The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Nigeria newspaper

  • 1,310 teachers enter for Maltina award

    Submission of entries for the 2019 Maltina Teacher of the Year (MTOY)  award  has closed with a record number of 1,310 entries from the 36 states of the federation, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    This is a 104 percentage increase over last year’s entries of 641. This year’s entries are also the highest ever recorded by the initiative since inception in 2015.

    Speaking on the development, the Corporate Affairs Director, Nigerian Breweries Plc., Sade Morgan, said this year’s entries showed a substantial improvement in the level of participation by teachers, which is a confirmation of the growing interest and acceptance of the initiative as a platform for rewarding the efforts and commitments of teachers.

    Of the lot, she said the project assessors pruned the number down to 548.

    “All the valid entries will now be subjected to evaluation and assessment by our esteemed panel of judges, who will determine the applicants to emerge as state champions based on the set criteria,” Mrs Morgan said.

    She said the top 10 among the selected state champions would go through a rigorous screening round that would feature interviews.

    “Once the state champions have been determined, the 10 best entries from the pool of the state champions will be selected and invited for another round of assessment where the Jury will further subject them to rigorous scrutiny against established set criteria in order to determine who truly should be named the Maltina Teacher of the Year,” she said.

    This year’s winners would be unveiled at a grand event scheduled for Eko Hotel & Suites, Victoria Island, Lagos.

    The winner of the 2019 Maltina Teacher of the Year will get a cash prize worth N6.5 million and capacity training abroad.

     

  • Much ado about visa

    This is supposed to be a matter that ordinarily should not stir the public attention. But like many things Nigerian, official incompetence, especially in the form of dalliance, can cost the nation a lot.

    That is the story with the visa row between Nigeria and the United States. It is just a matter of reciprocity. The Nigerian government had imposed visa fees on the United States citizens, many of them also Nigerian. The United States, by the reciprocity agreement with Nigeria, decided to engage the Nigerian government. They did not immediately reciprocate by increasing their own visa fees on Nigerians.

    But there was dalliance, and a committee set up looked into it. A report was submitted, and this had taken too long, about 18 months between the increase and the decision by the United States embassy to hike their own fees.

    But the Nigerian government did not take an action to reduce the visa fee or reach an agreement. But once the U.S responded by jacking up the fees, panic took over the country’s government. It was first public relations disaster for the United States until the full story came into the public knowledge.

    Again, it is another instance of the sloppiness of the Nigerian state. First, why did the Nigerian government increase the fees without the consent of the United States embassy? This was an instance of the Nigerian government washing its dirty linen in the diplomatic public. It also fits into our ritual misnomer of flying in the face of due diligence.

    The frustration of the U.S. embassy was clear in its language: “After 18 months of review and consultations, the government of Nigeria has not changed its fee structure for U.S. citizens for certain visa categories.”

    How busy could the officials of the Ministry of Interior have been that they could not wrap up the issue that came into being early 2018? We may accuse them of lack of due diligence, or sloppiness, but we cannot take away the charge of official indolence.

    The visa issue did not frustrate only the American embassy. It also riled quite a few Nigerians who now have the American visa, but often travel home to visit and do business. But the bigger uproar also comes from Nigerians who visit and want to visit the United States for whatever matter. Nigerians have been paying fees to travel to other countries, and they complain over the fees, especially considering the economy. They feel the visa fees of other countries like Britain, Germany, France, and Canada do not reflect the cost of living in the country. It means our officials are negotiating away our fellow citizens’ purses.

    Whereas the Nigerian government wanted to increase its fees to rake in revenue, it should be aware that it has implications for its citizens. Many who travel to those countries are not necessarily rich. A good number of them are students whose parents are paying a lot already for fees and upkeep.

    But it is also commentary on how desperate we are as a nation to leave our shores, rather than stay at home where we can turn our meagre resources into wealth and peace. In South Africa, Nigerians are under siege with Xenophobic indigenes wasting our fellow citizens’ lives, properties and businesses.

    Even as we write this piece, the Nigerian government has not officially notified the American embassy of the decision to revert its fees to its old level. Mere announcement does not amount to policy, or diplomatic agreement.

    We expect that, in short order, the matter will be laid to rest and it will not be what it has been in the past week. That is, much ado about nothing.

     

  • Donald J. Trump and the decline of the United States

    I have been a close observer of American politics since my secondary school days when General Dwight David Eisenhower (1953-1961) was president succeeding the immediate post Second World War President  Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) who himself towards the end of the war took over from Franklin Delano Roosevelt ( 1933-1945), the longest serving president of the USA. I was in the University of Ibadan when President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1961-1963) was assassinated on November 22 1963. The assassination of President Kennedy nearly destroyed the image and reputation of the United States in the world. For us in Nigeria it was a tragedy. Kennedy had so much interest in Africa and the developing world that he invited Nigeria’s prime minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa not only to pay a state visit, but also to address the joint sitting of the USA Congress, perhaps the only African that has ever been granted that honour up till today. I still remember how our President, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe made a broadcast to the nation ordering our national flag to be flown at half-mast for three days in memory of a great man and a global citizen. Many of us in the University of Ibadan wept openly for a man who was regarded as an icon by young people. The way he spoke, the words that came out of his mouth, his mid-Atlantic accent and diction, his lanky stature, his haircut and his beautiful wife and young children were objects of admiration by all of us. I personally made a painful visit to the spot where he was shot when I visited Dallas sometimes ago. When the tears had dried up and the then Vice President Lyndon Blaines Johnson (1963-1969) took over the American presidency, most of my contemporaries lost interest in the USA. Ironically President Johnson did many revolutionary things like getting the Civil Act of 1965 through the Congress and passing a few other socially relevant acts of what he dubbed the beginning of a “great society” into law thus bringing millions of black Americans into the mainstream of American political life through having the right to vote and be voted for. These were rights that were latent and had been inactive because of deliberate acts by the white deep state to deny the right to black people by violence and subterfuge. The bitterness the murder of Kennedy introduced into American politics and the whole conspiracy surrounding the assassination in Dallas Texas, the home state of Vice President Lyndon Johnson, made it difficult for many to view President Johnson’s achievement dispassionately. The war in Vietnam also complicated matters to the extent that many within the Democratic Party of the president rose against him and the younger brother of President John Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Senator Eugene McCarthy challenged Lyndon Johnson in the Democratic primaries for the party’s nomination which was an unusual scenario that forced a sitting president to refuse to contest for a second term in office. The challenge was to end in tragedy for the Kennedy family when Robert Kennedy was gunned down on June 5, 1968 by a Palestinian refugee Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles while Kennedy was celebrating his victory in the Californian primary. The disarray in the Democratic Party paved the way for the coming into power of a shady and calculating character like Richard Milhous Nixon who ended in disgrace when he resigned in 1974 for his anti-democratic and illegal shenanigans of bugging the office of the rival party in the Watergate office complex in Washington DC and for refusing to release his secret taping of discussions in the White House including his attempt to cover up the burglary of the Democratic Party’s office. Since this low point in the history of the American presidency, there have been people like Jimmy Carter, William Clinton and Barack Obama on the Democratic side and  Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, his son George W. Bush from the Republican Party. Some of them distinguished themselves in office and some out of office but all maintained their positions as models and examples for the American people to follow. Some of them were closet racists like Nixon and Reagan and at least presented a facade of upholding the American myth of equality of equality of all races.

    Now we have an unusual and incredible president like the current occupant of the White House, President Donald J. Trump. Trump virtually exploited the anger of the white American working class and rural folks who felt left behind by the globalized economy of the world which transferred manufacturing to China and countries in Asia while many manufacturing jobs in America were lost thus creating boarding of factories in the so-called rust belt of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois and to some extent Wisconsin. Trump bullied his way into the presidency calling his Republican and Democratic contenders unflattering nicknames and being totally uncivil and rude while his opponents who did not want to get into the gutter with him not knowing what to do bore his insults with equanimity. In the bitterly contested election of 2016 against Hillary Clinton, Trump got more electoral college votes than Clinton who beat him by close to three million plurality votes. Trump was able to paint Hillary as a corrupt person who exploited her position for financial gain in what he called “pay for play”. He was also able to tar Clinton with the brush of the so-called liberals who want to flood the country with immigrants from Mexico and other countries from Latin America and Africa. In other words, he told white Americans that they were being marginalized and were doomed to become a minority in their country if they did not vote for him. This racist language worked and fired up about 40percent of Americans who no matter what Trump did were ready to support him. Trump himself boasted that if he shot a person in the heart of New York City his supporters will continue to support him. When he got elected people thought the awesome weight of the office will sober him up and he will be the president of all Americans and the so called leader of the “free world”. In office President Trump has not only contributed to the bitter division of his country and mostly along racial lines with White supremacists on his side and those white and black opposed to them that call themselves anti-fascists or “ANTIFA” for short, President Trump sees both as evil in his warped morality. Not only is he dividing the USA, he is also angering the western allies of the USA and undermining the western institutions that had secured world peace since 1945. Nothing is sacrosanct, not NATO, IMF, World Bank, the UN and its specialized agencies. The president says he is not interested in multi-lateral institutions and that he would rather deal on bi-lateral basis with countries that America would want to relate to. His credo is “Make America Great Again “which is a policy in which America’s interest is paramount. But America is not an island sufficient unto itself because if the USA is in good shape and the rest of the world goes to the dogs, the USA would not benefit from such a self-defeating selfish policy.

    It is strange that in his politics, he seems to love autocrats like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Rodrigo   Duterte of Philippines and nationalists and populists in Britain, Hungary, Poland and recently Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil while he regularly insulted Justin Trudeau of Canada, Immanuel Macron of France, Theresa May, former prime minister of Great Britain and Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany. His regular tantrums and unorthodox way of doing things and his going against all norms of diplomatic behaviour have now come to be accepted as the new American normal.

    Recently on the eve of the G7 meeting in Biarritz France and during and after the post conference press conference, the president said so many things that made people feel he is not fit for the post he is holding. Before leaving for the G7 he peremptorily cancelled a state visit to Denmark because the prime minister of the country, Mette Frederiksen said it was absurd that Trump would offer to buy an island constituting 98 percent of her country. In return Trump called her a “nasty woman”.  At another time he accused Jews in a rather patronizing racist view, that American Jews who vote Democratic in USA elections are either ignorant or disloyal. This is rather a strange thing to say in a country where support for Israel is bi- partisan. He then added the same week that he was the “chosen one “to solve American problems especially his tariff war with China which seems to be about to plunge the whole world into recession. Then he says someone from the highest level of the Chinese government phoned the USA to plead for negotiations on the tariffs war only for the phone call to be denied. While at the G7, he left America’s chair vacant while leaders from the rest of the world deliberated on global climate change obviously because he does not believe in the evidence of climate change. This was explained away by his staff who said he was having meetings with India and Egypt which was a lie because the presidents of those two countries attended the meeting on the invitation of the G7.

    Then it was alleged that he considered nuking the eye of any hurricane approaching the USA. It was allegedly explained to him that he will turn a hurricane into radioactive holocaust if he nuked them! Then he claimed his wife Melania had met Kim Jon Un; this was quickly explained away by saying he meant to say he had spoken so much about the North Korean dictator that his wife seem to know him.  He also offered his money-losing golf club and resorts in Miami Florida as venue for the G7 meeting next year which will go against the Emolument clause in the American constitution preventing a president from benefiting financially by holding the post of president. He has so much embarrassed many people in the USA that two people within the Republican Party including Joe Walsh one of the right wing radio journalists that facilitated his election in 2016 to decide to challenge him in the Republican primaries. It is of course unlikely yet that the Republican Party will abandon him next year. The onus is on the Democratic Party to present an alternative to Donald Trump out of the huge company of 21 candidates running for president. Some of them are simply too extreme in their policies that Americans will not pay attention to them except for entertainment. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, two of the three leading contenders are just too old in their late seventies that not many Americans will waste their votes on them. Elizabeth Warren, the articulate and sincere senator from Massachusetts is in her 70s also. Kamilla Harris who is 54 is not likely to be successful in election shortly after another African American. The same goes for Senator Cory Booker another African American and Julian Castro a Cuban-American. Pete Buttigieg, a mayor of a small city looks impressive but he is gay and I doubt if America is ready for gay president. Beto O’Rourke from El Passo, Texas ought to gain more traction than he is gaining right now. Perhaps at the nick of time a shining redeemer would seize the leadership of the Democratic Party to save America and the world from the re-election of Donald J Trump. In other words, the election is for the Democratic Party to lose and not Trump to win.

  • As new session begins

    We are at the end of the long holidays – that period after an aircraft lands and is taxiing to the parking bay.

    From next week, alarm bells would once again go off in the wee hours of the mornings and the school run hustle would begin.  The struggle to bath, dress, prepare and eat or pack breakfast for young ones in the space of about an hour or two would begin – capable of souring moods of parents also preparing themselves for work.

    Welcome to the brand new 2018/2019 academic session.  Newness holds promise of change; of bigger goals that can be achieved; of another chance to do something differently; something right. The chance is open to everyone – from public office holders making policies to civil servants in charge of implementing those policies; from proprietors running private schools to teachers whose responsibility it is to use the curriculum in the classroom; from parents who desire quality education for their wards to learners whose main focus at this stage of their development is to acquire knowledge.

    So, what should all these groups of stakeholders be doing differently this new session? This question is best answered by each person as situations and circumstances differ. However, it is good for each person in these stakeholder groups to be conscious of working towards the bigger vision of nation building. Education plays an important role in nation building. As a result, for us to achieve development at national level, each stakeholder must be aware of the role they should play and what their actions and inactions can contribute to or take away from our collective goal.

    This brings the question: do we have a collective goal? Do we have national ideals? I guess we do.   Our goals and ideals are stated in so many policy documents – accessible or otherwise. However, those saddled with the responsibility of providing guidance about these goals and ideals are not doing enough to drum them into our consciousness such that they become part of our everyday targets. Regardless of the absence of such conscious campaign, however, we have our national anthem and national pledge that remind us of what we want for our country Nigeria. Let us take the National Pledge for instance, parts of it talks about “defending Nigeria’s unity” and “upholding her honour and glory”. Also, the second stanza of the National Anthem, which is also our National Prayer, talks about growing in “love” and “honesty”, and “living just and true”. It also talks about attaining “great lofty heights” and building “a nation where peace and justice shall reign”. Really, without any obvious documents, we have something to guide what we do daily in all facets of our lives.

    Bringing it home to the education sector, which is where we incubate our future, all stakeholders should be extra conscious of the ideals stipulated in our national anthem and pledge. So, as school owner running a school this new session, how do you intend to defend Nigeria’s unity and uphold her honour and glory? How do you intend to attain great lofty heights? Definitely not by supporting examination malpractice for pecuniary gains; definitely not by owing teachers or extorting parents. For teachers, it is definitely not by being late to school, or failing in your classroom duties; it is definitely not by physically, emotionally or sexually abusing your learners, or helping them cheat in examinations.

    For parents, it is definitely not by owing fees and changing schools to avoid paying debt; or by failing to monitor your wards’ progress. It is not by being ready to pay to illegally upgrade their scores or harassing teachers working hard to educate them. It is not by being too lax about discipline, showing bad example or neglecting their needs; nor is it by being too strict you alienate them or failing to stand up for them when necessary.

    For learners, it is not by failing to give adequate attention to school work while doing everything to be like the Jones. It is not by perpetrating examination malpractice or bullying others.

    So, as this new session begins, let the education family be guided by what our anthem and pledge say and we will not go wrong.

  • The $9.6bn judgment: A curious red-herring

    That Nigeria, its government and supposedly enlightened public opinion are suffused and embroiled in the controversy over a London court judgment debt of a whopping $9.6 billion against Nigeria and in favour of an Irish company is curiously shocking to say the least.

    The mood of national panic and even muscular debates about how to wriggle out, not only would embolden the affront to our national sovereignty, but encourage future reckless adventurers to try their hands in similar effrontery. How to respond to the well-orchestrated and syndicated attempt to swindle the country is to forthrightly denounce the snub. The panic that has gripped the federal government was evident when three cabinet ministers and the governor of the central bank addressed a press conference with their tones sounding overly desperate. The finance minister at the conference said that “paying the fine will seriously affect the economy and inflict more pains on our people”, but added “we take consolation in the fact the Nigeria government is making serious effort to get the judgment set aside”.

    Even though that the judgment, even taken at face value, completely dissolves Nigeria’s sovereignty as a state entity, yet she added it “would be too tough on all Nigerians”. The strange method of officially glamorizing an irresponsible red-herring of a London court shows how crooked Nigeria’s governing elite are desperate to seize every distraction to foist more hardship on the people. If as the governor of the central bank said at the press conference that “we have gone through our records and there is no trace of any equipment or machine that the company had ever come to establish in Nigeria, despite claiming to have invested over $40 billion” then, why would the judgment of a London court that should ordinarily be treated as an accessory to the fact of monumental financial crime against Nigeria, generate an unnecessary debate and even panic?

    The threat of asset seizure is a reckless red-herring and bluff, for which Nigeria should calmly inform that should her assets be compromised in any form or guise within the jurisdiction of any state entity, such state entity should expect and would get a reprisal of equal measure, if not more.

    However, a lesson from a very small country, the Republic of Djibouti of less than one million people in East Africa would considerably suffice to end the needless controversy and even panic about losing a whopping $9.6 billion from already a lean national treasury or threats of seizure of Nigeria’s assets abroad. In February 2018, the government of Djibouti terminated the concession of its container terminal which has been given in 2006 to Doraleh Container Terminal management (DCT), a company controlled by DP World, a Dubai-based port management consortium. The Djibouti national port authority, Port de Djibouti holds 66.66% share while the terminal operator, the Dubai-based DP world held the remaining 33.34% share.

    In terminating the concession, the Djibouti government cited that the “concession agreement contained severe irregularities and threatened the national interests and sovereignty of Djibouti”. Note that there was no unnecessary blame game of previous government personnel who may have negotiated the concession. The simple fact that the “agreement contained severe irregularities and threatened national interests and sovereignty” is enough to drop ugly deal and what role played by anyone whether in the current government or the past is a matter for the national law to deal with. The fact of the dropping of the ugly deal was of paramount national interest.

    And as expected, the Dubai-based PD world headed to the London court of international arbitration, which, as in the case of the Irish company that dragged Nigeria, ruled that “the agreement remain valid and binding,” ordering Djibouti to pay $385 million plus interest for violating the agreement.

    But the representative government of the Djibouti people did not panic, nor was scampering to appeal or negotiate but calmly issued a press statement from its presidency. The statement simply read: “Djibouti does not accept this sentence which has ruled that the law of a sovereign state cannot be enforced by that state.”

    As a way to strengthen its rejection of the ruling of the London court, the Republic Djibouti invited the Hong Kong-based port operator, China Merchants Holding International as the management partner to her container terminal. In addition to rejecting the ruling of the London court, Djibouti nationalized with immediate effect, all the shares and corporate right held by Port de Djibouti in the Doraleh Container Terminal Company as measure, which the government explained was made to protect the fundamental interest of the nation and ensure that the situation of the DP world-controlled DCT company, which is no longer in charge of container Terminal since the contract termination aligns with reality.

    The act of a country of less than 1 million people is neither revolutionary nor even radical, but a responsible patriotic measure to safeguard national interests and sovereignty. And here, is about 200million Nigerians with their government literally fidgeting about the blackmail of a company that did not drop a single equipment on the ground in Nigeria, according to the findings of the central bank governor, while in the case of Djibouti, the agreement was signed, sealed and went fully operational for years, before the government invoked the priority of national interests to revoke it. In Nigeria, the contract agreement was from beginning a compulsive fraud that never went into effect, and yet there are even talks to negotiate or appeal the judgment from serious quarters, including the federal government! However, the real danger of appealing the judgment, negotiating or doing anything to dignify this malfeasance is that in the future, a gang of international prostitutes who may outlandishly claim to have rendered conjugal service to anyone in Nigeria government whether past or present and are dissatisfied with the terms of settlement can easily file a case of breach of contract anywhere in the world, including in Marshal Island or Antigua and win another humongous sum that can trigger national panic, with cabinet ministers exhausting themselves on the national press gallery, just to look busy.

    The judgment of the London court was so brazenly disrespectful of Nigeria’s national sovereignty that it completely disregarded part of the contract agreement with the Irish company that states in clause 20 that “the agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the federal Republic of Nigeria” and a further provision that “the parties agree that if any difference or dispute arises between  the parties concerning the interpretation or performance of the agreement and if they fail to resolve such difference or dispute amicably, then a party may serve on the other, a notice of Arbitration  under the rules of the Nigerian Arbitration and conciliation Act.”  So where is the room for redress at the international Arbitration tribunal or a London court that so much fuss is being orchestrated about appealing to vacate its judgment or to enter into negotiation with a company whose criminal intent to defraud Nigeria was manifestly obvious?

    If this government is not complicit in a criminal intent to defraud Nigerians in cahoots with the Irish company, the things it should do is fairly simple. First to totally reject the London court judgment in all its entirety and enact a presidential order to the effect that the two Irish promoters of the company are declared fugitive and suspects of a criminal conspiracy to undermine Nigeria’s sovereignty and national interest through massive subversion of her economy and to seek international police warrant to arrest them and bring them to trial in Nigeria. Anything short of these and other measures that could be figured out through investigation is plain capitulation to international crime syndicate.

    Recently, an Iranian oil tanker seized last July in the waters of Gibraltar by British Marines was released to Iranians but very quickly, an American court in Washington issued a ruling for the ship’s re-seizure on the ground that it is controlled by the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard blacklisted as a terrorist organization by the U.S. The Iranians dutifully set sail of their ship in total disregard to the Washington’s court ruling, while the British and other Europeans damned the ruling on the basis that they do not accept the Washington’s blacklist of the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group.

    Were it to be Nigeria, the talk of hiring the best law firm in the world to appeal and vacate the ruling of the Washington court should have rented the air. A perennially and remorseless corrupt elite, who see opportunity for personal profit in every misfortune of the country including national disaster to security challenges has made us, look like the most spineless people on the face of the earth.

    But before the Nigeria governing elite squander the national resources in an unnecessary litigation and negotiation, Nigerians of all strata who earn their living by the sweat of their brows and contribute meaningfully to national growth should through their representative organizations including the NLC, ASUU, Students Union, market Association, Farmers Associations, Professional groups etc. rise to the occasion and forestall the imminent haemorrhage of the national resources, which the elites are plotting, using the smokescreen of  the phantom London court judgment debt, to perpetuate.

    • Onunaiju is of Centre for China Studies, (CCS) Utako, Abuja.

  • One ‘Kanu’ for a thousand ‘fraudsters’ (II)

    The underlying basis for the conduct of extradition between and among nations is the salient extension of the struggle by states to assert jurisdiction over their territories, their nationals and often even the nationals of other countries. States usually want to have legal authority over their territories (by denying other states jurisdiction over crimes committed within them), and over their own ‘nationals’, 1) who, while living at home or abroad breach international law, or 2) who, while living in their countries breach their municipal laws and flee, or 3) who, while living abroad breach the municipal laws of their country or 4) who, while living in another country breach its municipal laws. And not only that, nations in fact desire also to have legal authority over nationals of other states, a) who breach international law or the municipal laws of their countries while living in another country, or b) who flee their countries to other countries after breaching their municipal laws. IPOB’s Nnamdi Kanu falls into the categories of those who flee their countries to other countries after breaching their municipal laws and those who, while living abroad breach (or continue to breach) the municipal laws of their country.

    It is all about a grab at both territorial and extra-territorial jurisdictions. States have the right generally under international law –even in the absence of treaties of extradition- to stretch their domestic jurisdictions beyond their physical borders and to seek to exercise legal authority over the criminal conducts of their own nationals. They do not sit idly by –like we seem to do concerning Kanu- while their fugitive nationals living in safe heavens abroad continue to make gaping wounds on their already haemorrhaging escutcheon. If they cannot get them legally extradited back home, at the very least they should, through diplomatic pressure, get them deported out of the territories of countries with whom they enjoy excellent entente cordiale. Or where all these have failed, they should be man enough to exploit even unorthodox means such as abduction. It is usually for reason of non-cooperation with extradition requests that many a state with the wherewithal to engage in self-help, resort to abducting their fugitives instead –either after normal extradition request-procedures have failed or some even without attempting to use the levers of extradition rights or privileges.

    International law is replete with examples of self-help measures mostly by nations with the grit and the teeth to do so, viz: the abduction of fugitive Morton Sobel by the United States of America, from Mexico in 1950; as was Adolf Eichman by Israel, from Argentina in 1960, Antoine Argoud by France, from Kenya in 1999 and Gui Minhai by China, from Thailand in as recently as 2015. Quite a few of these abductions took place after extradition requests had failed. Many had resorted to abduction without exploring the avenues of extradition possibilities. Interestingly Nigeria, back then in the late 80s, was never lacking also in ‘grit’ and in ‘teeth’: an attempt in 1984, allegedly by the then reputedly no-nonsense Buhari Military Government, to abduct from London, Umaru Dikko, a former minister in Shehu Shagari’s ousted civilian administration, had only failed because British Police at the Stanstead Airport acted extra-legally and in violation of the sanctity of the diplomatic ‘crate’ in which the fugitive, Dikko was pouched. The Nigeria of those days was wide awake and aware of her extradition rights and privileges, and like all serious nations was ready to avail herself of both orthodox and unorthodox means to assert her right to the exercise of ‘jurisdiction’ over her fleeing nationals who had breached her municipal laws.

    By the way Nigeria did not -like Israel, U.S., France and China did- resort to abduction without exploring the avenue of extradition.  The U.K had declined previously to accede to her request for the extradition of former military Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon on allegation of involvement in the 1976 coup in which his successor-deposer, Gen. Murtala Ramat Mohammed was assassinated. Barely eight years later, in 1984, she would request also the extradition of Dikko on charges of corruption, which was also declined. And this was in spite of the pendency of two extradition instruments to which Nigeria was subject, namely the U.K.’s ‘Commonwealth Transfer of Offenders Law (under which Enahoro in the 60s was extradited) and the ‘Fugitive Offenders Act’ of 1967. Both requests were viewed by the U.K. government as politically motivated and thus not meriting the cooperation of Britain. Politics and human rights have gradually become factors that many states consider before acceding to extradition requests even from countries that they have signed treaties in which political offences and the fear of violation of the human rights of fugitive have not expressly been exempted.

    For example whereas the United States does not consider sabotage a political offence –and therefore lists it as an extraditable offence- Russia considers it ‘political’ and may not sign an extradition treaty which lists sabotage as extraditable. But although there is still a tendency in most western jurisdictions –including the United States and Britain- to deal leniently with political offenders by refusing requests for their extradition, this consideration does not include those guilty of treason. Meaning that concerning ‘extradition’, although there is still controversy over what is ‘political’ from what is ‘criminal’, there is a clear distinction between what is ‘political’ and what is ‘treasonable’. Nor does it therefore require rocket science for Nigeria to prove to the U.S or the U.K. that Nnamdi Kanu’s offence against the Nigerian state is ‘criminal’ and not ‘political’. No time is more auspicious than now for Nigeria to go for the option of extradition. Kanu has ripened and is now ‘Roland’ enough to be traded for a thousand ‘Olivers’ –which the United States especially now requires Nigeria to give, in the name of ‘cyber fraudsters’.

    Postscript

    A state may claim ‘jurisdiction to try’ for the reason that the alleged crime was committed wholly or partially in its territory (territorial jurisdiction); or for the reason that although the crime took place outside its territory, it was nonetheless committed by its own ‘national’ (nationality jurisdiction); or that although the offence was committed abroad and by a non-national, yet its own nationals have been, will be or may be affected by the commission of the offence (passive personality jurisdiction); or where the crime committed –whether or not by her own national and whether or not committed within her territory- affects the international community or humanity at large (universal jurisdiction). Helping humanity tackle crimes where they directly or indirectly affect the international community or even where they affect the democratic peace of states or the human rights of individuals wherever they may live, is not just a right accruing to every state under international law but a duty also grounded in the principles of universal jurisdiction –the right and the duty by states to assume jurisdiction over international crimes committed by any persons and anywhere provided they affect the rights of people or states guaranteed and protected under international law. States of the West have often selectively assumed this jurisdiction to the chagrin and exasperation of third world nations –especially African states- who have hardly the capacity and the will to effectively tackle domestic crimes under their national jurisdictions, let alone discharge their duty under international law of assuming universal jurisdiction whenever necessary, to help the international community curb crime.

    Chile’s Augusto Pinochet in the late nineties and long after having left office to become a Senator, went to the United Kingdom, U.K. to attend to his deteriorating health. Spain which had no extradition treaty with Chile but had one with the United Kingdom applied for his extradition for alleged human rights violations committed against Chileans while in office. By the way the Chile-U.K.-Spain scenario would be like Nigeria applying to South Africa –with whom she has extradition treaty- to hand over to her for trial a visiting George Bush, Tony Blair or Benjamin Natanyahu, who variously hang the albatross of war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity crimes against peace, aggression and human rights violations. The Chilean Constitution shielded Pinochet from prosecution in Chile, but a U.K. court said that he was not immune from judicial proceedings abroad. And although eventually Pinochet, on account of failing health, rather than immunity from prosecution, was released to return to Chile, it was not before Britain’s highest court made the point loud and clear that even a third party state can be granted extradition by a municipal court for the extradition of an alleged offender on transit in a country that has neither extradition relationship with his, nor has his country a treaty with the state requesting his extradition.

    • Concluded.

  • UNILAG business school begins classes Saturday

    University of Lagos Business School (ULBS) is set to commence classes on Saturday.

    This was revealed at the interactive session and reception for ULBS students recently at the school’s Arthur Mbanefo Digital Resources Centre.

    The Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) Programme Coordinator, Dr. Simeon Ifere said the school would run part-time programmes only.

    He said: “The programme is part-time alone and runs for 24 months consisting of six semesters of 16 weeks each. The 2019/2020 begins September 7, 2019”.

    He also said the EMBA would help local businesses compete internationally, which would help the community and society in general advance.

    He added: “The EMBA programme is designed to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills required not only to be effective managers but also to become transformational business leaders in our dynamic and competitive business world.”

    The executive director of ULBS, Prof. Abraham Osinubi said the school would collaborate with experts, industries to give the students the experience, leadership skills and networking opportunities they need to succeed in business.

  • Nigeria-China institute unveils newspaper at UNILAG

    The Institute of Nigeria-China Development Studies, University of Lagos, (UNILAG) has launched a newspaper, Nigeria-China Times Newspaper, a publication of the institute and the Chinese Investors Association for Development and Promotion, to promote collaborations and trade between both countries.

    The newspaper was launched during a seminar on research and collaboration opportunities between Nigeria and China organised by the institute recently.

    Deputy Vice Chancellor (Development Services), Prof Folashade Ogunsola, said at the event that the university would support the institute’s effort to engage in meaningful research activities about the business, culture and the needs of the people of both nations.

    Ogunsola said since its establishment last November, the institute has served as a resource centre for Chinese foreign investors and a think-tank for the Nigeria-China bilateral relationship.

    She said both nations needed to collaborate and focus on the areas of mutual benefits and bridge gaps where necessary.

    “We would love to see better relationship, cordiality; lots of values exist between Nigeria and China which is beyond the trading relationship that is in existence.

    “With the institute, a symbiotic relationship and bi-directional relationship can exist. There is a lot we can learn from each other,” she added.

    The institute’s Director, Olufemi Saibu, a professor of Economics at the university, said the institute would facilitate inward and outward trade relations between the two countries.

    He said the vision of the institute is to “become an institute for exchange of intellectual ideas and research excellence in pursuit of knowledge for development, mutual trade and economic activities that will impact positively the Chinese-Nigeria economies”.

    He added: “Since inception, selected people from the institute have paid a visit to China on two occasions where issues bordering on research and collaboration were discussed.

    “The institute would provide a platform for profound and innovative research which will help propel Chinese investors and encourage investments, especially as relates to China-Nigeria relationship.”

    Saibu also disclosed the intention of the Chinese government to establish a Chinese-African Institute, one in UNILAG and the other South Africa.

    Ronnie Liu, the Chairman of Chinese Investment Association and the institute’s co-chairman, spoke on:Business and investment opportunities in Nigeria and China.

    He said there were opportunities to be tapped by the people of the two countries.

    “The association is trying to help more Chinese come to Nigeria, and know more about Nigeria in order to foster collaboration in trade and research. We hope to use the platform to train more Nigerians,” Liu said.

  • Wike & Ganduje: Metaphors for Nigerian governors

    Kano and Port Harcourt share some parallels.  Both were once flourishing seductive cities of attraction. The former, with a 1,095 years old city walls described as “‘the most impressive monument in West Africa” and an important Trans-Sahara trade centre that embraced Islamic faith in the 12th century, six decades before United Arab Emirate that hosts Dubai, the fourth most visited city in the world was born, while the latter was a great industrial centre and a celebrated garden city that was once a must-visit for Nigerians.

    Today, Kano is relics of itself, a hotbed religious intolerance populated by impoverished unemployable youths deliberately groomed by politicians to (as recently affirmed by Nasir El Rufai) strengthen their hold on power just as Port Harcourt is controlled by armed gangs groomed by politicians to serve as balance of terror during elections. And as if by design, the two cities are today under the grip of politicians who draw inspiration from Nicollo Machiavelli, the prince of politics “marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith”.

    It all started with Wike’s alleged demolition of a mosque in Port Harcourt, a charge he denied. Alhaji Nasir Uhor, the Chief Iman of Rivers and Leader/Vice President General, Rivers State Council for Islamic Affairs, also confirmed absence of physical structure of a Mosque at the disputed land. Support also came for Wike from an unusual quarter, the Coalition of Northern Youth Groups (CNYG) that dismissed the allegation as not only “false and misleading but intended to draw religious ire, stir political tension and widen the chasm of national division, which rather requires healing and bonding at this point in time”.

    This however did not stop Rivers Muslim Community and its chairman, Alhaji Abdullahi Tabaco who insisted what was demolished on August 20, was a mosque under construction. The leader of the Niger Delta’s People’s Salvation Force (NDPSF), Asari Dokubo, in fact maintained   what Wike demolished was a mosque where he as  “ a member of the congregation of the Trans-Amadi central mosque, his 21 children and 59 other children that live with him worship”. Solidarity with the group  came from far away Kano where Governor  Abdullahi Ganduje threatened  to take legal action against Wike, who has since described Ganduje’s statement as irresponsible while not forgetting to remind him that  Wike is not “dollars that Ganduje can pocket recklessly and sheepishly”.  Ganduje also found an ally in MURIC which dismissed  Wike’s administration as government of thugs, exhibiting   ‘wikedisation’ of religion, acrobatic religiousity, gymnastic impunity, political violence and administrative rascality”.  Since both governors know each other well, I think it is futile to try to interrogate their characterisation of themselves.

    What is not in dispute however is that both are metaphors for Nigerian governors. From the record of their conduct and utterances since the beginning of the fourth republic, it is clear many of our successive governors are men without character. Between 1999 and 2004, about 18 of PDP 24 elected governors were indicted for massive looting of their state resources. With the ongoing travails of some governors who lost their immunity few months back, it is obvious not much has changed under Buhari’s government of change.

    Nigerian governors are responsible for what the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial and Arbitrary Executions, Agnes Callamard after two weeks tour of Nigeria, last Monday summarized as “cultism in the oil-producing south states and other well-organised criminal gangs; local militias engaged in mining and cattle rustling in the Northwest, particularly Zamfara, increased criminality and spreading insecurity;” all over the country.

    It has been established that substantial part of N4b to N12b governors’ annual security votes, which they are not obliged to account for, go into funding of armed gangs to keep themselves in office. The PDP garrison commander of Ibadan politics, late Pa Adedibu, was the first to confirm the use of security funds for funding political terror groups when his dispute over sharing formula led to illegal impeachment of Governor Ladoja. President Jonathan’s National Security Adviser, General Owoye Andrew Azazi confirmed that Northeast politicians initially armed Boko Haram to secure advantage over political opponents. The Niger Delta’s different militant groups were sponsored by Niger Delta governors as balance of terror. It was former governor, Goodluck Jonathan who as vice president went into the creeks to address his men in the language they understood when the Amnesty Programme was first instituted by President Yar dua.

    Ayoade Akinibosun, the gang leader of armed group that robbed a bank in Offa on April 4, 2018 killing about 27 people including six policemen claimed during police integration ‘we are the senate president boys…we have been working form him since he was the governor of Kwara State, we mobilise for him and we are the ones that do political arrangements for him, we scatter elections if we don’t win”.

    Hamisu Bala alias Wadume, the Taraba State kidnap kingpin and a gun runner during interrogation by the police last week painted a similar picture: “I made so much money from politicians, as a youth leader, money meant for the youths are given to me. I am to mobilise them, hire thugs where necessary and made arrangement for weapons”.

    In Ekiti, Ayodele Fayose who went through a political tutelage under Adedibu was said to have his own gang. The group is allegedly linked to some of the ongoing cases of political assassination of his political rivals during his first term. In Lagos, Joe Igbokwe as Lagos APC spokesman reportedly admitted that rampaging NURTW leaders in the state are members of APC. In Ogun, Gbenga Daniel had his own squad claimed to be headed by the late Olatoye Temitope alias ‘sugar’, a supervisory councilor for Odeda LGA and later his special adviser.

    Unfortunately the governors while hobnobbing with drug pushers, gun-runners, armed robbers and other criminal elements, forget democracy which elsewhere in the democratic world operates on the platform of law and order, cannot survive on a culture of corruption, violence and lawlessness.

    As Wike, lionized by prosperity prophets strives to exploit religious differences in the state he holds hostage, boasting “I heard that some people are angry that I declared Rivers as a Christian State; nobody can intimidate me into changing my position”.  Dokubo insisting  “Rivers state will never be a Christian State, we are Rivers Muslims; there is nothing you can do about it” and the man Wike calls ‘dollar Ganduje’  pours gasoline from the side line, they are encouraged to acquaint themselves with development elsewhere in the world.

    Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Egypt, the most important centre of Islamic learning in the world, recently embraced and signed a powerful joint declaration for world peace and human fraternity transcending all religious, national, cultural and racial differences. The Pope during another visit aimed at boosting Christian-Muslim ties, to Morocco, praised the country, a Sunni Muslim kingdom of 36 million as a model of religious moderation. The Pope was also in Azerbaijan, the second-largest Shi’ite Muslim country after Iran where he praised Azerbaijan as a model of religious tolerance given the interfaith harmony that characterizes relations among its Muslims, Christians and Jews.

    The UAE that once supported radical Islam including the Taliban recently hosted  a conference for religious and intellectuals of all faiths in the world  where Brahmavihari Swami, a Hindu monk asked “Do we unite and flourish together? Or do we disunite and perish together?”

    Ganguje can now see clearly why Dubai is the fourth most visited city in the world while local investors are moving away from Kano.

  •  Their pound of flesh

    IT was a tough call for President Muhammadu Buhari, the anti-graft czar of our time. The Supreme Court on Monday raised an ethical issue during hearing in a case in which he was a party. Though the case was struck out, the panel of justices wondered whether his lawyer, who works in the Federal Ministry of Justice, was representing him in his official or personal capacity.

    The lawyer said he was representing the President in his personal capacity. The justices frowned at his response, wondering why the President should use tax payers money to fund a private case. His action, they said, offended the Code of Conduct for public officers.

    In a way, they are accusing the President of wrong doing. Coming from a bench where some members are facing corruption charges, the insinuation is not lost on the public.