The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Nigerian news

  • Makinde to open six model schools

    To commemorate his first 100 days in office, Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde will inaugurate six model schools executed under the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) and the state Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) intervention projects across the three senatorial districts of the state.

    Also, the governor has promised speedy completion of all ongoing UBEC-FG/SUBEB projects in the state before the year ends, assuring that pupils across the state would begin to enjoy a better lease in their basic educational pursuits.

    Making the disclosures, Oyo SUBEB Chairman, Dr Nureni Adeniran, said the move was part of the government’s efforts to provide quality education to indigent pupils in the state.

    “The board has ensured that the contractors complete at least six of the ongoing projects, which are ready for commissioning by His Excellency,” he said.

    The model schools, equipped with modern facilities are located in Ibadan, Oyo and Oke-Ogun region of the state.

    The facilities in the schools include classrooms, sickbays, science laboratories, computer rooms, libraries and halls.

    Adeniran attributed the fast pace of completion of the previously abandoned school projects within 100 days of Makinde’s administration to the governor’s commitment to the development of education in the state.

    “I can assure you that Governor Seyi Makinde’s administration would ensure that education is not only made free for pupils across this state, but would make the schools worth attending for the pupils. Our pro-activeness brought about this finished works. We ensured these projects are completed by the contractors on site”, he said.

    The schools to be inaugurated include, Elekuro Junior High School, Elekuro (Ona-Ara Local Government), St. Mathias Primary school, Orogun, (Akinyele Local Government Area), Community Primary School, Idi-osan (Ibadan North West Local Government Area), Baptist Primary school, Isokun (Oyo-East Local Government Area), Muslim Community Junior High School, Igbeti (Olorunsogo Local Government Area) and Ofiki Grammar School Ofiki, (Atisbo Local Government Area).

     

  • 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.

     

  • Ominous armoury

    For a country passing through what could pass for the worst security threats in its existence, the interception of six mine-resistant vehicles in Fufore Local Government Area of Adamawa State by soldiers of the 23 Armoured Brigade of the Nigerian Army, Yola, should be a source of worry. This worry is not for the security agencies alone, it should also worry the average Nigerian because of the implications of moving such military equipment without the necessary clearance, or without even our military authorities being in the know. This, at least, was the impression given by the military when the commander of the 23 Armoured Brigade, S.G. Mohammed, handed over the vehicles to the comptroller of Customs in-charge of Adamawa and Taraba states, Olumoh Kamaldeen, at Konkol, in the local government area.

    This is not the first time dangerous equipment and weapons have been intercepted in the country. As a matter of fact, there has been at least one such interception every year in the last three years. In 2016, the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS), Tin Can Islands Port Command, impounded a cache of arms, ammunition and military gadgets smuggled into the country from the United States. The weapons included one Omin American Tactical Rifle with serial no: AR48634; one Moasberg American Pump Action (U648081); Permier Hollow Point (air gun pallets) 7,500 pieces, nine pieces of military bullet proof vests, one piece of military helmet with rainproof, pistol punch, rifle punch and 26 packs of already made military food. They were all prohibited items; prohibited in the sense that they cannot be imported or exported without authorisation.

    Barely eight months later, the Customs again intercepted another arms cache at the same Tin Can Island suspected to have come from Turkey. This was barely a week after the command intercepted a 20-foot container-load of 1,100 pump action rifles. Then, in 2108, the Tin Can Island Customs Command of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) again stopped a cache of ammunition at two terminals. The Customs Area Controller of the command, Musa Abdullahi, said in Lagos that about 150 rounds of live ammunition were intercepted at Terminal ‘C’ (Ports& Cargo) while 28 pieces of various sizes of  jack knives were  found in a 1 x 40ft container No. TGHU 60143419.

    With these interceptions, it should not be difficult to know the sources of the arms and ammunition that criminals and terrorists have been using to give law-abiding Nigerians sleepless nights.

    This latest interception in Adamawa State however beats the imagination. It is shocking because this cannot qualify for small arms, the proliferation of which has been a source of apprehension in the country, especially given the intolerable level of insecurity.

    Mine-resistant vehicles are not needles or guns that could be tucked under people’s cloths or even concealed in the boots of vehicles. How come six of them would pass from the ports in Lagos all through to Adamawa State before being intercepted? If such heavy military equipment could move that long distance before being detected and arrested, what then is the assurance that more dangerous equipment had not passed under the proverbial bridge undetected in the past?

    The Army Headquarters has ordered a probe into the matter, with a view to determining the ownership of the equipment, the source, as well as their destination. This is good. However, we must warn against any attempt to sweep this matter under the carpet. Security is a collective responsibility. Such equipment cannot be brought into the country without authorisation, which can only come from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), the only agency with powers to issue such document. Given the information in the public space, it does not appear the ONSA is aware of the importation of these equipment.

    We anxiously await the outcome of the investigation.

     

  • Sign of things to come

    It was the first day of the partial closure of the Kara bridge – Berger Junction section of the Lagos – Ibadan Expressway and it was a bitter experience for thousands of motorists. A trip that takes less than 10 minutes took hours. It was early Tuesday morning and for many residents of that axis the short trip from their homes to Berger became a long and tortuous one. I knew there was trouble as soon as I drove out of the gate leading into the Arepo community at about 7.13 am.

    My heart sank as I saw the huge number of vehicles running away  from the main road. I instinctively knew that the Long Bridge was congested. That was the only reason motorists would leave the road to take the undulating and highly dangerous path which residents of Arepo and Wawa call ‘’alternative route’’. It is no alternative route, but so called for want of a better name.

    If it were really an alternative route, construction giant Julius Berger, which is handling the rehabilitation of the road from Sagamu Interchange to Berger, would have made it motorable long before now. You take this path at night at your own risk. The path connects Wawa to OPIC at the intersection of the road leading into Sparklight Estate. In other climes, the path would have been made motorable and lit up for use during any emergency work on the expressway. Policemen and road safety personnel would also have been deployed there.

    But as it is now, motorists are left to their fate on that unsafe path. Since they do not have a choice, they take it whenever the express is choked up. This was the case on Tuesday as they struggled to beat the traffic on the express caused by the ongoing work at the Kara bridge – Berger axis. The work, which began on Monday, would last 120 days. It was to start on August 3, but was shifted because of the conventions of the Redeemed Christian Church of God and the Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries as well as the Eid-El-Kabir festival.

    Traffic was not too bad on Monday because the road had not been partially closed then. The real test for this 120-day exercise came on Tuesday following the closure of the road on Monday evening. There was chaos on the road the day after the closure. What could have caused this chaos barely 12 hours after the closure? It is easy to blame it on the impatience of motorists and what some people call ‘’road indiscipline’’.

    I beg to disagree. That is not really the case even though, you cannot rule out that fact in some cases. What really caused the problem was bad planning by Julius Berger, the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing and the road safety agencies. Were they prepared for what happened on Tuesday? They were not. They had assumed that they could appeal to the sentiments of people and all will be well. They should have envisaged what happened on Tuesday. The episode should serve as a lesson to them because whether they like it or not, it will still happen again and again as long as the work is on.

    Motorists did not do anything wrong by taking the route that bursts out at the OPIC intersection; they were only following the instructions of the ministry, Julius Berger and the road safety workers to take alternative routes. The problem is they did not prepare this particular ‘alternative route’ (is it even in their plan?) well for this four-month exercise. The route despite being dangerous has its uses for those living around that area. This is why Julius Berger should have worked on it before now because it is unmotorable whenever there is a downpour.

    The firm just like the government  assumed that the people would find their way. They sure did and the consequence was what we saw on Tuesday. What happened on Tuesday is not good for anybody’s health. It is unthinkable to imagine that this is what motorists will go through for four months on that road. The Tuesday experience has shown that motorists are on their own during the road repair. There will be no help, whatsoever, from Julius Berger despite the postponement of the exercise for one month to ensure that everything, especially, the alternative routes, are in place.

    Why was the exercise postponed when they knew that nothing would be done to minimise the people’s suffering when it starts? If they had started on August 2, we would have by now gone through the first month of suffering, while waiting and praying for the remaining three months to fly past. But now, we have four months stretched out before us to endure this unnecessary suffering all because a road is being repaired. No government in the world treats its citizens like this, except of course, Nigeria’s. How sad.

     

  • 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.

  • A judge and her millions

    There are many who believe that women are not corrupt. They see them as angels who can be trusted with anything, especially money. These people will tell you that it is safer to keep money with a woman than a man. This myth has been exploded with what is happening in the society these days.

    The public has seen how some women in top positions are being accused of embezzling billions of naira. They dip their hands into public till at will and when they are caught, they beg for soft landing. Are women that virtuous or is it just a matter of imagination? Some of them are so cunning in their ways. They use the names of minions to perfect their scheme.  This is what former Benue State Customary Court of Appeal President Justice Margaret Igbeta allegedly did.

    She was said to have hidden N840 million in her maid’s name. Unknown to the maid, she was a wealthy woman living as a pauper in her madam’s home. With a cool N840 million in the bank, her ladyship retired into a life of bliss until the bubble burst.

    The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has brought an application for interim forfeiture of the money before the Federal High Court in Abuja until the judge gives an account of how she came about the cash. How did she make the money? Was it as a judge or as a lawyer while in practice? Nigerians will like to know as her case comes up in court.

  • Why commitment to contracting cycle reduction is key

    Contracting cycle in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry is among the longest in the world. Over the years, relevant government agencies, including the regulatory bodies in the petroleum industry, have been making efforts to reduce the length of time to seal a contract for implementation. With a new Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Chief Timipre Sylva, and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) Group Managing Director, Mallam Mele Kyari, in the picture, will the tide change? EMEKA UGWUANYI asks.

    Reform and transformation of the country’s oil and gas industry should go beyond rhetorics. Considering Nigeria’s age in oil exploration and production of over 60 years, it is supposed to be the clear leader and model for other oil producing African  countries and beyond.

    However, the African biggest producer still battles with challenges of elongated contracting cycle that should have been addressed long ago.

    Delayed contracting cycle is considered a disincentive as it costs the country money in the end. In the past, it took an average of 36 months to conclude a contract process in the industry. The implication, according to an industry analyst, is that if a transaction that is meant to be closed within a period of low oil price gravitates to a period of high price per barrel, the country, not the oil firms, pays more.

    According to the analyst, no company does a contract at a loss; therefore, if the price of oil increases, the cost of other ancillary factors of production, including labour, will  increase and the company will have no choice than to adjust the contract sum to reflect the increase. This is one of the reasons cost variation of contracts is common in Nigeria and, as a result, the country loses money and value from many of its projects.

    Now, will the new Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Chief Timipre Sylva, and th Group Managing Director (GMD) of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Mallam Mele Kyari, who is less than two months in office, be game changers, the analyst asked.

    It is a fact that a transparent contracting process not only boosts investor’ confidence, it confers integrity on the nation, the analyst said.

    In 2009, NNPC, in pursuit of greater efficiency, best practices, transparency and cost-saving procedures in the contracting process in the industry, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with about 24 oil and gas majors in the country for the Nigerian Petroleum Exchange (NIPEX) project, which was designed to deliver value and enhance local content.

    The then NNPC GMD, Dr. Mohammed Sanusi Barkindo, noted that NIPEX was meant to streamline responsibilities of oil firms, regulators and other stakeholders, and to prepare  the ground for the major transformation that will ensue from the passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB).

    He explained that NIPEX was made up of both the Electronic Marketplace and the Joint Qualifications System designed to reduce the contract cycle time, improve transparency of contract decision making, improve visibility for each operator and NNPC on contract approval status as well as achieve overall contracting cost reduction for the industry.

    Some of the oil firms that signed the MoU  include Petrobras, Addax, Agip, Texaco, Conoco-Phillips, Shell, NPDC, CNOOC, KNOC, Total, BG, Statoil, NAOC, Pan-Ocean, Sahara, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Conoil.

    Ten years on, Nigeria is still struggling to cut contracting process period to less than a year, while the PIB continues to be on the table at the National Assembly and Presidency.

    What the government is doing

    Last year, the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB) and International Oil Companies (IOCs) under the aegis of the Oil Producers Trade Section (OPTS), a section of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and some indigenous oil firms, signed a Service Level Agreement (SLA) aimed at  shortening contracting cycle.

    According to the Board, long-contracting cycle delays take-off and completion of projects, leading to increased costs.

    The SLA commits the 28-member OPTS firms to comply with the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development (NOGICD) Act, essentially to submit to the NCDMB documents, like their quarterly job forecasts, Nigerian Content plans, bidders lists, Nigerian Content Evaluation Criteria and Nigerian Content technical bids, among other information in relation to oil and gas industry contracting and procurement cycles.

    The Board also pledged to respond on specific timelines, noting that if it fails to meet the set deadlines, the companies can proceed with their tendering processes after duly informing the Board.

    NCDMB Executive Secretary Simbi Wabote signed for the Board, while the Managing Director of ExxonMobil Nigeria, Paul McGrath who is also the Chairman of OPTS signed for OPTS. The Managing Director of the Nigerian Agip Oil Company (NAOC), Massimo Insulla, his Chevron counterpart, Jeff Ewing and that of Total Exploration and Production Nigeria, Nicolas Terraz, witnessed the event.

    The SLAs with the OPTS are meant to  achieve six months’ contracting process period. The NCDMB said through its efforts, the cycle had been cut significantly to 14 months from 24-36 months in the past. Wabote noted that the SLA signed with the NLNG in 2017 has improved the turnaround time of approvals between the two establishments, adding that the Board was working to sign a similar agreement with the Indigenous Petroleum Producers Group (IPPG).

    Wabote had last month during the third briefing of the Board, restated that the SLAs’ NCDMB signed with the Nigeria LNG Limited, International Operating Companies under OPTS and Independent Petroleum Producers Group have helped to shorten the NCDMB interface on the tendering cycle in the industry from 36 months to nine months.

    Also, in April, this year, NNPC said it has  fast-tracked contracting cycle for upstream operations from 24 months to nine months with a strong commitment to further reduce the process to less than six months.

    NNPC’s immediate past GMD Dr. Maikanti Baru stated this, adding that shortening of the process would allow for free flow of investments into the industry with far reaching effect across all tiers of its operations – upstream, midstream and downstream.

    Also, Kyari on assumption of office last month, pledged to make efforts to drastically reduce the contracting cycle in the industry.