The Nation Newspaper

Tag: got it wrong

  • NPA vs. Senate: Where Umar got it wrong

    Moral icons, whose words and conduct can scarcely be impeached, exist in every society. More often than not, any intervention they make is always done with a high sense of responsibility, always guided by the knowledge that any misplaced opinion could injure the innocent or imperil the group or society.

    I want to believe that our moral icons like Abubakar Umar are aware that their every speech, even body language, sends strong signals to the society whether in Nigeria or abroad. The people listen, trusting that their views would form that ethical barometer for gauging the moral health of the society.

    From available evidence, our own Col. Abubakar Dangiwa Umar did not apply the necessary caution before sending out his recent article, Watch It, Nigerian Senate in which he attacked the Joint Senate Committee on Customs, Excise and Tariffs, and Marine Transport for purportedly arm-twisting the Nigeria Customs Service and the Managing Director of Nigerian Ports Authority, Hadiza Bala Usman. He claimed that the joint committee was frustrating the anti-corruption war of President Muhammadu Buhari. It was obvious that Umar’s target was the Senator from Imo State, Hope Uzodinma, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Customs, Excise Duties and Tariffs.

    As an experienced administrator, the highly respected soldier will admit that where the premise is wrong, the deductions are bound to be questionable if not flatly hopeless. Unfortunately, on many occasions, he was caught flat-footed in his article. Let us start with his claim that the chairman of the Senate Committee on Customs, Excise and Tariff weighed in on the matter of Customs versus Masters Energy Commodities Trading Limited because he is also the chairman of the Masters Energy. That is “fake news”. The chairman of Masters Energy is Uche Ogar, one of Nigeria’s leading industrialists.

    Then he goes on to echo the allegation by the NPA management to the effect that the joint venture agreement between Messrs Niger Global Engineering & Technical Company Limited and Calabar Channel Company, CCM, did not follow the due process. But the bid invitation was advertised in The Guardian of September 21, 2014. Companies were screened and Niger Global won after the attorney general of the federation had vetted the contract and presidential approval received. The retired colonel claims along the same line as the NPA that the Bureau of Public Procurement, BPP, opposed the Calabar deal. That again, is not true as there is evidence that the BPP director general at the time, Engineer Emeka Ezeh indeed issued a certificate of no objection to the agreement. Also false is the claim that CCM/Niger Global was paid for work not done. Official records not only confirm that work was done but show that payments were made to entities with global renown in dredging activities.

    The most damning rebuttal of the claim that no work was done comes from within the NPA itself, that is, the report of an internal panel set up by Ms. Hadiza Bala Usman herself. Recommendations (iii) and (iv) of the panel, make nonsense of any allegation of fraudulent claims by Niger Global. Section (iii) states: “Having verified volumes dredged, all outstanding payments to CCML should be effected in line with the provisions of the JV Agreement” while Section (iv) states: “That in view of the subsisting Presidential approval for the JV, CCML be allowed to continue with the operations but at a reduced scale to be determined by the Authority’s need and CCML’s Board Technical and Finance Committees”.

    Between Umar and the NPA MD, somebody must be economical with the truth.  But before you jump to any conclusion, cognizance should be taken of the fact that documents that are already in the public domain show that, through the United Bank for Africa Plc, Niger Global had made some payments to its partners thus: Societe Dragage/Luxembourg SA ($3, 600, 000); Dredging International Services (Cyprus) ($1, 207, 440) and Nigerian Westminster Dredging & Marine Limited ($500, 000). These payments were made between August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015.  Furthermore, the Nigerian Navy also confirmed that it had provided security services to the dredging company for Calabar Channel between 20 November 2014 and 15 January 2015

    It is shocking that in spite of the welter of evidence, Ms. Hadiza Usman and Col. Umar (rtd) want the world to believe that those payments were fictitious, that the NPA panel, headed by Professor Idris Abubakar, an executive director of NPA, should be ignored, that the Nigerian Navy lied; that all is just a conspiracy to remove this young woman who is doing an excellent job!

    It is indeed appalling that Umar could be hoodwinked into believing the fiction that Niger Global was incorporated in 2014, as a special purpose vehicle to corner the Calabar project and siphon public funds whereas Niger Global has been in operation since 1996, 15 solid years before Hope Uzodinma got to the Senate; it couldn’t have been incorporated to take advantage of his position as a senator.

    It is pertinent to ask: why has Umar singled out Senator Hope Uzodinma for blackmail in a situation where another senate committee, marine transport, is involved? Was it Hope Uzodinma who blew the whistle on the “missing” 282 vessels? Did he single-handedly script the petitions, and railroad the Senate into constituting a joint committee to achieve his selfish interests? What confers on him the capacity to micro-manage the entire Senate? Or do we accept conspiracy theories that the managing director of NPA was looking for a scapegoat to abort investigations into the “missing” vessels thereby causing the federal government huge revenue losses? Who, then, is undermining the fight against corruption?

    The claim that Senator Hope Uzodinma is victimizing the managing director of NPA is a gratuitous insult on a man who has placed the national interest above every consideration in his legislative activities. Perhaps Ms. Usman and Col. Umar (rtd.) should carry their campaign to Rev Jonathan Nicol, the president of the Shippers’ Association who, not long ago threw his weight behind the probe by the joint committee of the Senate. Admonishing the joint committee not to succumb to “cheap blackmail” Rev. Nicol disclosed that the practice whereby ship owners colluded with importers to evade customs duties had been on for some time and that his association’s effort to have audience with the MD of NPA on the matter had not yet succeeded.

    From the above, it is obvious that the claim of witch-hunting cannot be sustained. I regret to say that Col. Umar got it wrong this time around. As a public servant, the NPA chief executive should submit the activities of her agency to public scrutiny, a role that the legislature is constitutionally empowered to perform. She is already in the ring; she cannot hide. Let her explain to the Senate joint committee what she knows about the missing vessels. That does not and should not interfere with whatever she is doing about the Calabar Port. In fact, those of us from the South-south with particular reference to the old Cross River State will be overjoyed when the port swings into full operation. And the federal government should not be shy spending money in our zone.

  • UNILAG students got it wrong

    UNILAG students got it wrong

    SIR: Protests are in place. It is a good way to channel your disapproval about issues. Definitely, a means of drawing the attention of any reasonable management to issues they might have discounted.

    In every sane environment, protests are done in tranquility, in order and without any form of unsightly scenes created. However, the latest protest embarked upon by University of Lagos students portends the opposite.

    Three key issues instigated the protest: shortages in water and power supply, disparity in prices of commodities on campus and the deadlock with the school management over the latter.

    Before now, the power supply in the school has always been a better than the supply to other Nigerians. However, students have in recent times been suffering from epileptic power supply. The lack of power supply slows down academic activities: Stuffy lecture theatres, Inability to read by students as well carry academic assignments.

    The students’ grievances mirror those of Nigerians who have continuously lived in darkness for days. Queues have tripled at different filling stations with Nigerians spending man hours without any success of getting Premium Motor Spirit to get on with their daily activities.

    It also reflects how the nation’s current economy has made many commodities sell for exorbitant prices. Several commodities have seen their prices tripled leaving buyers to their fate. Quite Saddening!

    The harassment, hounding and harrying of students on Thursday, April 7 from their hostels to the Senate Building was uncalled for. It was reported that students got into various halls of residences and ordered the students to protest. Many who wished to capture the scenes created were bullied, beaten and had their phones seized. Protests are voluntary.

    The recurrent reactive stance the university authority on certain issues in recent past has not been helpful. A progressive leadership is a proactive, foresees a lacuna and works tirelessly to block such. The continuous grandstanding, lack of communication, proper deliberation with students and stakeholders will continually result in this situation.

    Vice-Chancellor Professor Rahman Ade-Bello, knows too well that strategic and proper communication is germane if he desires to steer the University of Lagos appropriately. With the first semester examination scheduled for April 18, this break in the calendar is uncalled for. This protest succeeds two other unnecessary protests by students in the last one year. The students’ executives must admit they goofed and redress their steps. The earlier the better else the ten-year ban on union activities on campus might erupt again.

     

    • Kelechi Amakoh,

    Lagos.

  • Auto policy: Where govt got it wrong

    Auto policy: Where govt got it wrong

    Ahead of the January 2015  implementation of the 35 per cent levy on the importation of used cars, there is nothing to suggest that the new automotive policy will achieve its strategic objectives. Industry experts and stakeholders say the government put the wrong foot forward when it came out with the policy without first addressing the more fundamental challenge of lack of infr

    It took threat of total withdrawal of services by clearing agents to force down the hand of the Tin Can Island and Ports Terminal Multi Services Limited (PTML)Command of Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) over the alleged hurried implementation of the 35 per cent levy on the importation of fairly used cars. The clearing agents, under the aegis of the Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents (ANCLA) and the National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders (NAGAFF), were peeved by the implementation of the levy, which was scheduled to take off in January 2015, but was allegedly hurriedly implemented by the Customs high command before its take-off date, and without consulting or informing them.

    The prompt resistance by both unions starved off a labour crisis that would have paralysed economic activities at the nation’s ports and thrown the vehicle importation arm of the automobile industry into chaos. The National President of NAGAFF, Comrade Eugene Nweke, told The Nation that the matter has been resolved. He, however, blamed the sudden implementation of the new levy regime, which is a key component of the new automotive policy,on communication gap between the NCS and the Federal Ministry of Finance. But the matter, though resolved, may have confirmed fears earlier expressed by critics of the automotive policy that it would not achieve its strategic objective of encouraging the manufacture of vehicles locally.

    Since the formal launch of the auto policy, it has been the booth of scathing criticisms by experts and stakeholders in both the maritime and automobile industry most of who argue that the policy, though good and commendable, is dead on arrival on account of faulty implementation. As Neke put it, “The auto policy is a good one, but the approach is wrong.” He pointed out, for instance, that the auto policy would only make Nigeria haven for all manner of foreign auto producing companies to come into Nigeria and assemble cars. According to him, all the necessary raw materials for auto assembly have been processed in the countries of origin of the foreign auto firms, leaving Nigeria producing none of the over 2, 500 car components.

    As far as Nweke is concerned, “The auto policy is all about encouraging trading and nothing more.” “We want to see an auto policy that encourages sourcing of raw materials locally,” he added. He was referring to the need to fully revive the Ajaokuta Steel Company in Kogi State and other related raw material processing facilities in the country. His thinking and indeed, those of other industry experts and stakeholders is that components/raw materials that are used in the manufacture of vehicles should be carefully identified and broken down to ascertain opportunities for local sourcing/production. The belief is that the auto policy would fail to achieve its strategic objective if the steel used by auto companies are imported solely from their parent companies.

    While also admitting that “The idea of the auto policy is a good one, but the implementation is faulty,” Dr. Odion Oscar Odiboh, a marketing communication expert, could not agree less on the need for local sourcing of raw materials. “Ajeokuta has to be working,” he insisted. Odiboh, who also consults for CFAO Motors has reason to so insist, considering recent disclosure by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Dr. Olusegun Aganga that Nigeria spends $3.3 billion annually on the importation of steel and iron. The minister, who spoke last week in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital, at the inauguration of the Cold Roll Mill Project of Kamwire Industries Limited, said this is despite the fact that Nigeria had the second largest iron ore deposit in Africa and the 12th largest in the world.

    However, lack of locally sourced raw materials is not the only challenge raising fears that the auto policy is already off to a rough start and may not achieve set targets. “Power supply has to be stable. The enabling environment has to be there,” Odiboh said. As things stand today, he was emphatic that “The auto policy won’t work, its all a deceit. When you put the cart before the horse, it won’t work.” He accused the National Automotive Council (NAC) of forcing the local auto assembly firms to admit having the capacity to produce cars to meet local demand when indeed, “The local autos are currently under intense under-capacity.”

    NAC is a parastatal under the Federal Ministry of Industry. It was established by Act No. 84 of august 25, 1993. The Council, with inputs from the Nigerian Automobile Manufacturers Association (NAMA), and other organisations involved in the industry drafted the automotive policy for Nigeria. The trust of the National Automotive Policy (NAP) was to ensure the survival and growth of the Nigerian automotive industry using local, human and material resources. This is with a view to enhancing the industry’s contribution to the national economy, especially in the areas of transportation of people and goods.

    Unfortunately however, lack of critical infrastructure, particularly electricity supply, remains one of the greatest hurdles before the realisation of the objectives of the auto policy. With electricity supply currently hovering between N3, 500 and N4, 000 megawatts, with no hope of a major improvement anytime, concerns are mounting over the success of the policy. The thinking is that the auto policy was premature, and that government put the wrong foot forward when it came out with the policy without first addressing the huge infrastructure gap in the industry.

    According to experts, a steady electricity supply is critical to the operations of any manufacturing entity, including auto manufacturing. Independent generation of electricity by auto companies, it is believed, would adversely affect prices, the result of which would be borne by end users and this would inadvertently erode part of the gains of setting up the auto plants. Besides, environmental experts argue that resorting to  independent generation runs against the global policy on sustainable energy and reduction in green house gas emissions. Simply put, independent generation is not eco-friendly.

    As Dr. Odiboh recalled, lack of infrastructure particularly power was partly responsible for the disappearance of over 10 auto assembly plants from Nigeria in the past. He noted that while there is nothing wrong with Nigeria aspiring to return to a viable and competitive auto industry, there is need to go back to the drawing board and address the issue of lack of enabling environment that saw the disappearance of some of the once vibrant auto plants from the nation’s industrial landscape.

    Indeed, in the past, auto firms such as Peugeot in Kaduna, Steyr in Bauchi, Leyland in Ibadan, and ANNAMCO in Enugu dotted the landscape. Same for tyre manufacturing firms like Michelin and Dunlop. Today, most of these companies have either closed shop or relocated to neigbouring West African countries where the operating environment is considered investor-friendly. “Why did these companies fail?” Nweke asked, insisting that government should address its mind to providing answer to the question. According to him, there hasn’t been any change in the fortunes of the industry to guarantee the success of the auto policy.

    Lack of necessary infrastructure is not the only factor that has cast a shadow of doubt on the workability of the policy. Government is yet to make good its promise to roll out a vehicle refinancing scheme to enable Nigerians buy cars and other locally manufactured vehicles at affordable rates. According to Aganga, the scheme would allow Nigerians buy vehicles of their choice and pay for them over a period of four years. He said government was in discussion with both local and international banks to set aside a vehicle refinancing fund that Nigerians can access at not more than 10 per cent interest per annum.

    However, less than three months before the scheduled take-off of the implementation of the 35 per cent levy on the importation of fairly used, the vehicle refinancing scheme is yet to come on stream. And while prospective car owners await the take-off of the scheme, the cost of new vehicles in Nigeria, at present, remains astronomically over and above the sale in the countries of origin. For instance, KIA and Hyundai brand of vehicles are generally considered suitable for Nigerian roads. The snag however, is that they are overpriced despite the fact that they are promoted and sold in most centres by the parent companies. This is partly because of the exchange rate of the naira to the dollar.

    While majority of Nigerians are hoping to ride on the back of the yet-to-be-unveiled vehicle refinancing scheme to own their own dream cars, the Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON) is said to have called the attention of the government to the failure of the auto assembly plants that promised to roll out made-in-Nigeria vehicles to approach the agency for standardisation of their products. The agency reportedly insisted that any vehicle coming out of the assembly plants must meet the Nigerian standard before the policy could be implemented.

    But as far as government and operators in the local auto industry are concerned, those opposed to the auto policy are merely using scare tactics against a progressive policy designed to make cars cheaper in Nigeria, domesticate their production, create jobs and bring about transfer of technology.

    According to them,  those citing lack of infrastructure as reason why Nigeria should not venture into local production are missing the point. No nation, NAMA argued, for intance, has had to wait till all the necessary infrastructure is put in place before venturing into production. The association praised government for defending the policy and warned the public against being “swayed or fooled by laggards” who failed to move in response to the very strong stimulus provided by government. It alsourged Nigerians to bear with the government, listing some countries that have gained from such policy as South Africa, Brazil, India, Egypt, and Thailand.

    Can Nigeria ride on its auto policy to replicate the successes of the afore-mentioned countries? The answer, perhaps, lies in her ability to set her priorities right and address comprehensively the numerous challenges before the policy.

    astructure, reports Chikodi Okereocha.

  • ASUU spokesman got it wrong

    I was quite bemused by the reference by ASUU spokesman, Dr. Olusegun Ajiboye, to my enjoyment of Duquesne University’s reputed Flex benefits for its members of academic and non-academic staff while denying similar benefits to ASUU members. First, in most instances, as its very name suggests, the Flex Benefits Program at Duquesne was flexible. It was also contributory. The university simply matched, up to a predetermined ratio, whatever amount had been contributed by the staff. For example, each faculty or staff made individual decision about how much he or she would contribute towards retirement, pension, life insurance etc.

    In my case, I contributed 12% of my salary towards retirement and pension but the university was obligated to contribute not more than six percent of my wages towards my retirement portfolios which had been divided by me into different mutual funds like Vanguard, Lincoln, Travelers and TIAA-CREF. At the same time, there were colleagues who contributed only 3, 4 or 5% of their wages towards retirement and thus enjoyed less than the maximum of 6% which the university was obligated to match. In accordance with the flexibility of the program, at no time did I contribute towards or enjoy the benefits of Duquesne University Health program. Likewise, whereas some colleagues at Duquesne paid over $1,000 per annum to park on campus, I neither paid for nor enjoyed the campus car park facility. After losing my protest to the university President that the parking charges were excessive, I simply bought a monthly bus pass; I rode public transportation to work. Doing this drastically reduced expenditure on car maintenance while still enabling me to get to and from work at a cost of less than half of what I would have been paying just to park.

    The flexibility in Duquesne University benefits program paled into insignificance when compared to the flexibility in salary structure. I joined Duquesne University employment with superlative credentials that aided my bargaining power in matters of salary. Indeed, I was the highest paid Assistant Professor in Duquesne University’s College of Liberal Arts which at the time included all Science as well as Arts Departments. God enabled me to enjoy such exceptional successes in grantsmanship that I was offered an assurance of at least a 10% annual salary increase for three years at a time when annual salary increase in the university averaged 3.5% and some faculty were given no increase at all! The university knew that I would take my service elsewhere if it failed to make attractive offers to retain me. The consequence of this was that by the time I became an Associate Professor, my salary had already outstripped those of my colleagues in the same Department. Even so, whatever I earned was far less than what an Assistant Professor was earning in the College of Pharmacy where a beginning Assistant Professor’s salary exceeded those of some full Professors in the College of Liberal Arts! It is noteworthy that when the stock market bubble got burst in the USA, with the concomitant reduction of university revenues, Duquesne University like many universities across the USA, froze salary increase for a few years! My wife is a Professor and chairperson at Roosevelt University, Chicago, Illinois, where salary and wages have been frozen for the last three years. Since Dr. Ajiboye admired Duquesne University Flex benefits program so much, would he canvass that ASUU adopt such flexibility rather than the current system where a Professor of Engineering at the University of Lagos enjoys similar salary structure as a Professor Religious Study at Ibadan and a Professor of History at Ile-Ife?

    There are five universities within a four mile radius of Duquesne University. One of these is Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) where I taught before moving to Duquesne. Each of these universities had salary, wages and benefits structure that were unique to its own institution. For example, CMU contributed a fixed percentage of a staff’s salary towards retirement regardless of whether or not the staff contributed. By contrast, Duquesne University contributed nothing towards the retirement funds of a staff or faculty who chose not to contribute. In any case, would ASUU embrace the disparity in salaries paid at Carnegie Mellon University versus Duquesne University?

    I took a 38% salary reduction when I moved from Carnegie Mellon University to Duquesne University. Such disparity is constitutive even among universities owned by the same state government. The University of Georgia in Athens, the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, the Georgia State University in Atlanta and the Georgia Southern University in Statesboro are owned and funded principally by the Government of the State of Georgia. Even so, there is significant disparity in the salary structures of these universities.

    At CMU, the saying that science is a bad concubine reflected the long hours that faculty spent in their laboratory sometimes at the expense of social and family life. However, all things being equal, those who spend long hours in their laboratory achieve enhanced research and scholarly productivity that results in timely or even accelerated promotion. Only in Nigeria would an academician demand overtime allowances under the euphemism of Excessive Work load Allowances. Such a demand would seem incongruous across the world.

    There is no question that the enormous rot in Nigeria’s education sector cries for urgent and immediate attention. But as unpopular as saying so might make me to the membership of ASUU, the truth is that ASUU has been a part of the problem. I would gladly love to engage Dr. Ajiboye in a prime time televised debate on my assertion.

    Now, even as I did during my contribution on the floor of the senate, let us direct our attention to some practical solutions to this most pressing national crisis.

    First, the National Assembly of Nigeria should henceforth appropriate at least 26% of Nigeria’s current revenue to education alone. Second, government in Nigeria, especially the Federal Ministry of Education, has been denigrated into a beast of burden. The metastasis of asphyxiating bureaucracy demands the streamlining of the endless parastatals that drain resources while making little or no contribution to national well-being and progress. Third, to raise revenue for funding a national redemption program in education, all imports should attract a mandatory education tax of one percent. Fourth, beginning from January 1, 2014 till December 31, 2018, all workers in Nigeria must contribute 5% of their income as education taxes. Embezzling any amount of these revenues targeted for education should be taken as an act of treason. This should attract the most severe penalty such as impeachment, imprisonment and perhaps death penalty. Fifth, the costs for running the offices of all elected and appointed political office holders should immediately be pruned by 50%. Something tells me that the implacable demands by ASUU are fuelled by resentment at the cult of obscene privileges which Nigerian politicians have become. But our task is to curb needless privileges rather than add to them.

    Finally, as a member of the Education Committee during my tenure in the House of Representatives and now as Vice Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, I have almost always been the strongest advocate for the well-being of Nigerian universities. At a senate hearing not long ago, a chieftain of the National University Commission disparagingly lampooned academic staff of Nigerian universities for depending too much on government rather than obtaining extramural funding as is the case abroad. I was the one who immediately and robustly came to the defence of the academicians. I explained that the comparison was in error for two reasons. First, well funded private grant agencies like Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Howard Hughes Foundation, etc do not exist in Nigeria. Second, it was egregiously incorrect to assert that most research grants in the USA came from outside government. I pointed out that the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the United States Department of Agriculture were federal government agencies which principally fund research in science, health, and agriculture, respectively. With the absence of such agencies in Nigeria, I submitted that it was unfair to blame the academicians.

    • Prof Adeyeye is vice chairman, Senate Committee on Education