Tag: governance

  • Good Governance Tour a scam, says ACN

    THE Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) yesterday called for the stoppage of the ‘Good Governance Tour currently embarked upon by Information Minister Labaran Maku and his ‘retinue of people’.

    It described the tour as a huge scam and an illegality, saying those behind it must be made to account for the public funds they have collected in the process.

    In a statement in Lagos by its National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the party also praised Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomhole for rejecting a multi-million-naira proposal from the Minister asking the state government to bankroll the Edo leg of the tour.

    It said such a tour as currently being led by the Minister across the country is an illegality in a federalism, the system of government which Nigeria is running, because it distorts the Constitution and gives the impression that the Federal Government is a supervisor of the various states.

    ACN said:“Under our federalism, no state is subject to any control from the Federal Government, and no Governor is mandated to report to the President. To now have a team assembled by the Federal Government inspecting the projects being carried out by the various states is not only fraudulent and illegal, but amounts to a blatant waste of public funds. It is a carry-over from the days of military rule under which Nigeria was governed as a unitary state.

    “It is also a case of double jeopardy for the states, whose projects are made to look like they are being executed by the Federal Government, while at the same time they (states) are being made to pay for the meaningless tour.

    “We say, unequivocally, that this tour fits into other fraudulent schemes concocted by this Federal Government to swindle the people, enrich a few and pad its war chest for the 2015 elections, and we are talking here of SURE-P as well as the oil subsidy and the pension fund scam. This jamboree must end today!” ACN said.

    The party asked whether the Federal Government that initiated the tour has allocated any funds to it, adding: ‘’If this answer is yes, why are states being asked to cough out millions of naira for it. And if the answer is no, why must states be made to pay for a Federal Government-initiated tour?”

    It went on: “If the Federal Government has any project to showcase anywhere in the country, it is its prerogative to do so without extorting money from the states. And where it has nothing to showcase, it is fraudulent to be showcasing the projects embarked upon by state governments, many of which are not even under the same party as the Federal Government, hence they have their own mandates based on their party manifestoes.

    “Wouldn’t it be laughable to see the Minister of Information questioning contractors of projects being executed by state governments or issue ultimatums to contractors he did not hire? Minister Maku should immediately put an end to the jamboree he is leading, declare all the public funds he has collected in the name of this tour and return such to the state governments that have been swindled under the so-called ‘’Good Governance Tour.”

  • Aregbesola, Opadokun call for good governance

    Aregbesola, Opadokun call for good governance

    he venue was the historic Freedom Park, Lagos. Statesmen and activists converged for a candle light procession as part of activities marking the ‘Black History Month’ celebrations. Organised by the Lagos Theatre Association, the ceremony, the first of its kind in Nigeria, reminded the people about the heroic contributions of freedom fighters in United States who paid the supreme price.

    The celebration was initiated by the American historian, Carter Woodson, in 1926.

    At the ceremony, Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola revisited the United Nations Charter on the Rights of Man and Freedom. Represented by the Home Affairs, Culture and Tourism Commissioner Sikiru Adetona, the governor charged Nigerians to defend their rights at all times.

    Aregbesola also called for good governance, urging the government to provide the basic amenities for the people.

    He said: “Every man has the inalienable rights to freedom, the right to the good things of life, the right to associate, and the rights be protected”.

    A Former Lagos State Military Governor Nduibisi Kanu, who witnessed the event, lamented that the legacies of the black man are not honoured.

    He said: “We are here at the Freedom Park to celebrate because the people are still moving on in the face of the numerous challenges. It is very significant because it is taking place at the Freedom Park, the venue which had served as the detention camp for those on death rolls.But with the new name, Freedom Park, Nigeria must be free in all ramifications. “

    Former National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) National Secretary Ayo Opadokun urged the government to provide basic needs for the people. He said: “Nigeria has the capacity to become one of the world’s best, but because the laws are lopsided and are not stridently applied, funds are misappropriated. Those behind it have not been adequately sanctioned, hence, corruption is prevalent in the land”.

    Opadokun said Nigeria has not been a good example for the black man because it has not managed its affairs properly, 53 years after independence.

    He added:“This is a country that has collected over $400 billion in petroleum fund and yet its people are the most wretched in the world. This is a contradiction that cannot be explained and government needs to totally re-order its priority.

    “We must appreciate that a lot of damage had been done. When we talk about the youth that they are the leaders of tomorrow, a large portion of them had sold their birthright for anything”.

    Chiding the corrupt and inept leadership, he said: “Successive rulers of our country, particularly the military, their surrogates and their fellow confederates, have worsened the plight of the ordinary man in Nigeria.”

    The chairman of Amuwo Odofin Local Government Area, Comrade Ayodele Adewale, led the people in the solidarity songs at the ceremony. He spoke on the imperative of the Sovereign National Conference (SNC) where the problems facing the country would be discussed.

    He said the 199 Constitution was put in place to serve the narrow interest of the few, adding it cannot adequately guarantee the freedom and rights of the people. He said: “The constitution has never been that of the people; therefore, it will not do what we want; it is meant to serve some peoples’ interest”.

    Adewale explained that the Pro-National Conference Organisation ( PRONACO)’s position on the national conference has been justified by the development in the country.

    He stressed: “I must say that slavery will never leave us alone, until we decide to break the chain of slavery. We would soon be going into another political voyage, which will start with the voter’s register. Many of you will sell your birthright very soon, either for N1000 or a box of matches, rice or salt, as the case may be. To break the chain, you must be determined to follow your conscience and, of course, do what is right”.

    A leader of the Ohaneze Cultural Group, Mrs. Kate Onyechere,` expressed sadness that those who were part of the plot to sell their fellow human beings for economic reasons have retarded the growth of the black continent. But she said that no force can stop the black race from emerging in the modern world.

    Onyechere added: “We are not happy that we sold our brothers to slavery. That is why we are here today to join in this commemorative celebration of Black History Month in Nigeria. I pray that those who passed on during the slave trade will find a place with God because the white people were harsh in the manner they transported them across the seas”.

    Former PRONACO Director of Strategy Comrade Linus Okoroji said this is the time government should come up with plans for the people and purge itself of corrupt tendencies.

    He doubted, if the country can make progress, unless leaders do away with corruption.

    Okoroji said: “A situation where government officials pocket money meant for the development of the country cannot help the country and if corruption persists, it is not in the interest of the country.”

     

     

     

     

  • Bayelsa’s new gospel  of good governance

    Bayelsa’s new gospel of good governance

    In this article, FRANCIS AGBO examines the achievements of the Dickson Administration in the last one year.

    On Thursday, February 14, 2013, Hon. Henry Seriake Dickson will be one year in office as the fourth executive governor of Bayelsa State. Dickson’s journey to the Creek Haven was rough and tortuous. He had an intolerant incumbent to contend with. First, the former governor, Chief Timipre Sylva, in 2008, set up a kangaroo commission of enquiry to indict him, with the aim of making him unelectable, and a warrant of arrest was subsequently issued on him. When Sylva failed to cage Dickson, he moved to stop his re-election to the House of Representatives by sponsoring another candidate, Williams Ofoni. But Dickson prevailed against all odds. And then came the main battle to unseat Sylva after five years in office.

    Like the young David in the Bible, who led the Israelites to a battle against the Philistines, and used a mere sling to defeat Goliath of Gath, the dreaded warrior whose height was six cubits and a span, Dickson, fired by the conviction to deliver Bayelsans from the shackles of underdevelopment and oppression, went into a political war with a bare hand against Sylva. And despite Sylva’s deployment of the state resources to sit tight, the cop-turned lawyer floored Sylva from the very blast of whistle, and even at the Supreme Court. The rest, as they say, is history. Barely one year into his administration, the former federal legislator from Sagbama/ Ekeremor Constituency has redesigned the architecture of governance in the only Ijaw homogenous state. The testimonies of Bayelsans, especially from the masses, show clearly that they couldn’t have fared better. Yet, the governor, in his usual element, is not keen at rolling out the red carpet.

    Like the former leader of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kwan Yew, who turned around the fortunes of his country by leap-frogging Singapore from third world to first world, Dickson used the last one year to plan and hit the ground running, laying a solid foundation for the rapid development of Bayelsa State. Though his predecessor collected over N650 billion federal allocations (IGR and other grants not inclusive), Dickson inherited a hugely indebted state running into over N66 billion, with a bloated monthly wage bill of over N6billion, with staff morale at the lowest ebb. The staff audit conducted by the government showed that the bulk of the money went to ghost workers and ghost institutions. Governor Dickson has since brought sanity to public service by stopping the fraud and prosecuting the culprits.

    While taking his oath of office on February 14 last year, Dickson, popularly known as Contriman, because of his manifest connect with the grassroots and Ijaw cause, proclaimed free and compulsory education in the state. He promised to drastically trim the cost of governance, deliver developmental projects to the people and change the governance culture in the state through the enthronement of purposeful leadership that is anchored on justice, fairness, transparency and accountability. So far, the governor has walked the talk so much so that ordinary Bayelsans now call him the ‘‘talk and do governor.’’ The Dickson Administration has already constructed 41 roads, erected 18 buildings which include schools and a multi-million naira world class diagnostic centre as well as a door court house, which are to be commissioned on February 14. The administration has built an ultra- modern prison, completed and furnished the national headquarters of the Ijaw National Council, both of which have been put to use. There are other ongoing projects in the state, including the Deep Sea Port in Agger, Yenagoa Airport, the three senatorial roads, to mention but a few. The governor has promised to complete the Tower Hotel, Yenagoa and all the viable projects inherited from past administrations. Above all, there is peace, security and social justice in the once restive state, thanks to the huge investments in security and the financial autonomy granted the state judiciary by the Dickson’s administration.

    In the past, N1.685 billion was set aside monthly to run the Government House, Yenagoa, otherwise known as Creek Haven. But the Contriman has shown clearly that he is a leader of conviction and not convenience when he denied himself the luxury of living like a king. He cut Government house expenses to about N657,460,000 million, thereby saving over N1 billion for the hugely indebted state, while pensioners are smiling to the bank with over N500 million paid to them as gratuity.

    He has turned a hitherto recluse Bayelsa to a tourism and investment destination. The question those who may not have keenly followed his government may ask is, how did he achieve this feat? First, Governor Dickson invested heavily in security, outlawed kidnapping, secret cultism and all forms of criminalities hitherto used by politicians, especially incumbents, to oppress their opponents and drive away contractors from sites. Recently, Dickson prescribed death penalty for kidnappers. The governor also enacted the Compulsory Savings Law, Transparency and Accountability Law which made it mandatory for him to be prudent and accountable to the people. And with the savings regime, the state is fully prepared for the rainy day. This also implies that it will neither be indebted to businessmen nor be broke and investors are assured of great returns for their investments.

    Indeed, these measures coupled with the governor’s integrity and track record of service, helped to restore investors’ confidence in the state and that was the magic wand that made them to scramble for investment opportunities in Bayelsa.

    As Governor Dickson turns one year in office, he exudes six cardinal qualities, which make him stand tall in the comity of governors: integrity, uncommon courage, vision, conviction, service to mankind and fear of God. Indeed, it takes a man with the fear of God and audacity to sacrifice his comfort by cutting Creek Haven allocation, banned cultism and made it punishable by death with no option of fine.

    Similarly, it takes a man of conviction to honour late General Sani Abacha for creating Bayelsa State. Like the living legend, Chief Dan Agbese, posited in his column, the award came at a period in Nigerian history when identifying with the late general was like committing political hara-kiri. But Governor Dickson reputed for working according to his conscience immortalized the late General by naming an estate in the state capital after him and conferred Ijaw name on his first son, Mohammed.

    It takes a man with these qualities to declare a functional free and compulsory education in Bayelsa State. Before Dickson came to judgement in Creek Haven, no governor dared to implement free and compulsory education. The thinking, especially during the immediate past administration, was that, if education was free, there may not be enough money for the power elite to share.

    Today, the entire education sector has changed for the better. Government provides the following items free to pupils and students: textbooks, uniforms, sandals, bags, and writing materials. Government is also responsible for the payment of WAEC, NECO, and JAMB forms fees for students. Already, 400 primary schools and staff quarters for headmasters and principals are under construction across the state. Similarly, Dickson has spent over N3.1 billion, the first of its kind, on the education of indigent students of Ijaw nationality who are covered by the Bayelsa State Scholarship Scheme.

    Born on the 28th January, 1966 in the rustic riverine Toru- Orua in Sagbama Local Government Area of Bayelsa State to the family of Mr. and Mrs. Nanaye Dickson of Orua, a descendant of the famous King Kpadia Royal House of Tarakiri Kingdom, Dickson is also a descendant of the renowned Obu warrior family of Orua, whose trademark are valour, bravery and honour Dickson attended Kolobiriowei Primary School, Toru-Orua from 1972 to 1978 where he got his First School Leaving Certificate and proceeded to Government Secondary School, Toru-Ebeni between 1978 to 1983 and obtained his West African School Certificate (WASC/GCE).

    Dickson joined the Nigeria Police Force in 1986 to raise money to further his education because his parents could no longer cater for his schooling. He gained admission in 1988 to the Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt to study Law, graduating with LL.B (HONS.) in 1992. He proceeded in 1993 to earn his Bachelors of Law (B.L.HONS) from the Nigeria Law School, Lagos and was called to the Nigeria Bar the same year.

    He was Cadet Assistant Superintendent of Police in 1994, but withdrew his service to start legal practice in Port Harcourt where he worked with Serena David Dokubo & Co. He was an associate solicitor from 1994 to 1995 and moved to Aluko & Oyebode, a prominent Law firm in Lagos, in a similar position.

    In 1996, he founded Seriake Dickson & Coa Law Firm in Port Harcourt and later, Yenagoa. He was elected the pioneer Publicity Secretary, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) Bayelsa State Chapter, a position he held from 1996 to 1998.

    In 1998, when all the bigwigs in Bayelsa were either in PDP or APP, (now ANPP), Dickson chose to pitch tent with the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and was elected its chairman between 1998 to 2000. He led the party to winning all the elections in Bayelsa West Senatorial District. Indeed, Bayelsa State was the only state the party recorded such victory outside the core Yoruba- speaking states. The party apparatchik rewarded him by elevating him to the post of National Legal Adviser between 2000 and 2002.

    He was elected National Legal Adviser of the foremost Pan-Ijaw socio-cultural and political group, the Ijaw National Congress (INC) from 2001 to 2003. He became a member of the National Executive Committee (NEC), Nigeria Bar Association between 2004 and 2006.

    The crisis in the defunct AD, coupled with his desire to help President Goodluck Jonathan, who was deputy governor at the time to succeed the former governor, Chief DSP Alamieyesiegha, made Dickson to join the PDP in 2005. He became the secretary of Jonathan’s political group, ‘Green Movement’, in 2006. Dickson was appointed the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Bayelsa State in 2006 by former Governor Jonathan, following the exit of Alamiesiegha.

    He was elected a member of the House of Representatives from the Sagbama/Ekeremor Constituency. Dickson served as the Chairman, House Committee on Justice. He was re-elected in 2011, but resigned after he was elected governor. In appreciation of his service to his community, Dickson was conferred with the prestigious title: Olokodau of Orua Kingdom.

    As a lawmaker, he sponsored so many critical bills, which have been passed into law and played a key role in the success recorded by the sixth National Assembly. But what is not often remembered about Dickson and for which he has not received sufficient encomium was his role in the passage of the Freedom of Information Bill at the National Assembly where he served as the Vice Chairman of the FOIB Harmonization Committee and his delivery of an entire senatorial district to AD in 1998 and 1999, as well as his amendment of the Evidence Act, the first ever since 1954.

    The lesson from Dickson’s story is that, if this man who did not see a moving vehicle until he was 18 years old could work so hard to be governor, then there are limitless opportunities for all Bayelsan youths, if they take advantage of the enabling environment created by this government. If Dickson sustains the tempo, Bayelsa will be one of the centres of attraction in Nigeria.

     

  • Nigeria’s quest for environment governance

    • Continued from last week

    Potential plaintiffs also have to contend with the additional

    problem of funding public litigation, and meeting existing limitations on scope of review. Consequently, the fact of grant to access alone is not to be interpreted as tantamount to giving such litigants a more or less powerful position. The time is therefore ripe for Nigeria to enact laws that will at least provide for the intermediate approach.

    vi) Causation

    Another significant hurdle in pursuing a cause of action under civil liability regime is the difficulty of proving causation. Not only is the plaintiff expected to show the connection between pollution and the personal injury suffered, he is also required to show the link between the pollution and the activities of the defendant. In other words, the alleged wrongful behaviour must be the condition sine qua non of the harm. The harm would not have occurred without the wrongful behaviour.119 For environmental matters, the problems that do occur in relation to proof of causation are several – there may be several simultaneous sources, some of which may be far away from the place where the harmful consequences appear; new pollutants may form in the air or water as a result of chemical reactions of several pollutants; contamination may not directly cause any specific death or morbidity, but may have aggravated existing health problems;120 and, the plaintiff may not be able to have access to critical information such as investigations of federal and state agencies regarding the sources of pollution.121

    Following the decision in Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd,122 the approach now would appear to be that in traumatic injury cases, the ‘but for’ test applies; in cumulative injury cases, the claimant need only show that the defendant’s breach of duty made a material contribution to the injury, i.e. caused part of the injury; and in ‘one off’ cases, the claimant needs only show that the defendant’s breach of duty increased the risk that the claimant might suffer the relevant injury.123 Despite the above development, it is recognized by environmental practitioners that environmentally based injury claims are still difficult to progress in the face of causal uncertainty. This has resulted in a succession of unsuccessful environmental claims.124

    Some commentators have argued that courts should not put too heavy a burden on the plaintiff as far as the requirements of proving a causing relationship is concerned and should also accept plausible presumptions as sufficient evidence125. The concern with these, however, is that it would mean an explicit development of the law in a way that is inappropriate for the judiciary. 126 Further, that it would render the notion of foresight meaningless. These were the reasons why legislative action became necessary with the evolution of statutory liability or strict liability legislation. Regrettably, the exceptions that are often made a feature of statutory or strict liability regimes are such that they end up seriously limiting the rights of a victim to compensation. An example in this area will suffice.

    Under the Nigerian law, the polluter pays principle is very much touted as applicable in the oil and gas industry. However, a polluter is exempted from paying compensation for oil pollution arising as a result of oil spill caused by sabotage unless negligence can be proved on the part of the polluter, his servants or agents, and that such negligence is the cause of the damage suffered.127 The philosophy behind this position is clearly to encourage community members to be more vigilant in the protection of oil pipeline installations and report culprits to the relevant authorities. Not many will, however, doubt the fact that sabotage is both dangerous and difficult (if not impossible) to monitor by private individuals not directly engaged for the purpose. Consequently, what the law has done contrary to the principle of fairness is to exclude damage caused by sabotage from compensatory payment in a way that infringed on the economic rights of innocent third party victims who are not culprit in the unholy act of sabotage.

    For as long as statutory or strict liability remains limited through the use of exceptions, it would always result in environmental injustice. A person who creates a risk and benefits from it should be responsible for the negative consequences of damages that arise therefrom, and fault or wrongfulness do not need to be proven. Exceptions at best should be to protect against criminal liability. Nigeria must urgently revisit her regime of strict liability to ensure that it does not only take place in a systematic way, but also in a way that is pragmatic and well balanced in its protection of the innocent. The legislature should seek to express its target more clearly in laws and regulations in order to ensure that undue and overreaching limitations are not imposed by misguided exceptions. The utilisation of the ecological funds should also be revisited such that while arguments about liability is ongoing, it will not delay restoration and put vulnerable communities in a state of helplessness.

     

    Judicial Response to a Green

    Culture

    Mr. Director – General, judicial systems play a critical role in the enforcement of environmental policies and achievement of sustainable development. Indeed, the judiciary, more than any other institution is appropriately placed to not only adjudicate, but also to inform, guide and provide leadership. Where the judiciary is assertive, innovative and inspirational, it will consistently keep the executive and the legislature on their toes in the implementation of appropriate environmental strategies.

    If past experience is anything to go by, we can learn from the role that the judiciary played in aid of the period of industrial revolution, the technology of which ironically is antithetical to green technologies that are being canvassed today. During that era, new factories were the subject of several pollution suits filed under the common law. Applying the principles of nuisance, in particular, courts expelled with regularity nuisance causing activities to the outskirts of the town.128 This attitude, however, was not to last for long. Globally, economic development was at the time the name of the game, thus, the dynamics changed and the hitherto unfettered enjoyment of property became subject to the demands of economic value, productive use and economic development. The situation remained this way for several decades because there was no conclusive scientific evidence of what harm the industrial revolution technologies presented. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, evidence that they were harmful was beginning to come to the fore.

    Today, international scientific cooperation and collaboration have placed beyond doubt129 the need for cleaner technologies if our world is to achieve sustainable development and meet the challenges of poverty, inequality, climate change, unsustainable consumption of natural resources, resource scarcity and loss of biodiversity among others. The unfolding development accounts for the judicial activism that is now taking place in a number of jurisdictions in support of environmental visions. No longer is the judiciary taking the back seat in efforts at ensuring that development is pursued in such a way that it meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations.

    To be fair to the judiciary in Nigeria, as I have earlier stated, there are constraints on the Court. Fundamentally, the Nigerian Constitution does not have the kind of bold and progressive provisions as that in the Indian Constitution which made the right to the environment a fundamental protected right for the benefit of the citizens. This handicap notwithstanding, the judiciary in Nigeria can follow the lead of those in Bangladesh, Thailand and the European Court of Human Rights to name a few, to innovatively and creatively construe provisions of law in ways that will meet the goals of sustainable development and maintenance of ecological balance.

    In Dr. Mohiuddin Faroque’s case,130 the question on appeal before the Appellant Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh was whether the fundamental right to life included the protection and preservation of the environment. In its judgment, The Honourable Justice A.T.M. Afazal, Chief Justice of Bangladesh noted:

    Although we do not have any provision like Article 48A of the Indian Constitution for protection of the environment, Articles 31 and 32 of our Constitution protect right to life as a fundamental right. It encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which, life can hardly be enjoyed.

    Consistent with the above approach, the Thailand Administrative Court in September 2009 issued a temporary order of injunction that could effectively halt all 76 major investment projects relating primarily to energy and petroleum chemicals worth THB 400 billion (USD12.3 billion) at the country’s Map Ta Phut industrial estate and surrounding areas. The court concluded that the Map Ta Phut area has long suffered from pollution problems that are getting worse. It also said that Article 67 of the 2007 Thai Constitution protecting the right of the people to live in a healthy environment must be strictly enforced by concerned government agencies. In particular, government agencies should pre-determine and reject projects that can harm the environment. In the court’s view government agencies had failed to do this, and therefore the approval of the projects was a problem that may infringe on the law.131

    Again, in the case of Guerra & Ors v. Italy,132 which was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights, the object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the Italian Republic of its obligations under Article 10 of the Convention. The core of applicants’ case was that in breach of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’), the failure of the respondent in taking practical measures to reduce pollution levels and major accidents arising out of a particular factory’s operation,133 infringed their right to respect for their lives and physical integrity. Further, that failure of the relevant authorities to inform the public about the hazards and about the procedures to be followed in the event of a major accident infringed their right to freedom of information as guaranteed by Article 10. Finally, they maintained that they have also been victims of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, which protects the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.

    The Court in its judgment noted that severe environmental pollution may affect individuals’ well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely. On the basis that the respondent failed in providing certain essential information that would have enabled the applicants to assess the risks they and their families were running, the Court held that the respondent state did not fulfil its obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

    It is to be acknowledged that one or two lower courts in recent times have in Nigeria shown deference to the green culture and in this regard have given judgments geared towards protection of the environment.134 It is respectfully submitted that such an approach may not go too far. What is required is for the Supreme Court as the apex court, to set the tone for other courts to follow. Furthermore, bearing in mind that environmental law is a fairly recent branch of law, continuous training of judges in this area as called for by Global Judges’ Symposium on the Rule of Law and Sustainable Development is critical. I am aware that the National Judicial Council has organized programmes in this area in times past. This should be made more regular in order to keep judicial officers abreast of latest development in this field.

  • Nigeria’s quest for environment governance

    Nigeria’s quest for environment governance

    • Continued from last week

    As pointed out by Atkin J. in Mousell Brothers Ltd v. London and North-Western Railway Co.:76

    … while prima facie a principal is not to be made criminally responsible for the acts of his servants, yet the legislature may prohibit an act or enforce a duty in such words as to make the prohibition or the duty absolute; in which case the principal is liable if the act is in fact done by his servants. To ascertain whether a particular Act of Parliament has that effect or not regard must be had to the object of the statute, the words used, the nature of the duty laid down, the person upon whom it is imposed, the person by whom it would in ordinary circumstances be performed, and the person upon whom the penalty is imposed.

    It is submitted that it is this kind of purposive approach to corporate liability that should be given in the construction of a provision like section 31 of NESREA Act and similar statutory provisions. Looking at the way regulation 51(1) of the Chemical, Pharmaceutical Soap and Detergent Manufacturing Industries Regulations is structured, one would surmise that its construction will follow in the stead of section 31 of NESREA Act. A further reflection on the provision of regulation 51 (2) will, however, reveal that the said regulation presents a problem.

    The confusion created by regulation 51 relates to the use of the word ‘person’. In the definition segment of the regulation, the word ‘Person’ is defined as ‘…a natural or juristic personality (including ‘facility’). The same definition segment defined ‘Facility’ to mean ‘Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Soap and Detergent Industry’.77 Yet, while regulation 51 (1) used the word ‘Any person’ to qualify situations where the offence is committed by an individual, it proceeded in regulation 51(2) to use the phrase ‘any facility’ to qualify where the offence is committed by a corporate body.

    To start with, going by the definition of ‘Facility’ in the Regulations there is no way the Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Soap and Detergent Industry78 as a body can be guilty of an offence under the Regulations. This clearly constitutes a serious bar to the operation and effective utilization of regulation 51(2) to bring corporate offenders to book under the Regulations. Further, the unusual tack taken by regulation 51(1) in using ‘Any person’ to qualify individual offenders while 51 (2) used ‘any facility’ to qualify corporate offenders has made a total mess of the broad meaning traditionally associated with the word ‘person’. Since regulation 51 (2) is supposedly aimed at corporate offenders, 51 (1) can no longer be extended to cover such offenders. The result is that the Regulations have not appropriately provided for corporate offenders.

    Given the above reality, what one can constructively urge on the courts pending a review of regulation 51 (which sadly is the pattern of the penalty provision of almost all of the Regulations recently introduced by NESREA) is a flexible construction policy that will allow the word ‘facility’ for instance to mean a body corporate within the Chemical, Pharmaceuticals, Soap and Detergent Industry. This will be in line with the golden rule of interpretation and the fundamental position stated by Lord Hobhouse79 that while it is unsatisfactory for a court to be compelled to construe a statute by implying words into it, it is much more unsatisfactory to deprive the statute altogether of meaning. The perplexing problem for the court will be how this will be balanced with another equally important rule of interpretation which requires that statutes must generally be constructed in their plain and unambiguous meaning free from all interpolations. It is not permissible to supply omissions therein even if such omissions are patently unintentional. There is, therefore, an urgent need for a revision of this provision by NESREA.

     

    c) Civil Liability Regime

    In contrast to administrative remedies and command and control regulatory regimes which seek to regulate in the public interest, private legal persons (individuals, corporate bodies and civil society groups) are beginning to show more interest in the use to which civil law mechanisms can be put in the regulation of pollution and general environmental governance. This interest has become heightened in the aftermath of the recognition of the importance of public participation by Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration.80 The primary purpose of the civil justice system is to resolve disputes between two or more parties while the core of the reliefs that it offers e.g. compensation, injunction among others are aimed at providing remedy to a person or their property that has been, or may potentially be, harmed by the conduct of another.

    As has, however, been noted,81 aside of resolving the question of liability for specific incidents, the imposition of civil liability starting with the threat of civil action for personal injury or property damage can act as an incentive to motivate people to act in a particular way. It can also serve as a stimulus to integrate risk management principles into all levels of business decision-making: producers and manufacturers will act so as to reduce and manage their risks. Invariably, the imposition of civil liability not only aids fulfillment of the Precautionary Principle, it also assists the concept of shared responsibility which is the goal of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration.

    Guided by the historical development of civil liability law in Nigeria,82 the starting point for private litigants seeking remedies for harm caused by environmental pollution is the common law,83 using such common law theories as nuisance, trespass, negligence and strict liability.84 This is supplemented from time to time by statute law. The background to common law itself is that the law was created by judges in the courts, on a case by case, solution by solution basis and in an empirical and practical manner. Thus, the common law can be said to be reactive in nature.85 More importantly, however, the application of the doctrine of judicial precedent or stare decisis through which judges are bound by previous judgments of a court of higher level gave rise to accretion of case law which became the common law. As noted by a learned author,86 the implication of the above development for the common law is that it emerged as a complex and tangled web of law, which had many inconsistencies of approach and which provided many answers to some problems and none at all to others.

    With respect to issues relating to environmental damage,87 the way the common law developed is such that its rules relating to liability are not directly concerned with environmental management and preservation of the ecosystem. Rather, they deal with injuries to persons and to property. Consequently, it is only where damage to the environment is incidental to personal and property damage that common law liability rules become relevant to environmental protection. Notwithstanding this limitation in the remedies provided for the environment by the law of tort, because there is no special civil liability regime for environmental damage cases, a plaintiff is still required to comply with the controls in use for regulation of the civil liability regime. Among others, he must bring his case within the statute of limitation; show that he has the standing to commence the action; and establish causation between the harm and the defendant’s conduct. This is despite the fact that the natural resources degraded or the environmental media affected by pollution may be unowned (that is common to all),88 or the injury to health or the environment may occur long after the release or discharge of pollution thereby making detection, causation and linkage difficult to prove.

    It is worth making a few comments about these controls of the civil liability regime, and what options are available in meeting the challenges posed by them.

    Before proceeding to do this, however, it is apposite to note that a number of scholars, including the writer, have stridently urged the courts to in the absence of appropriate applicable statutory provisions innovatively widen the ambit of the common law beyond their traditional and conventional sphere of operation in order to meet the exigencies of environmental policy objectives and governance. The courts have been very reluctant to do this for understandable reasons. The truth is, to depart from ordinarily applicable liability principles, the court requires careful and cogent justification. Otherwise, it may simply lead to distortion and confusion of the existing common law principles. As cautioned by Lord Goff:89

    It is of particular relevance that the present case is concerned with environmental pollution. The protection and preservation of the environment is now perceived as being of crucial importance to the future of mankind: and public bodies, both national and international are taking significant steps towards the establishment of legislation which will promote the protection of the environment, and make the polluter pay for the damage to the environment for which he is responsible – as can be seen from the WHO, EEC and national regulations to which I have previously referred. But it does not follow from these developments that a common law principle, such as the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher should be developed or rendered more strict to provide for liability in respect of such pollution. On the contrary, given that so much well-informed and carefully structured legislation is now being put in place for this purpose, there is less need for the courts to develop a common law principle to achieve the same end, and indeed it may well be undesirable that they should do so.

    The expectation clearly is for statute to fill the gaps where common law is perceived to be insufficient and/or inadequate. In the case of Nigeria, how well has she been able to do this in order to amortise the significant complementary benefit of the civil liability regime? To some of these civil liability litigation controls we shall briefly turn.

     

    (i) Pre-action Notice Procedure

    Pre-action notice is the notice that an aggrieved party or intending plaintiff is expected to formally serve on the other party (the prospective defendant) before the commencement of his action.90 The rationale is to encourage the exchange of early and full information about the prospective legal claim in a way that will enable parties to avoid litigation by agreeing a settlement of the claim before the commencement of proceedings.91 Having regard to its use in Nigeria, pre-action has become a prevalent feature of the enabling law of almost every local government, public corporations, government agencies and institutions.

    It is to be noted that the various government authorities and institutions play a key role in terms of environmental protection particularly in the areas of responsibility for planning control system, investigating and abating nuisances, authorizing emissions, identifying contaminations, monitoring hazardous and toxic substances, promoting new legislation, issuing regulations and general enforcement of compliance.

  • ECOWAS urges reduction in cost of governance

    ECOWAS urges reduction in cost of governance

    • Seeks more tax 

    The Economic Community for West African States(ECOWAS) Commission has ordered all member states to reduce their cost of governance and look for addditional sources of taxation.

    The Director of Multilateral Surveillance, ECOWAS Commission, Lassane Kabore, who represented the President of the ECOWAS Commission, said this yesterday in Abuja at the 34th Technical Committee’s meeting of the West African Monetary Zone (WAMZ).

    He urged “all ECOWAS member States, including the WAMZ countries, to increase domestic revenue mobilisation through effective implementation of programmes aimed at ensuring improved tax payer voluntary compliance, effective tax administration and broadening of the tax base, as well as minimising the operational cost of governance.”

    He was unhappy that the performance of the WAMZ member countries with regards to the secondary convergence criteria, “was slightly above 25 per cent, bringing to the fore the problems of low tax yield and high operational costs of governance in the entire ECOWAS sub- region.”

    Kabore, said as the sub-region moves towards the agreed launch date of 2015 for the second regional currency, the ECOWAS Commission expects “that the WAMZ Member States satisfy the macroeconomic convergence criteria, especially the primary criteria, and sustain their performance on the convergence scale.”

    Though he admitted that achieving this goal has been a daunting challenge for the six member countries of the WAMZ, he lamented that “none of the six WAMZ countries met the required targets of the four primary criteria.”

    The ECOWAS commission was also displeaed that only “three member countries satisfied both the inflation and fiscal deficit criteria, while five countries met the Central Bank deficit financing criterion. With respect to the gross external reserves criterion, no country satisfied the criterion.”

    He described this development as “a dismal performance, compared to the situation in the first half of 2011. In percentage terms, the performance score of the WAMZ countries on the convergence scale during the first half of 2012 was 62.5 per cent, compared to 79.2 per cent during the corresponding period in 2011.”

    ECOWAS Commission, he said, “is committed to the establishment of a credible and sustainable monetary union in the sub-region with the ultimate goal of improving the standard of living of the entire ECOWAS citizenry.”

    In this regard, the ECOWAS Convergence Council (Ministers of Finance and Governors of Central Banks) , “gave the ECOWAS Commission the overall responsibility of coordinating the activities in the Roadmap on the implementation of the ECOWAS Single Currency Programme, in collaboration with all the regional institutions involved in the implementation of the monetary cooperation programme.”

    ECOWAS Commission is working to effectively implement the Roadmap activities, he said, and listed the activities to include, harmonisation and adoption of convergence criteria, harmonisation of statistics, and harmonisation of domestic tax policies as well as harmonisation of public procurement, public debt, accounting and statistical frameworks of public finance.”

    Other activities include removal of all tariff and non-tariff barriers to free movement of goods, persons and services within ECOWAS, and financial market integration (money and capital markets and non-bank financial institutions insurance, Pension/Social Security Funds and industries).

    Earlier, the Deputy Governor, Economic Policy of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mrs Sarah Alade, cautioned WAMZ member countries to “avoid taking hasty decisions that will lead to the failure of the planned monetary union.”

    She said it was important for ECOWAS, the West African Monetary Authority (WAMA) and the West African Monetary Institute (WAMI) to “escalate their collaborative efforts  in order to identify areas of improvement in addressing sound monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies which will promote macro economic stability.”

     

     

     

  • Abia prepares for National Good Governance team

    •ACN urges team to be thorough

    The National Good Governance team, which has been touring the states, will be in Abia from January 16 till 19 to inspect the federal, state and local government projects, it was learnt yesterday.

    The team will also seek the way forward between the state and the Federal Government.

    Addressing reporters in Umuahia, the Abia State capital, the chairman of the Local Organising Committee and Commissioner for Information and Strategy Eze Chikamnayo said the visit would showcase the potentials of the state to the outside world.

    Chikamnayo said it would also help to tell the world that Abia, under Governor Theodore Orji, has done well.

    He said: “The tour is an avenue to showcase to Nigerians and indeed the world that democracy is really working in Abia State and that our people are happy for this. It will also offer us the opportunity to further cement the existing cordial relationship between the state and the Federal Government.”

    The commissioner noted that the low crime rate in the state is a testimony that the huge investment and doggedness of the governor on security have paid off.

    Chikamnayo said: “Today, our state has become a referral centre on security matters and our governor has received many awards for this wonderful achievement and it is our expectation that investors will take the advantage of this since business can only be done in a secured environment.”

    The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) Publicity Secretary in the state, Offor Okorie, urged the visiting team, led by the Minister of Information, Labaran Maku, to examine the projects well.

    Okorie said there are many things that have not been done for the people.

    He urged the governor to tour the 17 local governments to see things for himself.

     

  • Nigeria’s quest for environment governance

    This is on the premise that environmental crime (unlike ‘real’ crimes such as murder or theft) is not inherently immoral, but, rather made unlawful only by statute. Further, they argue that most of the pollution that are sought to be criminalised are consequences of industrial activities that provide the society with significant benefits and that were hitherto perfectly lawful and considered to be acceptable.

    The above has led to calls to distinguish between routine cases of environmental harm that results from general activities and environmental crimes that have been wilfully committed to personal or business advantage. The former, it is argued, should attract civil penalties and administrative sanctions while criminal sanctions should lie for the latter. Indeed, the fact that most environmental offences impose strict liability is an acknowledgment that mens rea and actus reus does not always coincide. All that needs to be proved is the act or omission that forms part of the offence. To, however, mitigate the potential unfairness of absolute strict liability, statutory defences are at times introduced, or ‘knowledge of violation’ is introduced as a threshold in imposing criminal penalties.

    The concerns that have been raised in relation to environmental justice in criminal law are that prosecution is costly and that many crimes go unpunished. Second is that those crimes that are prosecuted are not punished severely enough either because the levels of fines are low or that sentences are significantly reduced. The reason for the first concern is that the central aim of enforcement of environmental regulation is to prevent harm to the environment or human health, rather than to detect and then punish those who caused the harm.Consequently, in the enforcement pyramid, emphasis is more on all mechanisms other than prosecution in order to promote compliance. It is for this reason that prosecution end up being used on the very small minority of trenchant recalcitrants.66 This is not to say that there is any consistency in the way regulatory officers exercise discretion in relation to prosecution. Indeed, for Nigeria, it can be said without fear of contradiction that there is no accurate picture of prosecution and sentencing for environmental crime.

    With regard to the second concern, that fines are seemingly arbitrary and insignificant is true in fact. By way of example, section 6 of the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (Establishment) Act, 2006 detailed the functions of the Agency. One of its core functions is its responsibility for surveillance and ensuring compliance with all existing environmental legislation and the detection of oil spills in the petroleum sector. There are also special functions stipulated for the Agency under Section 7 of the Act. Despite these enormous responsibilities, there is no general provision for offences under the Act. The only provision that has anything to do with commission of offences are sections 6 (2) and (3). They provide as follows:

    6 (2) An oil spiller is by this Act to report an oil spill to the Agency in writing not later than 24 hours after the occurrence of an oil spill, in default of which the failure to report shall attract a penalty in the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000) for each day of failure to report the occurrence.

    (3)The failure to clean up the impacted site, to all practical extent including remediation, shall attract a further fine of one million Naira.

    In relation to section 6 (2), reason dictates that if there is a failure to report, it will be most difficult to come to terms with when exactly the incident occurred. As is always the case, the scenario will be one of disputes, arguments and counter-arguments. Local host communities will give one date as the date of occurrence while the oil company gives another date. Failure to report is without doubt a premeditated and deliberate act on the part of the oil company with a view to profit therefrom by escaping liability. Thus, one would have thought that this should be taken into account when passing a sentence. What will signal the seriousness of the crime in this particular instance is the sentencing option of imprisonment at the minimum and to which can then be added a monetary fine. The implication of this is that significant as the continuing daily fine of N500,000 post conviction would appear to be, it cannot be effective. In relation to section 6(3), the negative consequences of an oil spill and the immense problems of assessment and quantification of damages are so enormous that a fine of one million naira is simply too insignificant for an offender who deliberately refused to live up to its responsibility of remediating an impacted site.

    What is reflected in provisions like section 6(2) and (3) is that the true cost of crime to society and the environment have not been reflected in the law. Offenders are supposed to be punished appropriately. Not only should the law ensure that the polluter pays the price for the environmental harm caused, the offender should also not profit from the offence, even after being sentenced. Provisions like section 6 (2) and (3) leave the court with not much of a choice of sentencing options and it would be most absurd to turn around to blame the court for not imposing a sentence proportionate to the offence. The knock-on-effect of the above is that the concept of deterrence is not allowed a meaningful role in environmental crimes, while potential offenders find it cheaper on cost-benefit analysis to pollute and pay a fine than to comply with a regulatory regime that will minimise or avoid pollution incidents altogether.

    At the minimum, there are four principles that an effective criminal sanction regime must capture, namely, proportionality in the application of law and in securing compliance; consistency of approach; transparency about how the regulatory agency operates; and the targeting of enforcement action at activities that give rise to the most serious environmental damage or in relation to which the hazards are least well controlled. There is obviously the need to review the use of the criminal sanctions in Nigeria’s environmental statutes. To do this effectively, there is an urgent need for a body like NESREA to coordinate cooperatively with other stakeholders the development of a general policy on enforcement and prosecution. Such a document will not only cover the principles that will guide regulatory agencies in making enforcement and prosecution decisions, it will also guide enforcement response where an offence has been committed. This will assist to secure a more consistent approach to enforcement across the board. Environment agencies should also in the context of a policy of ‘name and shame’ set out on annual basis key data on prosecutions and convictions particularly as regards business environmental performance.

    Another area that has the potential to create serious concern for prosecutors and the court is the situation under which a company may be held to account for the acts of its employees. This raises the key question of corporate criminal liability. Studies suggest that individuals are responsible for the majority of environmental crimes. The most significant acts of environmental harm arising as a result of violation of pollution control legislation are however caused by companies because of the scale of industrial operations. The structure of big companies means that it is a difficult task to identify the root cause of many pollution incidents. In the face of contentions that obscure the blame worthiness of offending companies, how are prosecutors and the courts to be guided?

    The position would appear to be that where reference in the law is to a person responsible, it should be assumed that ‘person’ is to be given the broad meaning to include a body of person incorporated or unincorporated, unless a contrary intention appears. By way of example, section 31 of NESREA Act provides:

    A person who obstructs an officer of the Agency in the performance of his duties under section 3 of this Act commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not less than N200,000 for an individual or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment, and an additional fine of N20,000 for each day the offence subsists and in the case of a body corporate, it shall be liable for a fine of N2,000,000 on conviction and an additional fine of N200,000 for everyday the offence subsists.

    Another approach is that adopted in the National Environmental (Chemical, Pharmaceutical, Soap and Detergent Manufacturing Industries) Regulations, 2009. After creating different kinds of offences in regulations 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 it proceeded in regulation 51 to establish a penalty provisions thus:

    51 (1)Any person who violates any of the provisions of regulations 46 to 50 of these Regulations commits an offence and shall on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding N200,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment and an additional fine of N50,000 for every day the offence subsists.

    (2) Where an offence under sub-regulation (1) of this regulation is committed by any facility, it shall on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding N1,000,000 and an additional fine of N50,000 for every day the offence subsists.

    The macroscopic approach hitherto adopted is to think that corporate liability would only be established in cases in which the employees responsible were of sufficient seniority to be viewed as the ‘controlling mind’ of the company. The reality, however, is that many pollution incidents are the responsibility of operational staff whose status cannot be categorized as the ‘controlling mind’. It is thus clear that adopting a broad (rather than narrow) view of what will rest corporate liability will permit a more accurate overall contribution of the constructive role to be played by criminal law. Following therefrom, the courts have held that the actions of employees will create corporate criminal liability if it is clear that the relevant statutory purposes would be defeated if a company could not be prosecuted for the acts of its employees.

    In large measure, and depending on the language of the statute, in circumstances where there is the need for proof of criminal intent or negligence it will be appropriate to seek for the individual who committed the offence. Where, on the other hand, it is a case of strict liability offences, there will be a deviation from the general rule that criminal liability is personal in order to impose vicarious liability.

    In the case of National Rivers Authority v. Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd, the defendant AMHE caused water pollution during construction works. At the trial, AMHE was acquitted on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that the employees that had caused the pollution were of sufficiently senior standing within the company to bind the company by their actions. On appeal, the court found AMHE to be liable. Moorland J. placed heavy reliance on the purposive approach to vicarious liability, namely, that the offence under section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 was designed to prevent water pollution. If therefore the legislation is to be made effective, there was a necessary implication that companies should be liable for the acts or omissions of all of their employees as opposed to simply the senior employees who were the ‘controlling mind’. Moorland J emphasized this by referring to the idea that companies were, in fact, best placed to control activities of even very junior employees through such things as training and supervision.

  • The rhythm of governance in Osun

    The rhythm of governance in Osun

    When the 19th century British novelist and critic, Aldous Leonard Huxley, wrote that “experience is not what happens to a man, it is what a man does with what happens to him”. One man who fits into his philosophy is no doubt the incumbent governor of the state of Osun, Ogbeni Rauf Adesoji Aregbesola, whom, to all intent and purposes, is a study in administration. “Rauf” as he is fondly called by his admirers represents so many things to so many people. For some, he is the arrogant, boastful and brassy fellow, who happened on the governorship seat of the state of Osun by mere providence. They see him as a schemer; who initially presented a humble façade to hoodwink the hapless people of the state of Osun before baring his fangs. To them, even if the governor change the status of the backwater state to ‘Paris’, it just won’t score in their performance sheet. To others, Rauf is God sent. A quintessential leader, who is perpetually angry at the state of development of the state; a man set to change the Osun epic, to lift the people from the doldrums of poverty and underdevelopment, to one of poverty reduction, wealth creation and accelerated infrastructural development. They see him as the biblical Moses, who came to liberate his people and take them to the promise Land, the land full of milk and honey. Now, let’s look at the people in the two schools of thought. For the so- called anti Rauf people, who are basically found among the beneficiaries of the old order, that is, those that are benefitting from the profligacy of the PDP era, and, of course, his political opponents and their followers, who naturally should be expected to cuddle the sour grapes, Rauf can not be a performer. For the opposition, their mindset should be appreciated. They would give any thing to change the status quo. The only snag is that they work outside the established tenets of opposition as practiced in advance democracies. They would rather throw tantrum, turn the truth on his head, just to criticize in order to regain political relevance.

    To discerning minds of the state of Osun politics, there is reason to wonder on which moral tripod the state of Osun chapter of the PDP stands to criticize a widely acknowledged performing administration like that of Aregbesola. How can it justify its attempt to con unsuspecting masses of the state of Osun to buy into this harangue bid ? Does it not take absolute morality to expose absolute immorality? It is very sad that this dinosaur of a party is applying every possible tactics to come back to public embrace through calculated media war and abracadabra. PDP’s selfish politics in the state of Osun is appalling. From what could be observed so far of the party, since its disastrous outing in the last election, what is left of it is its public relations desk which has been tirelessly using the media to sell the party’s “hard to sell image”. But political observers are not deceived because it is obvious that its main stakeholders are responsible for the political mishap it has suffered in recent elections in the state.

    The party is today donating its voice to the public even when the voice has crass tones and cracked rhythms and rhymes. As a matter of fact, the party, including its affairs, was heading into oblivion, no thanks to Aregbesola led A.C.N administration’s unparallel sterling performance that has never been witness in the history of the state. With the way and manner Osun PDP is operating in the state, its activities are causing most people to feel that everything is turning against it and that the party cannot stand firm. And to that extent, the party has become an object of ridicule and scorn. It is unfortunate that Osun PDP is suffering from a political glaucoma. The foregoing explains why it cannot see the positive transformation going on in the state of Osun in the last two years and consequently, boasting that it will “recapture” Osun and the other South-West states in the next election. It is dangerous when members of any organization are greedy; the members would automatically become expert in this aberration called choice.

    The stock-in trade of the PDP is to acquire power and use it maximally, often without purpose, nothing is considered too sacred or profane. The end justifies the means. And for those who feel Ogbeni is the best thing to happen to the state of Osun, they readily points to his numerous development projects in all sectors and the numerous seeds of goodwill Ogbeni has planted for the people of Osun state. It is on record that he inherited a moribund state, bereft of good motorable roads, functioning rural and urban infrastructure, a suffocating debt of N18.3b and a forlorn citizenry, when he assumed office on November 27, 2010. After almost eight years of dashed hopes and unfulfilled promises, Governor Aregbesola has, within a period of two years, been able to stabilize the polity and consolidate democratic governance by instituting meaningful social and economic progress through Employment of 20,000 job seekers through Osun Youth Employment Scheme (OYES), revolution both in the Education (O’School) and Agric sector (O’REAP), People-centred health care delivery, workers welfare and re-focused civil service, environmental sanitation and beautification, erosion and flood control, Urban renewal, massive road rehabilitation, reconstruction, construction and drainage works going on in virtually every senatorial district makes the entire state one huge construction site. Furthermore, he has instituted a new regime of human resource development, administrative reforms, due process and accountability, proper social integration, public law and order to realize a people oriented government.

    So from schools to roads to hospitals to markets, employment generation, investment in ICT, name it, Ogbeni has succeeded in bringing forth an even developmental engineering throughout the three senatorial districts of the state. He has simply set a very high standard in governance. He has created a new benchmark. This is now the standard to beat. In other words, henceforth, whoever wishes to occupy the office of Governor of the state of Osun must be able to surpass this or at least match it. What that means to the people of the state of Osun, most importantly, is that henceforth it would be difficult for any charlatan without the capacity to deliver to present himself for governorship or any elective office for that matter. Ogbeni has through sheer brilliant performance turned the state of virtuous people into a one-party state. If he was an army general, the appreciative people of the state of Osun will follow him to the war front even blindfolded. He is a perfect illustration that the best form of political propaganda is to do the right thing.

     

    • Aminu is the National Coordinator, Oodua Youth for Good Governance

  • Toll gates: If this is governance…

    Toll gates: If this is governance…

    While touring the North/South road on Monday, the Minister of Works, Mr Mike Onolemenmen, confirmed to newsmen that the federal government planned to reintroduce tolling on the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway. This was necessary, he said, to “sustain and maintain (the) road so that it would not go back to the sorry state we met it and similar others across the federation.” The tolling would begin as soon as the expressway was reconstructed and expanded by the two firms handling the road work, RCC and Julius Berger, he concluded. But does palliative work lasting eight weeks include expansion work? It is hard to understand the Works minister. In fact, given his garbled statements in the last two weeks on the subject, it is doubtful whether he understands himself.

    After terminating the concession awarded Bi-Courtney Highway Construction Services to reconstruct and expand the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, the government had immediately engaged RCC and Julius Berger to work on the road. It was not until questions were asked about the haste with which a modified form of the road contract was awarded the two construction giants that the government explained that the two-month palliative contract was to make the road motorable for the festive period. Moreover, if the ongoing work by RCC and Julius Berger will last for eight weeks, why would the government begin tolling the road? It will be recalled that part of the agreement with the original concessionaire was to toll the road after reconstructing and expanding it to four lanes to Shagamu and three lanes to Ibadan.

    During his Monday interaction with the media, the Works minister also gave the impression that tolling of roads would not be limited to Lagos-Ibadan Expressway. It is clear the government is confused, if not outrightly dishonest. There is obviously more to the expressway contract than the government is telling the public. Why would the government impose tolls simply because palliative work was done on a road? Is the government jettisoning concession policy? If that is not the goal, then why the haste? Why not wait until new concessionaires emerge, who would determine the appropriate toll fees to collect? In fact, it seems, as the injured Bi-Courtney insinuated after it lost the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway contract, that the concession agreement was intentionally wrapped in multi-layered subterfuge.

    In 2010, the federal government had through an official of the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) announced that tolling would be reintroduced on some federal roads. The plan was to impose about five-per cent road user charge on the pump price of petrol and diesel through which the government could raise about N30bn annually to maintain the nation‘s 220,000 kilometres of roads. Nobody knows the current status of that plan. In 2004, the Olusegun Obasanjo government had attempted a fuel tax of N1.50 on every litre of petrol to raise funds for road maintenance, and had contemptuously presented a fait accompli to the public by summarily dismantling all toll gates. He failed to achieve his aims, though the toll gates were already destroyed.

    Now, in a clearly muddleheaded plan to repair the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, the government has engaged contractors in a deal that is unclear both in scope and objective. If this is not deliberate mischief, it is at least incompetence. At any rate, this is certainly not the way to run a government. The minister must abandon his plans to toll the roads until concessionaires are secured and proper contracts, not palliative agreements, are signed and the destination clear.