The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Nigeria

  • Nigeria seeks UN Security Council seat

    Nigeria seeks UN Security Council seat

    President Goodluck Jonathan insisted yesterday that Nigeria deserves a seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in the 2014-2015 session.

    He told world leaders and other delegates at the opening of the 68th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York, United States, that the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU) had already endorsed Nigeria for the position.

    According to him, the global community should also be assured of Nigeria’s commendable performance when it held a non-permanent seat on the Security Council.

    Jonathan, in the statement issued by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati, said: “Our support for the United Nations Security Council in its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security has been total and unwavering.”

    “We have, in previous membership of the Council, demonstrated both the political will and capacity to engage in key Council responsibilities.

    “I am pleased to state that Nigeria has received the endorsement of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU).

    We, therefore, urge this august Assembly to endorse Nigeria’s candidature for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council,” he added.

    Stressing that Nigeria and other developing countries were concerned about the lack of progress in the reformation of the United Nations, Jonathan called for quick action towards the democratisation of the Security Council.

    He said: “I believe that I express the concern of many about the slow pace of effort and apparent lack of progress in the reform of the United Nations, especially the Security Council. We believe strongly, that the call for democratisation worldwide should not be for States only, but also, for International Organisations such as the United Nations.”

    “That is why we call for the democratisation of the Security Council.

    This is desirable for the enthronement of justice, equity, and fairness; and also for the promotion of a sense of inclusiveness and balance in our world,” Jonathan said.

    On various global challenges, Jonathan called for a renewed and concerted effort by the international community to effectively resolve all issues that currently impede global peace, stability and progress.

    “Our world continues to be confronted by pressing problems and threats. No statement that will be made during this Session can exhaust the extent of these problems. The world looks to us, as leaders, to provide hope in the midst of crisis, to provide guidance through difficult socio-political divisions, and to ensure that we live in a better world.”

    “We have obligations to the present generation, but we have a greater obligation to generations yet unborn who should one day inherit a world of sufficiency irrespective of the circumstances of their birth or where they reside on the globe. We must work to make that world a reality in recognition of our common heritage.”

    “We must dedicate ourselves to working together to address global, regional and national challenges and deliver a more peaceful, equitable and prosperous world for all. It is our duty. We must not fail”,” he stated

    Jonathan also restated his called for the international community to confront the menace of global terrorism with greater resolve and determination.

    He said: “Terrorism constitutes a major threat to global peace and security, and undermines the capacity for sustained development. In Nigeria, the threat of terrorism in a few States in the North Eastern part of our country has proven to be a major challenge to national stability. We are therefore confronting it with every resource at our disposal with due regard for fundamental human rights and the rule of law.”

    “The reign of terror anywhere in the world is an assault on our collective humanity. Three days ago, the stark reality of this menace was again brought to the fore by the dastardly terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya. We must stand together to win this war together,” President Jonathan said.

    Commending Nigeria’s selection as co-Chair of the United Nations Expert Committee on Financing Sustainable Development, he said: “The importance of this Committee’s assignment cannot be overstated. For the post-2015 development agenda to be realistic, it must be backed by a robust financing framework which I hope will receive the strong backing of our Organisation’s more endowed members.”

    He congratulated UN member-states on the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty.

    “Our hope is that upon its entry into force, the ATT would herald an era of accountable trade in conventional arms which is critical to the security of nations,” the President said.

    While condemning the reported use of chemical weapons in the Syrian crisis, he welcomed current diplomatic efforts to avert a further escalation of the crisis in the country.

    He also urged world leaders to adopt measures and policies that will promote nuclear disarmament, protect and renew the world’s environment, and push towards an international system that is based on trust, mutual respect and shared goals.

  • Why interest rates can’t move, won’t move

    Why interest rates can’t move, won’t move

    Nigeria’s Central bank has held its policy interest rate at 12 per cent for the 12th consecutive month. Can anything make it budge?

    Analysts seem to think not. There are three factors that will keep rates locked: inflation, the naira and reserves.

    First, inflation has fallen from double digits to under 8.2 per cent in August – well below the target limit of 10 per cent and a five-year low. That gives scope for a cut, surely?

    Perhaps, but as Shilan Shah of Capital Economics pointed out: “The big falls in the headline CPI rate now look to have taken place… inflation is more likely to rise than fall in the coming months.”

    So that’s one reason to keep rates steady.

    The main concern for policy makers, though, is the naira. Like many emerging market currencies, it has lost value since May as investors feared the Fed would – as it suggested – begin tapering its QE programme, and has rallied since that prospect became more distant last week. The naira hit a year-to-date low against the dollar of 164 on September 10, but has since recovered to back under 160. That has eased any pressure for a rate increase.

    The central bank has been using its foreign reserves to help keep the naira around or below the 160 mark. Add the consequent depletion in reserves to the possibility of falling oil prices and increased public spending in the run up to elections in 2015, and the budget deficit – of around 3.5 per cent of GDP – starts to become a concern.

    As Razia Kahn, Africa economst at Standard Chatered said in a note:” Should the pressures on the FX rate prove excessive, we may yet see other measures aimed at stabilising the FX rate. For Nigeria, the question is about sustainability of this FX policy, given pressures on oil output and the country’s political cycle.

    What might those other measures be? Well, back in July the bank hiked its Cash Reserve Requirement for public sector deposits in banks to 50 per cent from 12 per cent, a move aimed at removing excess liquidity and, by putting upward pressure on bond yields, strengthening the naira.” Barclays set out the scale in a note back in July: “Our assessment suggests the government’s (federal, state and local) deposits are substantial, accounting for about 21% (NGN2.5trn or $16bn) of commercial banks’ deposit liabilities as of March 2013. A 50% reserve requirement would imply about $8bn would now need to be held at the central bank, assuming zero holding in these categories currently and little changes from the figures published in March.” Meanwhile, banks’ deposits at the central bank held for reserve requirement purposes totalled NGN1.4trn ($9.1) in March.

    And Nigeria continues to make strong statements about the currency. Here is central bank governor Lamido Sanusi, quoted on Tuesday by Bloomberg: “We don’t believe that there’s any country in the world that would allow its currency to be determined by markets.”

    That’s not quite the message of recent currency moves and foreign exchange dealings, as beyondbrics reported on Monday.

    But with Nigeria’s central bank mindful of inflation as well as the naira, the scope to cut is limited. Although Capital’s Shah suggested that rates may stay on hold for all of 2013 and beyond, Kahn noted that “the performance of the currency will likely determine what happens next.” Another round of EM currency selling will put the bank in a tricky position.

  • Nigeria requires N25tr to fix housing problem

    Nigeria requires N25tr to fix housing problem

    About N25 trillion is re-quired to fix the country’s housing problem, according to a report by Consolidated Discount Limited (CDL), a discount house also involved in market research.

    Banks, the report said, were not ready to lend developers the money, thereby compounding the problem.

    The housing gap is said to be 18 million and there are fears that it is growing by two million yearly.

    The report obtained by The Nation, tagged: ‘Retrogressive view on the Mortgage Refinance Company (MRC),’ said the company, established by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to assist bridge mortgage funding gap, was expected to issue N60 billion bond, which will also boost the Nigerian bond market.

    The report forecast that interest rate on mortgage from lenders to home owners would be cut by 50 per cent from the present 24 per cent to 12 per cent.

    This, it said, may not necessarily translate to affordable housing for the huge low-income population that is the most affected in Nigeria’s housing problems.

    The MRC supports mortgage originators, such as, Primary Mortgage Banks (PMBs) and commercial banks to increase mortgage lending by refinancing their mortgage loan portfolios.

    A mortgage banker in Lagos, Michael Chinedu, said the funding deficit persists because credit for housing is limited and expensive.

    “The response by commercial banks remains too slow and huge demand for affordable housing credit remains unmet. I would like to see more banks participating in the development of this product both in terms of access and cost effectiveness,” he said.

    But Assistant General Manager, Small Business Group, Skye Bank Plc, Wole Aderinkomi, said banks are weary of funding mortgage because in most of the cases, high interest rate creeps in, when sales are delayed. He said many of the homes built with borrowed funds are not sold immediately, with interest accruing to such loan. He said such interest accrual makes mortgage business not so attractive to the builders and banks.

    Aderinkomi, who spoke at a Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) workshop in Lagos, said many banks consider where to invest depositors’ funds to reduce loan loss.

    The MRC is being established to provide short-term liquidity and/or medium to long-term funding or guarantees to mortgage finance lenders. It is expected to increase annual mortgage origination in Nigeria to 200,000 from the current average of 20,000 mortgages within the next few years, representing an increase of 900 per cent.

    The company is also expected to act as intermediary between originators of mortgage loans and the capital market who are typically looking for long-dated high quality securities. The operations of the MRC are expected to enhance the development of the secondary mortgage market which till date remains largely untapped.

     

  • ETHIOPIA VS NIGERIA: NFF sticks to $5,000

    ETHIOPIA VS NIGERIA: NFF sticks to $5,000

    •Rules out increase in winning bonuses

    •Shortfall in federation’s subvention cited

    •Glasshouse shops for cash for Addis Ababa trip

     

     

    Eggheads of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) have vowed not to pay anything over the stipulated $5,000 as match winning bonuses to Super Eagles players, if the country beats Ethiopia in the two-legged games in Addis Ababa and Calabar.

    A decent source in NFF informed Sportinglife on Monday night that there would be a short fall in the federation’s next subvention occassioned by the volume of cash used prosecute the country’s football matches across all the national teams, especially the 2013 Africa cup of Nations held in South Africa, which Nigeria clinched.

    Consequently, the football chief stated that there would not be any raise in the winning bonuses adding that: “You don’t give what you don’t have. Even if we have to consider an increase, there must be justification from it.

    “We are shopping for cash to facilitate the trip to Addis Ababa and our budget for the players is specific on what we can afford to pay. We also do not have any plan to crawl to the government for cash. We are condemned to rely on our next subvention and other sources to get the money that we need.

  • The monetisation of bail in Nigeria

    The monetisation of bail in Nigeria

    Introduction Having attended many fora organised  by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)  in recent times without impacting positively on the justice sector I have come to the painful conclusion that Nigerian lawyers are reluctant to address the crisis of injustice in the society because they have become beneficiaries of the dysfunctional and unjust legal system. Unlike in the past when the NBA led Nigerian lawyers to defend the fundamental rights of the Nigerian people the NBA has since lost its voice among the progressive organisations in the country. Sadly, most branches of the NBA have compromised themselves to the extent that they lack the moral courage to call the national leadership to order. It was therefore with reluctance that I accepted the invitation of the Human Rights Committee of the Akure branch of the NBA to make this presentation.

    Under the adversarial criminal justice system presumption of innocence inures in favour of accused persons. Accordingly, every criminal suspect is entitled to bail granted by either the police or the court. But like all civil and political rights which are enjoyed exclusively by rich individuals who have the financial wherewithal indigent criminal suspects are economically disabled from enjoying the right to bail. Thus, out of the country’s small prison population of 51,000 inmates only 12,000 have been convicted. The remaining 39,000 inmates have either been refused bail or granted bail but unable to produce reliable sureties or fulfill other onerous conditions set down by either the law enforcement agencies or the courts.  In this presentation we shall examine the monetization of bail which is the raison d’être for denying bail to the majority of indigent accused persons in Nigeria.

    The Concept of Bail
    According to the Black’s Law Dictionary ‘bail’ is defined as “a security such as cash or bond; especially security required by a court for the release of a prisoner who must appear in court at a further trial”. In Nwude v. Federal Government of Nigeria (2004) 41 WRN 124 at 145 the concept of bail was examined by the Court of appeal when it held that “the whole concept of bail generally is about surety or sureties taken by a person duly authorised for the appearance of an accused person at a certain day and place to answer charges leveled against him and be justified by law”.

    The Court also approved the definition of bail in Kenny’s Outline of Criminal Law to the effect that it is a “contract whereby an accused person is delivered to his surety or also the contract of the surety himself. The primary object of it in any event is to ensure that the accused person will attend court to stand his trial.” In Mohammed Abacha v. The State (2002) 5 NWLR (PT 761) 187 the Supreme Court defined bail as the “means to set at liberty a person arrested or imprisoned on security being taken for his appearance on a day and place certain”
    It appears from the above definitions that the sole purpose of granting bail to accused persons pending trial is to procure their release by ensuring future attendance in Court and compelling them to remain within the jurisdiction of the court while bail pending appeal is granted in exceptional circumstances to prevent a convict from serving a jail term that is likely to be set aside. See Fawehinmi v. The State (1990) 1 NWLR (PT 127) 486.
    No doubt, bail is always tied to the ownership of landed property and money in all capitalist societies. But since the Constitution has placed premium on equality before the law judges should desist from imposing monetary and property related bail conditions on indigent criminal suspects. In a case involving a commercial driver charged with murder for hitting a judge with a bus on Moloney Street in Lagos the driver was denied bail by the trial judge.  Even though we succeed in getting bail for him in the Court of Appeal the applicant has not been able to meet the bail terms of two sureties in the sum of N100,000 each of whom must be land owners in Lagos State.
    Since the essence of bail is to secure the attendance of accused persons at their trial family members and close friends of criminal suspects should be allowed to stand surety for them. In 1992, the late Fela Anikulapo-Kuti was charged with murder with two of his aides the Lagos High Court. The trial judge admitted the defendant to bail on the condition that the defence counsel or his senior brother who was then a minister was prepared to stand surety for him. The bail condition was met when the defendant’s senior brother stood surety for him. But it took over a month before we could get land owners to take out the other two defendants on bail.

    The right to bail
    It is submitted that the fundamental right of an accused person to personal liberty includes the right to bail pending trial. Specifically section 35(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:
    “Any person who is arrested or detained in accordance with subsection (1)(c) shall be brought before a court of law within a reasonable time and if he is not tried within a period of;
    a. two months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a person who is in custody or is not entitled to bail;
    b. three months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a person who has been released on bail; he shall be (without prejudice to any further proceedings that may be brought against him) be released to either unconditionally or upon such conditions as are reasonably to ensure the he appears for trial at a later date.”
    The presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person is guaranteed by Section 36(5) of Constitution 1999, which states as follows:
    “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he proved guilty …”
    The combined effect of both sections 35(4) and 36(5) of the Constitution is that the liberty of an accused is jealously guarded by the Constitution, irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence charged. In other words a criminal suspect who is presumed innocent by the Constitution should not be unduly incarcerated by the police or a trial court. In Eda v Commissioner of Police, Bendel State (1982) 2 NCLR 219 the Court of Appeal held: ”when a person is arrested or detained by the Police in connection with an allegation on reasonable suspicion of a crime and they are actively pursuing investigation of the matter, the duty of the police is in appropriate case to offer bail to the suspect and for bringing him to court of law within 1 day or 2 days as the case may be no matter under whatever sections of the Criminal Procedure Act or Police Act 1967 the police may purport to be acting”.
    It is trite law that there has to be a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offence before he can be taken to court. The practice of arraigning suspect in court on the basis of a holding charge was declared illegal in Ogor & Ors v. Kolawole (1983)1 NCR 342. Also in the case of Akokhia v. Commissioner of Police, Lagos State (1984) 5 NCLR 836 the court decried the practice of preferring a holding charge against accused persons by the police.
    Under the Criminal Justice (Release from Custody) Special Provisions Act (Cap C40) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, the Chief Justice and Chief Judges of the states are empowered to order the release of persons whose bail was refused and have been detained for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offence. In Edwin Iloegbunam & Ors v. Richard Iloegbunam & Ors (2001) 47 WRN 72. The Appellants were arraigned on a holding charge of attempted murder before the Magistrate’s Court, Ogidi, Anambra State on 3/7/2000. The trial court refused the application for bail and ordered that the appellants be remanded in prison custody. Before the hearing date the Chief Judge of Anambra State visited the Onitsha Prisons on 27/9/2000 and ordered the release of the Appellants on bail.
    Upon the release of the Appellants the Respondents reacted by filing an ex parte application at the Federal High Court, Lagos for the arrest of the Appellants. The application was granted and they were re-arrested and detained in prison custody. Dissatisfied with the order for their re-arrest and detention, the appellants approached the Court of Appeal for redress. In allowing the appeal the Court of Appeal held:
    “That there is power in the Chief Justice of the Federation or any of the Chief Judges of the States to order the release of persons detained in prison custody in the exercise of their power under section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice (Release from Custody) (Special Provisions) Act Cap 79 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 is not in doubt. The exercise of that power by the Anambra Chief Judge would definitely constitute a different cause of action for the present respondents if they feel aggrieved by it. And an action founded on the exercise of that power which action is challenging the authority of the Chief Judge is one that should be brought before the High Court of Anambra State by virtue of Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution.”
    Before granting bail to accused persons a trial court is enjoined to consider the (1) gravity of offence (2) the severity of punishment (3) the character of the evidence and (4) the rampancy of the offence. See Rex v. Jammal, 16 NLR 54; Majidadi v. Commissioner of Police (1984) 5 NCLR 847 and Dantata v. Inspector General of Police (1958) NRNLR 3. In Onu Obekpa v. Commissioner of Police (1981) 2 NCLR 420 it was held that a person accused of a criminal offence, other than a capital offence has a right to be released before trial in as much as the trial is going to last for more than two months.

     

     

    Bailable Offences
    In criminal proceedings an applicant can seek bail at three different stages i.e bail after arrest by law enforcement agents before arraignment; bail after arraignment but pending trial of the substantive charge and bail after conviction but pending the determination of an appeal filed against the conviction and or sentence before an appellate court. An applicant whose application for bail has been urged down by a High Court has a right of appeal to an appellate court for a reconsideration of the request.
    Contrary to the general belief that some offences are not bailable I wish to submit that there is no offence under the criminal and penal codes that is not bailable. It is within the discretion of a trial court to admit an accused person to bail once there is assurance that he/she will attend court for trial. But the discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously. In M.K.O. Abiola v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1994)1 NWLR PT 370 Pg 155 it was held that a person charged with a capital offence may be admitted to bail depending on the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the Appellant who was facing a charge of treason was admitted to bail in liberal terms.
    In Ibori v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2009) 3 NWLR (PT 1127) 94 at 106 it was held by the Court of Appeal that “no matter how seemingly serious, grave, heinous or unconscionable an alleged offence or offences committed by an accused person might look, he is still entitled to that presumption as an article of faith and a matter of right guaranteed by the Constitution.” In Abacha v. The State (2002) All NLR 1 at 10 the Supreme Court held that “it is not unusual to grant bail in capital offences or where the Applicant has been convicted and sentenced and his appeal is pending. This can only be done when exceptional circumstance is shown”.

    Commercialization of Bail.
    In every police station in Nigeria it is boldly written that “bail is free”. But in actuality bail is sold as suspects are extorted before they are admitted to bail by the police.  Although a detained suspect has the constitutional right to consult a legal practitioner police officers are very hostile to lawyers who turn up in police stations. In order not to frustrate the police from collecting bail fees from suspects lawyers are always advised to wait for their clients’ arraignment in court.  Police authorities are not unaware of the unwholesome practice as no grant is made available to run any of the over 10,000 police stations in the country. The embarrassing phenomenon was confirmed by several divisional police officers in a recent survey conducted by the Punch newspaper where it was revealed that police stations are run from extortion of suspects and donations from generous members of the public.
    Upon arraignment at the magistrates and area courts accused persons are made to pay for bail with the connivance of defence counsel. Whereas bail is granted in the open court it is approved in the chambers of some corrupt magistrates upon the payment of negotiated sums of money. There have been reports of frivolous charges deliberately filed in the courts by the police for the sole purpose of extorting money from “accused persons”. A number of lawyers and magistrates shamelessly participate in the fraudulent commercialization of the liberty of such innocent people.
    A writer has acknowledged that we live in an era of the “marketizaton of everything”. Hence the Lagos State government has monetised bail in total disregard of the rising inequality in the society.
    Thus, section 116(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2011 provides that, “The Court may require the deposit of money or any other security as specified by the Court from the Applicant and/or his surety before the bail is approved”. (Michael J. Sandel: What Money Can’t Buy Penguin Books, 2012 P. 203: The Moral Limits of Markets.
    The application of the law by magistrates has forced many indigent criminal suspects to remain behind bar on account of their inability to provide monetary security.

     

    In Femi Falana v Attorney-General of Lagos State (Unreported) Suit No: ID/79M/2010 the constitutional validity of the posting of monetary security to entitle a criminal suspect to bail was challenged at the Lagos High Court. Upon hearing the case the learned trial judge upheld the objection of the respondent that the claimant lacked the locus standi to institute the action. It is however doubtful if the court paid due regard to the case of Eyu v. The State (1988) 2 NWLR (PT 78) 602 at 612 where Oguntade JCA (as he then was) held:
    “…Since there is a presumption of innocence in favour of an accused, it seems to me odd and oppressive that the Appellant in this case had been called upon to deposit the sum of ¦ 400,000,00k as condition for bail. Is it not possible she may at the end be found not guilty of the offence? Why ask her then to deposit that very sum she was alleged to have received under false pretences? If the sole purpose of granting bail is to enable an accused come back to take his trial. I do not see that it is necessary to introduce a test of pecuniarily to attain that end. For even an accused who is able to deposit ¦ 400,000,00k may still jump bail ….’’

    In Mathas Onuigbo v. Commissioner of Police (1995) NWLR (PT 34) the Court of Appeal declared illegal the demand for deposit of N600 cash attached to the Appellant’s bail. In Oluwole Makinde v. The State (Unreported) Suit No: SC/8/1988 the Supreme Court equally set aside the condition of N1 million deposit in the Central Bank, Kano Branch or a bank guarantee of N1 million imposed by the Court of Appeal for the securing the bail of the Appellant.

    In view of the settled position of the law on cash deposit for bail it is submitted that Section 116(2) of the Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void as it is inconsistent with Sections 35(4) and 36(5) of the Constitution. It ought to be expunged from the law by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Constitution. I am in full agreement with Abdu Aboki JCA when he opined that:

    “It is improper to impose unnecessary and unfulfillable conditions of bail outside the provisions of the law on an accused person to the point of almost rendering the bail nugatory. Bail applications should not be refused indirectly in case of bailable offences or where bail is automatic in case of simple offences or offences punishable with less than three years imprisonment by imposing conditions such as letters of recommendation from sureties’ place of work or tax certificate, three months pay slips from sureties’ place of work. Grants or original Certificates of Grants or original Certificates of Occupancy by sureties in Court and other harsh requirements.” (Justice Abdu Aboki, JCA, Fair Hearing and Bail in NJI Law Journal, 2009 P. 58).

    Bail for Accused Persons in Corruption Cases

    In line with their statutory duties the anti-graft agencies have filed criminal charges against former governors, former ministers, serving legislators and other politically exposed persons. But as soon as the suspects are arraigned in court they are remanded in custody for a few days. Once they are granted bail they apply for their passports to enable them to travel abroad either to visit members of their families or to honour medical appointments.

    Thereafter, they proceed to challenge the jurisdiction of the court or the competence of the charge or the venue of the trial. If the decisions of the trial courts are not in their favour they promptly file interlocutory appeals and ask for stay of proceedings before the trial court or the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court pending the final determination of such appeals. By the time the appeals are determined which may take up to 10 years or more, the trial judge may have retired while the witnesses may have lost interest in the case.

    In a display of class solidarity the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is in the habit of charging politically exposed persons and other influential criminal suspects to court with money laundering which attracts a maximum punishment of two years imprisonment or payment of fine. Even though the evidence in support of the charges discloses economic sabotage of monumental proportion such highly placed suspects are ordered by the trial courts to be remanded in the comfortable cells of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission for a few days pending the hearing and determination of their bail applications. However, ordinary Nigerians who are charged with fraud, stealing, obtaining by false pretences and other economic and financial crimes are hardly granted bail by the courts. Even when bail is granted to them they are not able to meet the conditions which are usually tied to property. In the process such defendants may remain behind bar throughout the duration of the trial.

    But when it comes to cases of economic and financial crimes involving grand corruption the courts have always waxed eloquent in defending the fundamental rights of accused persons to personal liberty. Not only have they been admitted to bail in liberal terms the passports of such influential accused persons have been released to enable them to travel abroad to visit their family members or attend business meetings. In Ibori v. F.R.N. (2009) 3 NWLR (PT 1127) 94 at 104-105 the Court of Appeal held:

    “The scenario painted by the 1st Respondent is better appreciated if the Applicant was still in prison custody, but he is not; he was admitted to bail on the 11th of February 2008, and has since been treading the Nigerian soil and breathing the Nigerian air as free as any innocent man – See Saidu v. State (1982) 1 NCR 89; (1982) 4 SC 41. If we buy into the 1st Respondent’s argument, it would mean that an accused person, who is on bail and presumed innocent, is still confined to the prison of Nigeria. He would then wear the tag and toga of a criminal, who should never leave the country for fear that he would be arrested in another country. How preposterous; the applicant is already on bail, and merely wants his passports released to him so that he can travel and see to his health and other personal matters, and I do not see why he should be denied.”

    Bail in Corruption Cases

    Before the Ibori case the Court of Appeal had refused to grant applications for bail in serious cases of economic and financial crimes. For instance, in rejecting the appellant’s application for bail in Ekwenugo v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2001) 6 NWLR (PT 708) 171 the Court held that “If there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence his liberty may be impaired temporarily. In the same vein, a person’s liberty may be tampered with so as to prevent him from committing an offence. In short it is clear that no citizen’s freedom is absolute. The freedom or liberty of a citizen ends where that of the other man starts.”

    In that case, while enjoining judges to strive to operate the law for the attainment of social engineering Fabiyi JCA (as he then was) said “Nigerian judges do not operate in utopia. We operate in Nigeria. And no Nigerian judge can rightly claim he has not heard that Transparency International rated our nation as the most corrupt in the whole universe in the year 2000. This is ear-aching. Should judges, in the prevailing circumstances, pat Advance Fee Fraud accused persons on the back under the cloak of human rights? I think not.”

    In Nwude v. Federal Republic of Nigeria(supra); Ofulue v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2006) EFCLR 100; Anajemba v. Federal Republic of Nigeria the Court of Appeal dismissed the bail applications filed by the Appellants. The progressive stand was endorsed by the apex court in Attorney-General, Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2006) 16 NWLR (PT 1005) 265 at 389 when Tobi JSC warned every potential treasury looter to desist from his nefarious activities as “the Independent Corrupt Practice and Other Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) are watching him very closely and will, without notice, pounce on him for incarceration after due process.”

    It is significant to note that the refusal of bail to such influential criminal suspects at the material time forced many of them to plead guilty to the charges pending against them which led to their conviction. But as a result of the dangerously liberal disposition of the Court of Appeal in the Ibori case bail has become automatic for everyone charged with corruption and other economic and financial crimes notwithstanding the gravity of the offence and the implications for the national economy.  In view of the fact that corruption has serious negative implications for the national economy and the development of the country the Court of Appeal ought to review its stand on bail with respect to corruption cases.

    After all, notwithstanding the liberal judicial attitude to applications for bail filed by politically exposed persons charged with serious corruption cases the courts have not hesitated to deny bail to persons charged with treason on account of their alleged involvement in civil disturbances. See the cases of Faseun v. A.G.F (2007) 11 WRN 87 and Gani Adams v. AGF (2006) 44 WRN 46. In Dokubo Asari v. F.R.N (2007) 30 WRN 1 at 38 the Supreme Court held:

    “Where national security is threatened or there is the real likelihood of it being threatened human rights or the individual right of those responsible take second place. Human rights or individual rights must be suspended until national security can be protected or well taken care of. This is not anything new. The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, harmonious, indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation, is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or right. Once the security of this nation is in jeopardy and it survives in pieces rather than in peace, the individual’s liberty or right may not even exist”.

    The Way Forward

    i. As every person in Nigeria is constitutionally entitled to personal liberty it is no longer permissible for law enforcement agencies to detain any criminal suspect without filing a charge against him within 24 or 48 hours. Under the new human rights legal regime in Nigeria the indiscriminate arrest and detention of persons without trial should be taken up by the NBA. Like the human rights bodies the NBA should take advantage of the provisions of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009 to institute actions in the appropriate High Courts to secure the enforcement of the fundamental rights of several people who are illegally arrested and detained by the police and other law enforcement agencies.

    ii. The NBA should direct each of its 100 branches to be in regular touch with the NGO human rights bodies and the State Chapter of the National Human Rights Commission, the Legal Aid Council and the Office of the Public Defender with a view to having a coalition to challenge illegal arrest and detention of the Nigerian people.

    iii. The NBA should lead a campaign for the payment of monetary damages awarded by courts in favour of persons whose fundamental rights are violated by the police and the security forces. In the case of Fukura v Attorney -General of the Federation the sum of N100 million was awarded against the defendant by the Borno State High Court. Similarly, the Lagos high court ordered the Defendants  to pay N120 million to the two applicants in Okeke & Anor v Rear Admiral Around and Others.  With respect to the illegal military invasion of Odi in Bayelsa State and Zaki Biam in Benue State  the Federal High Court has awarded the damages of N137 billion and N42 billion respectively against the Federal Government. It is my belief that if the aforesaid judgment debts have been paid the Federal Government would have been compelled to arrest the incessant abuse of fundamental rights of Nigerians by law enforcement agencies.

    iv. The Nigerian Bar Association should also liaise with the Body of Attorneys-General with a view to formulating some guidelines for dealing with the arrest and detention of criminal suspects. For instance, most police stations are always crowded with detainees who arrested for wandering when the Vagrancy Law was abolished in 1986. The police should be restrained from applying a repealed law to violate the fundamental right of poor people to liberty.

    v. Lawyers in the federal and state ministries of justice should draw the attention of the police and other law enforcement agencies to the case of Lufadeju v Johnson which requires that suspects whose cases are under investigation be taken to court for remand orders which are subject to regular reviews until the conclusion of investigation and the filing of charges in court.

    vi. The NBA should sanction its members who collude with law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain persons who breach contracts. In other words lawyers should be discouraged from turning civil cases to financial and economic crimes so as to enable the EFCC to arrest and detain innocent persons.

    vii. The NBA should monitor the office of the Director of Public Prosecution in each to ensure that the writing of legal advice in respect of criminal cases is not delayed to prevent abuse of the rights of suspects to liberty.

    viii. The NBA should invite the Chief Justice and Chief Judges to visit the prisons whenever it is established that awaiting trial inmates ought to be released from prison custody. Such visits should be based on information officially sourced and obtained from the prison management.

    Conclusion

    In concluding this paper, I wish to urge Nigerian lawyers to take more than a passing interest in the political economy of the country’s neo-colonial capitalist system which is firmly rooted in injustice. Nigerian lawyers and judges should appreciate that majority of indigent criminal suspects cannot enjoy the right to bail as long as it tied to money and property. The members of the legal profession should stop promoting the legal shibboleth of equality before the law. In his keynote address at the 1985 Annual Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association held in Port Harcourt, River State the Late Dr. Aguda exposed the myth of equality before the law when he said:

    “To the best of my knowledge and experience there is nothing like equality before the law, at least not the way the law is operated today. It is nothing but a myth created by our political rulers and the lawyers to give cold comfort to the ‘common man’, so that they, that is our political rulers and the lawyers, can have a peace of mind. But the earlier we disturb that peace of mind the better…

    We cannot say that we are administering law and justice and shut our eyes to social and economic injustice around us. We must struggle to ensure that none of our citizens suffer unnecessary from want of food, adequate housing, and clothing. It is only after we have succeeded in this regard that the common man can hope to receive justice from us and the law we practice.”

     

  • A fight between two lions

    A fight between two lions

    Five months ago I left the PDP and I told the world why I chose to do so. I also said that the party had hit the rocks and that it was a sinking ship. Few believed me at the time but today even the most chronic of doubting Thomases have changed their minds. The division within the ruling party has now become so self-evident that only a fool would believe that things can ever be the same again between those that honestly believed that they had cornered the market on our country and that they would rule Nigeria for the next 100 years.

    Never in the history of our nation has the ruling party at the centre suffered the kind of division and open rupture that the PDP has suffered in the last few weeks and months.To most this is a blessing in disguise but to the members of the party itself it is a terrible affliction and nothing less than a curse of monuemental proportions. Yet anyone that is familiar with the way God operates will understand what is going on and will appreciate the fact that only the Lord could have done this- He has divided their tongues and caused them to turn their swords upon one another.

    The truth is that the PDP stopped operating like a political party quite a number of years ago. For the last few years it has been nothing more than a cult of personality and power- a contraption that was put in place simply to take power, under the guise of democracy, and to keep that power ad infinitum.  It’s sheer incompetence in governance at the federal level in the last five years and it’s insensitivity to the plight of the ordinary people and to the fortunes of Nigeria are manifest for all to see.

    Yet, that is of the least concern to those that control and lead the cult. This is because their only purpose and raison d’etre for being together is to hold on to power at all costs and to share the resources of our nation amongst themselves. With that power comes the most extreme and insufferable manifestation of arrogance and this explains why it is that no-one, no matter how big or small, matters to the PDP.

    As long as they hold the centre and control the purse strings they believe that every single Nigerian not only has a price but also bows and trembles before the Almighty federal government. They forget that with hubris always comes nemesis and that like the mythological Greek character Icarus, the closer they fly to the sun the more the wax that holds their wings together begins to melt.

    What is going on in the ruling party today has little to do with the ordinary people of Nigeria. It is simply an internal and brutal struggle for the very soul of the party which is being waged between the new order, led by a relatively weak, inexperienced yet desperate president and the old order, led by a highly experienced, dangerous, calculating, patient and ruthless former president.

    The latter group is fully backed by elements from the old ruling military establishment who have effectively been running the affairs of this country and determining who would become what since 1966. President Goodluck Jonathan came to power on the backs of these people though he never asked for it and, in fairness to him, he now seeks to assert himself and break free of them. They, on the other hand, see the PDP as their construct and their creation. They see it as THEIR platform. They believe that they literally own it and that they also own the president that they afforded the rare privilage of mounting it in order to acquire power by their collective resolve.

    That platform was conceived and established by a tiny group of exceptionally powerful men led by General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida and General Aliyu Gusau in 1998 almost immediately after General Sani Abacha was murdered and General Abdulsalami Abubakar came to power. Its objective was to keep Nigeria one, to bring General Olusegun Obasanjo to power, to keep the progressives and radical elements out of it and to protect the interests of the powers that be, the ruling class and their business associates.

    Given this scenario it does not take a genius to figure out the fact that the stakes here are enormously high.  In the minds of the protagonists and antagonists one thing is clear- whoever ends up controlling the PDP, they believe, will end up controlling Nigeria with its vast oil and gas resources and it’s enormous influence on the African continent. What they fail to appreciate is that once the internal struggle for the soul of the party becomes too pronounced, too bitter, too violent and too extreeme, it creates the potential for destroying the very foundation of the platform itself and it may well result in the loss of power for them all.

    With an increasingly disciplined and well-organised opposition in the form of the APC, whose ranks are growing by the day, this seems increasingly likely. Consequently for the first time in the last 14 years of democracy in this country, as a consequence of the divisions within the PDP, the opposition may well be set to take power by 2015.

    Yet regardless of this both sides in this internal conflict are so drunk with power and the lust for it that they fail to see or appreciate this point. To them, there IS no oppostion and there IS no other platform that will be allowed to take power.

    They believe that even if they fight one another from morning till night for every day of the month for the next one year, once an election comes whoever wins that fight and ends up controlling the party can and will rig the elections and take power in 2015. It is this strange and peculiar disposition and mindset that has seized their minds that moves me to describe what is going on within the PDP today as a fight unto death between two factions of blind, desperate and reckless men.

    Both sides are so used to power and the wielding of it that they are not mindful of the implications of their recklessness and extreme and uncompromising positions. This may be good for Nigeria because it clearly signals their collective end but it is not good for either of the two warring factions themselves. My view is that at the end of the day both sides will lose simply because one will come out on top, though badly wounded, weakened, dissipated and diminished and the other will be utterly crushed.

    Whichever way it goes by the time this fight is over the party will end up being a shadow of its former self and a pitiful counterfeit version of the original brand. Given the circumstances, there can be little doubt in anyone’s mind that the glory days of the PDP are longer over and more likely than not shall never return.

    Permit me to end this contribution by making an analogy. The lion is the king of the jungle and the story is often told about how he controls his pride and runs his kingdom. We can learn a little from that here. The lion remains head of the pride for as long as he lives. He has all the females at his beck and call and he gets to eat before anyone else even though he rarely hunts with the others. His role is simply to lead and to rule, to lay down the law, to define the boundries, to give orders, to judge others, to enjoy the spoils of office, to mate, to procreate and to protect the pride from outside aggression.

    He is the king and he settles all disputes with a mighty roar and an iron claw. So protective of his own power is he that the minute his own male offspring begins to approach adolesecence or manhood he throws them out of the pride to go and fend for themselves. If they insist on staying he will fight and kill them. No-one challenges his authority and neither does he brook or tolerate any opposition to his rule.

    He may delegate power or authority from time to time to others, but as long as he lives, he is king. The only way to remove him from power is for a younger and stronger lion to come from outside, or indeed within, and to kill him. Once that is done the younger lion becomes king and remains king until he is also toppled and killed by another. What is going on in the PDP today is very similar to the lion’s dance.

    We have, on the one hand, the old lion and his loyalists, who delegated authority and power to his favoured son 2011 and who now wishes to re-assert his authority and reign him back in.

  • Education and democracy: training the future generation (3)

    Education and democracy: training the future generation (3)

    The federal government and its agencies are too far from  local communities where education is provided.

    We sent our two children to Ghana, not because we are rich but because we believe that Ghana has a more reliable education system that Nigeria. Our education system in Nigeria has become largely a factory for manufacturing credentials, rather than laboratories or classrooms for disseminating and acquiring knowledge and skills. My wife and I went to school in this country in the early 1970s, after the civil war. I still remember that emphasis then was on mastering what we were taught in school, not primarily on the credentials that schools gave at the end of our courses. We were sure good credentials would come after mastering the subjects. Even as students, we created our own informal clubs in the boarding house or in the neighbourhood to demonstrate how much each student knew about whatever subject we chose to discuss. That hardly happens today; parents and their children show more concern for the academic grades to take to the university, and thus corrupt even the process of determining outcomes of learning. Comment from a couple who retired into business after thirty years in the civil service.

    Last week’s piece concluded as follows: “Like everything else, organising provision of education to respond to the fear that allowing states and regions more freedom to determine how to refine their culture and advance their development is not likely to achieve anything more than the organisation of the Nigeria Police Force has done: inefficiency and ineffectiveness. It is indeed safer to believe that encouraging all parts of Nigeria to develop ways of providing quality education to citizens without excluding any group or class directly or indirectly has a higher chance of enhancing the country’s unity than holding parts of the country down from embarking on creative steps to solve the problem of education provision for citizens.”

    The major challenge regarding the country’s education is how to ensure quality and equity in education provision. Many people would argue that the federal government’s policies of free-tuition in federal universities and of free education for citizens for the first nine years of schooling under the system of Universal Basic Education appear to have solved that the problem of equity. The UBE’s offering of free education for nine years is not enough to make the country competitive. Most countries of the world including those that are hundreds of years ahead of Nigeria in terms of industrialisation and technology have free and compulsory education for citizens until they complete senior secondary or high school. Even some countries, such as Sweden, Finland, and Scotland, have policies of free-tuition for citizens in tertiary institutions.

    To make Nigeria more competitive, it is necessary to make education free and compulsory for citizens until they complete secondary education and to create tuition-free adult education centres for citizens to attend after work or on weekends. For example, tuition-free adult education programmes were available in Western Nigeria in the years before the civil war, even at a time that the region had a free primary education. The policy was created to support sectarian or local community schools in creating a second chance for citizens who could not benefit from free primary education on account of age restriction.

    The major problem crying for solution is how to transform education to the point that public school education can have quality. At present, public school education, the only education provided for citizens with severely limited resources but not necessarily without high intelligence quotient, is without any quality and thus without any effectiveness. This is why more than half of those who went through secondary school failed to pass the number of subjects required to move to the next level. While government leaders are not found wanting in terms of waxing eloquent about the power of knowledge and the need for the country to have a better education than it has had in the last twenty-five years, there appears a clear lack of focus on how to transform the education sector, particularly the primary/secondary schooling system that generally prepares citizens for academic and vocational skills capable of increasing competitiveness of citizens and the country.

    It is on record that Nigeria spends less than 4% of its annual budget on education, despite the call by UNESCO for up to 24%, if the country is to be in a position to produce men and women of academic and vocational skills needed to compete in a world that is driven by new frontiers in science, technology, and management of complex organisations. Several decades of doing the same thing (throwing money sporadically and grudgingly at the education sector) ought to have proven that what is needed is moving away from the madness of doing the same thing and expecting different results. The country’s desperate problem in the education sector is, in the parlance of popular culture, calling for a desperate solution, one that requires thinking out of the box.

    The relationship between the federal and state/local governments needs to change, if the country is to transform its education system. A situation in which the federal government holds and allocates funds to various aspects of education across the country through various agencies is calling for creative and bold thinking. Making education an essentially a local government matter is more likely to create the ingredients needed to create excellence in education provision: motivation, enthusiasm for new knowledge, depth of learning, conducive conditions of learning, effective teaching, and community involvement in provision of education and management of schools, etc.

    The federal government and its agencies are too far from the local communities where education is provided. Local governments should impose taxes to run primary and secondary schools. Doing so will reinforce a social contract between the local government and citizens with respect to provision of an effective public school system. The federal government should have a system of giving matching grants to local governments for specific projects, such as creating of digital learning architecture, modern laboratories, etc. State governments should be free to raise funds through lottery to provide additional matching grants to local government authorities for measurable and verifiable education projects. The Western Region used proceeds from its lottery to provide additional funds for education in the 1950s, in addition to collecting taxes from citizens.

    Using taxes collected from citizens to fund education that is managed by the local government authority creates a space for direct and indirect involvement of citizens. Because citizens are principal stakeholders after providing the funds used to run schools by paying their taxes, they will be emboldened to call school administrators to order, much more than our present system that runs education from funds that citizens cannot directly claim ownership over. Apart from creating a core curriculum to reflect a national ethos, local governments and states should have a central role to play in curriculum design. For example, apart from making the teaching of English (the country’s national language and window to the global market) compulsory for students in the first nine years of school, each state should decide on which language to use to teach students in the first six or nine years of education. The current situation, whereby about 30% of the population is illiterate; only half of those who completed twelve years of education qualify for further education; and lack of lifelong learning provision for citizens, only signposts a country that is unwilling to face its future with determination and courage to position majority of its citizens to make direly needed contributions to levers of development through knowledge.

  • Why FG wants ASUU strike to continue

    Nigerian universities have been buffeted with agonising months of strikes for over a decade and until now, the story is pretty much the same. Government is still unwilling to give the education sector a shot in the arm.
    Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU, has been on strike since June 30 and has dialogued with FG over 11 times, albeit, inconclusively.
    This underscores the lukewarm posture of government towards the striking lecturers and from ASUU’s body language and utterances,  they have made it abundantly clear to anyone who cares to listen that they are ready to continue the strike even if it takes years, insisting that their decision was adequately taken in a bid to revitalise Nigerian universities.
    The bone of contention is lucid in itself. An agreement was reached in 2009 that all federal universities would require a total sum of N1.5 trillion spread over three years (2009-2011) to address the rot and decay in the universities.
    But, in the Memorandum of Understanding, MoU, signed between the union and the government in 2012, FG decided to extend the gesture to include both federal and state universities. After the 2012 review, it was agreed that instead of N1.5 trillion, FG would infuse a total of N1.3 trillion into the universities over four years.
    Almost four years down the line, FG has refused to fulfill its end of the bargain. Rather than respond to the issues raised by the union that would ensure quick resolution to the imbroglio, government boycotted ASUU to summon a meeting with Pro-Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors of universities, offering them N130 billion with a matching order to lecturers to resume work immediately.
    But the union is insisting that by throwing money at universities in that manner, government has repudiated the 2009 agreement it entered freely with the union and the 2012 MoU. ASUU is not making any fresh demand but has maintained that the 2009 agreement must be honoured.
    It is ridiculous that government officials were quoted as saying ASUU’s N1.3 trillion demand is capable of shutting down the country. No. Their insatiable and rapacious greed will.
    The private jets in the presidential fleet can fly, centenary celebrations is a priority to government, there’s enough money to pay humongous salaries and allowances to federal legislators and other political office holders, enough to forfeit to oil subsidy thieves, enough to pay militants bogus amnesty cheques and phantom contracts while they continue to bunker our crude oil like never before, there’s enough money to beg Boko Haram to accept amnesty but there is no money for law abiding Nigerian students who want to eke out a living using university education as a stepping stone. It is this kind of attitude from the government that provokes the use of brute force by some regional groups to attract government’s attention to their problems.
    Government cannot claim it has no money to fulfill this agreement. A country with 109 senators earning about N19.6 billion a year, while N51.8 billion is spent on members of House of Representatives for the same period, totaling N71.4 billion.
    This sum, N71.4 billion, represents 17.8 per cent of the N400bn yearly intervention fund recommended by the Committee on Needs Assessment of Nigerian Universities. Surely, our lecturers and universities where they were trained deserve more.
    When we talk of heath care, government official and the ruling elite go abroad for medical attention; we talk of bad roads, they fly private jets; we talk of power, they run their homes on 24-7 alternative electricity source; now we’re talking Education, their wards are in some of the best universities abroad. There is no way the myriad of problems bedeviling the country can be tackled if the political elite don’t feel the pangs.
    That Mr. President has taken out time from his ‘busy’ schedule to constantly parley with the warring factions of his party, PDP, but has never sat down with ASUU members to chart a course for Nigeria’s leaders of tomorrow clearly shows his priorities. Party affairs and chasing perceived enemies of his 2015 ambition around with apparatus of state are far more important things than bending over backwards to pander to the demands of the striking lecturers.
    But then, government must take into cognisance the fact that, the longer the students remain at home, chances are that they will be lured into social vices. The aftermath can be disastrous for the state.
    There are misplaced calls in some quarters for ASUU to be ‘reasonable’, accept FG’s offer and return to classrooms. Others lambast them for being self-centered and unpatriotic. It is unfortunate that Nigerians are always looking for quick fix solutions to monumental problems. Less endowed countries like Ghana, Botswana and Angola are making giant strides on all fronts because the citizenry have at one point or the other insisted that the needful be done. Here, anything thrown at us is accepted with glee.
    We must get our priorities right as a country. Government must curb its own excesses. Education must be given the attention it deserves. Education of the citizenry should not be subjected to any form of Negotiation. Negotiating the education of our leaders of tomorrow is more or less negotiating the future of the country.
    Government deliberately wants the strike to linger, first, to blackmail the opposition. There have been several unsavoury comments from the government’s divide of the negotiation table that ASUU has been infiltrated by moles from the opposition, alleging that the strike has lingered to gain political capital. That is how low this government can stoop. We have seen it before. It is an irresponsible and shameless government, one that lacks integrity and honesty that will blame the opposition for all its woes. It is unbecoming for the government of the day to continue to heap its failure on the doorstep of the opposition and ASUU strike is just another avenue to paint the opposition black before the public.
    Second, is to send a strong signal to other unions who might be contemplating similar action to have a rethink. Perhaps, government thinks by acceding to ASUU’s demands, other Labour unions might toe the same path at the slightest excuse.
    Third, the ultimate aim of government is to paint a bad image of the association to Nigerians, at least, for as long as the strike persists. The Governor Gabriel Suswan-led NEEDS Report Implementation Committee mediating on behalf of the government has unfortunately taken a position that is false, dishonest, and calculated to misinform the public and cause disaffection towards the union.
    Rather than seek cheap popularity, Governor Suswan and the rest of the FG team should tow the part of honour by asking President Goodluck Jonathan to honour the 2009 agreement. There’s no basis for turning the heat on ASUU and the campaign of calumny.
    It calls for worry, that same government that has always maintained that ‘our graduates are unemployable’ and our universities churn out ‘half-baked graduates’ find it difficult to commit the much needed funds to revamp the universities.
     Ilevbare is a public affairs commentator. He can be reached via theophilus@ilevbare.com. Engage him on twitter, @tilevbare. He blogs politics at http://ilevbare.com.

  • Nigerian firms for Dublin Web Summit

    Two Nigerian technology companies, www.insidify.com and www.mymusic.com.ng have been selected from thousands around the world to participate at the Web Summit in Dublin, Ireland.

    A release by the organizers of the summit said the event is billed for October, “the companies will be given the opportunity to pitch to, and meet, some of the world’s leading executives and CEOs from Facebook, Cisco, Box, AOL, Paypal, Kaspersky and Microsoft alongside leading ventures capital firms like Google Ventures, Kleiner Perkins, Andreessen Horowitz, NEA and others,” the statement added.

    According to the statement, international personalities like Robert Scoble and Tony Hawk will also be at the event in addition to media from the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times and more.

    Paddy Cosgrave, founder of the Web Summit, said: “We are delighted to have these two great young technology companies from Nigeria joining us for the Web Summit this October. The quality of the participants is a real testament to how much the ecosystem in Nigeria has evolved over the past few years.”

    The summit will have in attendance NASDAQ which will be opening their market live from Dublin – “this is the first time that this has happened outside of New York since the Facebook IPO,” the stated explained

    No fewer than 80 companies from over countries will be exhibiting at the Web Summit, alongside some of the world’s most internationally renowned investors, entrepreneurs, and global media.

    The companies were selected for their outstanding potential not just in Nigeria, but internationally.

     

     

     

  • Why Nigeria needs National Conference

    Why Nigeria needs National Conference

    Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU traces the genesis of the clamour for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) to the neglect of federal principles by successive administrations, thereby aggravating the multiple challenges of nation-building and development.

    Senate President David Mark’s endorsement of a national conference on Tuesday is generating reactions. Many are cautious in welcoming his call, even though they agree that the ethnic nationalities need to talk about how to live together.

    Not a few see Mark’s change of mind as diversionary and one of the tactics being perfected to ease way for some political interests in the 2015 elections.

    From the eighties, ethnic nationalities intensified their campaign for a Sovereign National Conference (SNG) to discuss the basis for peaceful co-existence in the country. Under the military regime, the agitation grew, following the breakdown of the federal principles, which were agreed upon by the founding fathers.

    The 1960 Constitution prescribed federalism for the country. Barely six years after, the military deposed the legitimate authorities and foisted a unitary system. Since then, the battle for the restoration of the federal principle has been raging. Thus, the clamour for a national conference has as its main objective the return to true federalism.

    In his book, Path to Nigeria’s Freedom, the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, reflected on the country’ future. He submitted that, considering its heterogeneous nature, the practice of federalism would be appropriate. Having studied the federal societies around the globe and the challenges confronting them, he reasoned that that system of government would protect the identities of the constituent federal units, which are co-ordinate with the “federal, national or general government at the centre” and confer on them autonomy, based on their peculiarities and diverse interests.

    After the fall of the Second Republic, the military pursued its unitarist agenda, which made the states subservient to its authority. Although the country faced many crises, those of distribution, integration and participation have put it on edge.

    The distribution crises stemmed from the feeling of the alienation by the goose that lays the golden egg, which is oil. Integration arose from the indigene/settler dichotomy and its attendant controversies. Participation crisis is about the Presidency and the scramble for federal power and resources by the competing, antagonistic tribes.

    These crises of nation-building make the resolution of the subsisting national question more compelling. Reflecting on it, Delta State Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan, who supports national conference as against SNC, lamented the mistrust, distrust and suspicion that have crippled peaceful co-existence. “There is need for us to meet and discuss”, he said, maintaining that a national conference, and not a SNC, is the answer.

    In fact, the late legal luminary Chief Alao Aka-Bashorun spent the last decades of his life fighting for the conference. He reasoned that, if Benin Republic could achieve it and reposition its polity through the measure, it was possible in Nigeria.

    The slain Attorney- General and Minister of Justice, Chief Bola Ige, had also delved into the heart of the national question almost 20 years ago. He peeped into the future, warning that Nigeria was heading to a danger. “Do we still want to live together as a country?”, he asked. If the answer is yes, he again asked: “how’? To the former governor of Oyo State, a national family meeting was crucial to deliberate on the terms for unity among the component units that are coordinate with the central government. But it was evident that Nigeria lacked the potentials to become a national community, a family and an enduring federation, because of its leaders aversion to the pursuit of the federal tenets.

    Ige’s proposal trailed the postulation of his leader and mentor, Awo, But before that, Governor Hugh Clifford, who took over from Lord Fredrick Lugard as governor of Nigeria, had also dissected the huge plural society and its forced amalgamation. The colonial governor identified the fundamental elements of its plurality. These include diverse languages, customs, traditions, and religions. Clifford acknowledged that these elements had the ultimate potentials of shaping the colonised peoples’ reactions and perceptions of the socio-economic and political milieu.

    As the colonial country wobbled on to independence, frontline nationalist politicians, who were eager to receive the bastion of leadership from the interlopers, also recognised Nigeria’s limitations. Former Eastern Regional Premier, Dr Nnamidi Azikiwe, who later became Governor-General, said to Awo and Alhaji Ahmadu Bello: “Let us forget our differences”. But Bello, who clearly knew the point Zik was raising, disagreed. The former Premier of Northern Region said: “We must understand our differences”.

    The three regions; North, East and West, were not the same, both in the quality and quantity of their population at independence. In 1998, Ige, who later served as the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, remarked that, for the North to catch up with the South in the race of progress, development must be at a standstill in the South for 20 years. The distribution of the proceeds from the ‘gift of nature’, which is now a source of blessing and curse, is also skewed. But its is majorly produced by the minorities, who until President Goodluck Jonathan’s emergence, have not produced the President, the sole distributor of the national largesse. None of the three big tribes, or ethnic nationalities, is a major producer of oil, which is now the mainstream of the economy.

    While the early leaders opted for federalism and regionalism during the pre-independence and immediate independence era, with the advantage of healthy competition that went with the choice, the military, which submerged the country under its centrist system of administration sowed the seeds of discord. The early strain manifested in the three years of avoidable civil war. When states and local governments were created in response to the elite’s scramble for power, resources and relevance, the distribution by the military was lopsided, thereby engendering bitterness. The military nationalised the regional assets, including tertiary institutions, banks and industries, and the formula for equitable, just and fair distribution of the commonwealth. The principles of derivation, need and national interest were turned upside down and the oil-rich region was inflicted with the burden of neglect and denial, prompting violent protests in the Niger Delta.

    Unitary system erased the gains of federalism. Gone were the community and state police. The result was insecurity across the six geo-political zones. Up came the Land Use Act, the emasculation of the state and local governments, hijack of value added tax, and full concentration of power in the tiny federal apparatus.

    After a protracted battle by the citizenry against the military, the new dispensation was improperly midwife. The military succeeded in laying the foundation of this dispensation on the relics of its unitary structure. The bone of contention is the constitution, which in the view of the frontline legal luminary, the late Chief Rotimi Williams (SAN), lied against itself. It was drafted in a hurry. A closer examination by the political class that would operate it was not permitted. Instead of devolving powers to the states and councils, the 1999 Constitution made the component units the appendage of the federal government. Consequently, Nigeria groans under a power-loaded President, who has sweeping powers.

    The operators, mainly the conservative political bloc, deliberately erected barriers on the way of constitution amendment. From the beginning of this dispensation, the polity has been polarised by the struggles of the pro-constitution amendment crusaders in the National Assembly and agitators of a new constitution through the Constituent Assembly. A National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) leader, Gen. Alani Akinrinade (rtd), who belong to the later group, said the National Assembly, as currently constituted, lacked the mandate to make a new constitution for the country. He explained that only a body that is representative of the ethnic nationalities and other interests can tackle the assignment. Members of the National Assembly disagreed. Even, the vociferous progressive legislators have kept mute on taking their seats in the parliament.

    Observers contend that efforts at constitution amendment have been futile, owing to the insincerity of the power that be. While the Abuja Conference set up by former President Olusegun Obasanjo ended in a fiasco, owing to the third term agenda, the Pro-National Conference Organisation (PRONACO), which held an alternative dialogue in Lagos, lacked the zeal to market the its draft to the government and people of Nigeria. The Abuja Political Conference was crippled at its inauguration when the former Commander-In-Chief declared that there would be no-go area.

    Many believe that, unless the constitution is amended or reviewed to reflect the yearnings of the people, Nigeria will remain a tension-soaked, fledging federal state. Although no ethnic nationality has really indicated intention to opt out of the federation, there are repeated inclinations for the protection of diverse identities and interests, which global organisations describe as the anthem of this millennium.

    It is doubtful, if the federal government is sensitive to this reality. Many Nigerians were shocked when President Jonathan ruled out the possibility of an SNC. The anxiety intensified in Lagos when the Senate President, Gen. David Mark, said that the National Assembly was capable of repositioning the polity through the constitution amendment. However, judging by the moves by the Senate and House of Representatives, the on-going amendment cannot resolve the national question.

    Echoing these feelings and sentiments, Ayo Adebanjo, lawyer and politician, posited that the solution to the tensions and contradictions that plague the country lies in the Sovereign National Conference. He lamented that those blocking this route may make its gains to elude the polity.

    Highlighting the gains of the conference, the leader of the Southeast-Southsouth Professionals, Emeka Ugwu-Oju, said a national debate or dialogue is a soothing balm to the pains and scars inflicted by the fading federalism. He recalled that, when there were national conference in Abuja and the alternative conference in Lagos, there was no single case of violence in the Niger Delta for one year.

    Frontline legal scholar Prof. Ben Nwabueze said the SNC is non-negotiable. His association, ‘The Patriots’ also believes that peace, trust and tranquility would return to Nigeria, if two criteria are met. The first is the drafting of a new democratic constitution to replace the 1999 constitution, which it described as a military-imposed document. The second is the convocation of a conference. This lines of thought are supported by the revolutionary lawyer, Dr Tunji Braithwaite, a SNC advocate.

    “It is now clear that the 1999 military Constitution is neither amenable nor amendable to panel beating as it has been attempted in the past and now by the political class,”he said.

    The founder of the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC), Dr. Fredrick Fasehun, wondered why the people in government are opposed to the conference.

    He said: “We need to revert to regional autonomy to allow the regions to develop at their own pace and permit their governors to strategise on developmental priorities as currently being done by Southwest governors”.

    Braithwaite, who has been calling for a constitutional surgery, dismissed the fears of the anti-conference crusaders, saying that they were unfounded. He said the conference will not lead to balkanisation, adding that Nigeria will emerge as a united country based on mutual agreement.

    Another pro-conference agitator and lawyer, Dr Tunji Abayomi, who spoke on the flaws of the 1999 Constitution said certain issues affecting the country can be properly discussed at the Constituent Assembly of the Nigerian People. He said: “The foundation of this country is not clear. There is no agreement by the ethnic groups about Nigeria. Until there is an agreement on the basis for co-existence, there will be no nation. It will be worse for our children in the future.”