrity here. I will discuss with my party. It is time to look at our own agenda and develop it. Nigeria is being deceived. So, where is the sovereignty? What about the electoral act? What about the Lemu Committee? We have not had white paper or green paper out of that. Why now? How many months to the elections? Can’t you smell a good soup when it is well cooked? Can’t you smell bad one that stinks? Can’t you smell the odour of the deception when it is passing by? It is left for our party and all of us to note all these developments. You inherit the assets and liabilities of your predecessor. This President was the Vice President when Umaru Yar’Adua told the world that the election process that brought him to office was floored and he promised that he will do something about it. He started and set up a panel of eminent Nigerians up to look into that process, where Justice Mohammed Uwais, with great eminent Nigerians, sat down to look at the matter. Where are the reports that came out of that deliberation? They chose to compromise the electoral process, they chose to dwell on corruption and the INEC.
Some people are calling for the postponement of the 2015 general elections because of the proposed national conference. What is your reaction?
That is the saying of a thief who wants to continue to hand on to the opportunity, who is enjoying and stealing and want to continue to have that opportunity. What are you postponing about election? Is it with the head you walk or with the feet? You must stand on something. You say democracy and sovereignty of this country is about the National Assembly. But I argued then, that sovereignty belongs to the people. Now, there is a diversion. where is the agenda? I want to say that you should beware of the poisonous gift. But I cannot conclude here today, unless I consult with my party. I can only express my own feelings. I am a democrat. If the party says go this direction, I must follow them to that direction.
Pan-Yoruba groups, comprising the Afenifere Renewal Group, Coalition of O’dua Self Determination Groups, O’dua Nationalist Coalition, Atayese and Afenifere Youth Movement, have described modalities for the proposed National Conference as “ridiculous.”
In a statement, they said: “The nation remembers the Independence Day broadcast of President Goodluck Jonathan, which rekindled the hope for a genuine National Conference. But the proposed modality for the conference has slaughtered that hope.
“President Jonathan promised that there would not be ‘no-go areas’ and that he will not tamper with the process. With these, Nigerians expressed the desire for a new constitution that would be ratified through a referendum. However, since the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue, led by Senator Femi Okurounmu, submitted its report, we have witnessed disappointments. We are now presented with a conference, whose modalities are incongruous with the President’s promise and the expectations that Nigerians exhibited at the public sittings.
“Being consistent and strident advocates of a National Conference, Yoruba people expected socio-political, cultural and ethnic organisations to be the main, if not only, stakeholders at the conference, not a potpourri of “interest groups” that did not even deem it fit to make public presentations to the Okurounmu committee.
“For example, there would be five delegates representing five national academies and we are wondering what national interest these academies are pursuing that is not already covered by their parent ministries and, by extension, the Federal Government. The President would nominate six Judiciary delegates but the Nigerian Bar Association is allowed just one delegate, while the nomination of 24 delegates is ceded to civil society groups, which have no known umbrella or regulatory body. These examples are cited without prejudice to the fact that any Nigerian is qualified to be a delegate. However, after wide consultation with our people, we have decided to continue with the same cautious optimism we expressed when this initiative was unveiled.
“The Yoruba people will participate in the conference, believing it may be the step to take this process back to the sublime. We enjoin Yoruba individuals and groups to participate in the Yoruba Constitutional Conference on Feb 12 in Ibadan at the House of Chiefs in the Oyo State Secretariat, where we shall discuss the future of Yoruba nation and our approach to the National Conference.
“To President Jonathan, we say that this conference will make or mar your tenure. This trend of gaining public support and losing it too quickly is becoming characteristic of this administration and he needs to consider where his allegiance lies – whether as a statesman thinking of the next generation as espoused in his Independence Day broadcast or as a politician thinking of the next election.
“To the would-be delegates, we urge you to draw inspiration from the 55 delegates that wrote a new constitution for the United States. Nigerians have no business with poverty, unemployment, corruption, religious extremism, nepotism and other vices threatening the nation’s sovereignty. We will continue to clamour for Nigeria to be restructured into a true federal structure that will allow viable federating units to unleash their creative and developmental potential under an unfettered political structure.
“As a people, we are ready to work with stakeholders to ensure that the conference meets the aspirations of Nigerians anchored on a new constitution. However, Yoruba people reserve the right to take our destiny in our hands, if the present effort yields no desirable fruit.”
A section of the crisis-ridden Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) rejected yesterday the dissolution order slammed on the council by some Ijaw elders and leaders of thought.
The elders, led by Chief Edwin Clark, in a meeting on January 30 in Abuja, suspended IYC structures till June 2015 and ordered that a temporary committee be established to manage the affairs of the youth body.
Rising from an emergency convention held in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, the youths told the elders that they lacked powers to proscribe IYC structures.
The youths, in a seven-point communiqué, said the decision was against the desire of the Ijaw to retain the Presidency in 2015.
Besides, they said such declaration would only succeed in reducing the support base of President Goodluck Jonathan.
They also unanimously upheld last October’s election of Udengs Eradiri as the President of the council.
The youths gave a five-day ultimatum to their elders to reverse their decision, saying they had resolved themselves to sheathe their swords and work with Eradiri.
It also announced the dissolution of three zonal chairmen—Saviour Olali (central), Preye Okaba(western), Hamilton Opuende (eastern)—and speaker of parliament, Deme Yinkore, “who voluntarily resigned and dissolved themselves”.
Also, the Ijaw National Congress (INC) condemned the elders. INC, through its National Publicity Secretary, Pastor Victor Burubo, in Port Harcourt declared that it would stand by the truth.
It said: “The attention of the INC has been drawn to a five-day ultimatum issued to the INC and Ijaw elders to reverse the dissolution of all IYC structures at all levels.
“The INC wishes to make it clear that congress was not, is not and will not be part of any illegal and arbitrary decision to dissolve the duly-elected organs of the IYC at all levels.”
“The INC affirms that the crisis rocking the IYC affects only the National Executive of the IYC and does not in any way affect the parliament, the zones or the clans.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the INC is not part of any decision to dissolve all the duly-elected structures of the IYC. The Parliament of the IYC and the zonal structures are still in office and their decisions have the force of law, according to the Constitution of the IYC.”
Nigerians are skeptical of the success of the planned National conference given the dominance of government nominees, writes LEKE SALAUDEEN
The distribution of National Conference slots announced by the Presidency has left many an observer sceptical. President Goodluck Jonathan has the power to pick 114 of the 492 delegates . The President alone will nominate 20 delegates across the counry; Elder statesmen, one per state and the Federal Capital Territory making 37. He will also nominate 18 retired military and security personnel ; 13 traditional rulers ; 13 eminent jurists who are not serving on the bench, and six youths. Heis also expected to appoint the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and the Secretary of the conference.
Observers are of the opinion that with the Presidency controlling about one quarter of the delegates, the wish of the government would prevail in the delegates deliberation and the report of the conference will reflect the Federal Government’s position on critical issues affecting peaceful co-existence of the country. The national conference of Nigerians expectaion, the critics said, is where the people would be allowed to choose or elect delegates and not the type that the conference will be dominated by government hand picked delegates.
The Presidency is silent over the criteria to use in picking its delegates. The Constitutional Confererence organised by former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2005 was loaded by his partymen and cronies. The critical issues, such as resource control and revenue sharing formula that were supposed to be handled by the delegates could not hold becase they were divided on the issues. The delegates considered themselves as government representatives and anything that threatetened the status quo must be resisted. That was how the conference ended abruptly.
Public Affairs analyst Bernard Briggs said the composition and mode of selection of delegates announced by the government has vindicated those saying that Jonathan has a hidden agenda.
“The composition of the conference delegates put in place by the Jonathan administration does not reflect the generality of Nigerian populace. The people are not allowed to choose their representatives. Those selected by government and other stake holders are not responsible to the people but the power that be The conference is dead on arrival.”
Political Scientist and human rights activist Joseph Azubike frowns at the debate procedures foisted on the delegates by the Presidency. The Federal Government stated that decisions at the conference shall be by consensus and where not achievable, it shall be by 75 per cent majority. Azubike says this provision is suspect. Why should government impose decision making procedure on the delegates, he queried.
“I think the delegates should be free to work out the modalities of deleberation and decision making. All Nigerians have equal stake on the issues to be discussed at the conference. The allocation of slots in which the government as a unit got the highest number of seats has put a question mark on the integrity of the conference and the credibility of its report”.
Azubike noted that the Federal Government has set a boo-boo trap for the delegates by saying issues that cannot be resolved by consensus shall require 75 per cent majority. In a conference where the government nominees are more than 100, it will be difficult to get 75 per cent in taking decision on issues that are against government’s interest, he said.
He said people should not be deceived that government has influence on only delegates it appointed. All the delegates, according to him, are government’s benevolents and they have to reciprocate the kind gesture through loyalty. “Remember that the delegates are to draw allowances which I know will daze many of them given the level of poverty in the country. The delegates cannot go against the interest of the President that facilitates their membership,” he added.
Student activist Abubakar Yusuf questioned the rationale of holding a national conference within three months and when we have entered election year. To him, three months is too short for a national conference to do a thorough job an d come out with credible report.
Yusuf said: “We should not run away from the truth, we should come to a round table conference to discuss our differences and the structural distortion in the polity. But the way the Jonathan administration is going about it is not the best. How can an individual nominate as much as 114 out of 492 delegates. The conference may turn a rubber stamp.”
SIR: Is President Goodluck Jonathan aware of the enormity of our national problems? Has he lived up to our expectations, and performed his duties to the best of his abilities?
Our President hasn’t shown the political will to tackle our multifarious national problems. He seems to be overwhelmed by them. And, based on any indices for assessing national leaders, he has scored an abysmal low mark.
Nothing works in our country. The privatization of PHCN hasn’t translated to our enjoying uninterrupted power supply in Nigeria. The noise from generators assails our ears every night. And, our rutted roads are death-traps on which people die daily. Good road network and regular supply of electricity are incentives and forces for the rapid industrialization of any country.
Nigeria has failed almost on all fronts, ranging from insecurity of lives and property characterized by kidnapping, armed robbery and Boko Haram insurgency, to the issue of corruption, which is the cancer asphyxiating Nigeria. like Emperor Nero, our leaders are fiddling around while Nigeria is burning. The twin evils of corruption and insecurity of lives and property are creating anarchic situation in Nigeria.
Sadly, the national issues troubling us are subsumed under President Jonathan subterranean politicking for retention of power beyond 2015.
• Chiedu Uche Okoye
Uruowulu – Obosi, Anambra State
•FG lacks authority to monitor emails, sms, calls, etc.
The report that President Goodluck Jonathan has forwarded an executive bill to the National Assembly for a law to enable security agencies record electronic communication between individuals and seize data from internet providers and mobile networks is alarming. The bill will enable security agencies to order telecommunication companies to conduct surveillance on individuals and release user data to authorities. It will also allow the agencies in ‘cases of verifiable’ urgencies to intercept and record electronic communications, without a warrant.
Considering the level of impunity, private individuals and perceived opponents suffer in the hands of the power elites, this bill will do more harm than good. The potential chances for abuse, should this bill become law, will heighten as the political parties engage themselves in the run-down to a general election. Again, with our security agencies finding the pull to engage in partisanship difficult, there are possibilities that they will be used to abuse such a law. As events across less democratically developed states have shown, the less authoritative the state is, the more authoritarian it seeks to become.
As partisans may ask, is this bill one of President Jonathan’s administration’s counter attack on the nationwide tectonic political movements? We urge the legislators to seek answers to this question from the executive as they debate the necessity and nature of such a law. The legislature must also bear in mind the possibility of abuse, where such an extensive security dragnet is entrusted into the hands of partisan interests, as we have seen with the abuse of the police in Rivers State. So, in treating that bill, the National Assembly should take apart all its provisions and examine its potential for abuse, one by one.
The legislature must also be mindful of the provisions of such a tendentious bill considering the clear provisions of the 1999 Constitution on fundamental human rights. They must bear in mind that Nigerians will readily test any law that tends to limit the rights guaranteed to them under the constitution; and it is their duty not to pass any law that will impede the constitution. For their guide, section 37 of the 1999 constitution provides: ‘the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected’. It is hoped that the proposals in the executive bill before the National Assembly, respect this fundamental law.
It is also important that our country should learn from the case of the United States of America and her estranged citizen Edward Snowden, now a fugitive in Russia. The grouse of Mr. Snowden, a villain or model citizen, depending on the commentators’ leaning, has substantially put the government of United States on a severe test over her claim to egalitarian democracy. Snowden, we recall, humiliatingly exposed his country as a hypocrite, which snoops on the social networks of friends and foes alike, in the name of national security. With her back to the wall, the world’s most advertised democracy was forced to re-swear to oaths of allegiance to her major allies; and despite her best efforts, the image of America as an honest dealer has diminished.
So, our legislators must be wary of handing the executive the power to turn Nigeria to a police state, in the guise of fighting terrorism or other vices. Even scarier, is that the current power brokers have not shown the capacity to exercise power judiciously. We therefore doubt if the run-down to a major national election is an auspicious time for such law.