The Nation Newspaper

Tag: no

  • No motion

    No motion

    • Government has to look for capable investors to bring the Discos back on track

    When in July 2022, the Federal Government announced the planned takeover of Kano, Benin and Kaduna electricity distribution companies by Fidelity Bank Plc; the expectation of Nigerians was that the rites of their passage would be swift and conclusive. Some 18 months after, Nigerians are now learning that the process is far from what it was touted to be. That, at least, is what the axing of the board of the Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company (KAEDC) by the industry regulator, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) on Monday last week seems to suggest.

    In its order published last week, the power sector regulator stated that Kaduna Disco owed N110bn to the 

    Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Plc and the Market Operator of the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) from 2015 till date. It claimed that the receivership, headed by Afrexim Bank, had been given 60 days’ notice to state why its licence should not be cancelled, with another 30 days given in July, last year – all to no avail. It said the bank requested four to six months to finalise the divestment process and that they could not provide the bank guarantees required to secure KAEDC’s market obligation. And as a consequence of the failure of the company to get a new owner to enable it meet its financial obligations, “all directors of KAEDC are hereby removed from office and the board of directors stands dissolved in the exercise of powers vested in the commission by Section 75 of the Electricity Act.”

    In other words, the situation, as it was in July 2022, has not changed. Not only has the government-appointed receivership failed to alter the debt 

    trajectory of the distribution company, its continuing pretence to being a going concern is farcical.

    Truth be said; the insolvency story of KAEDC mirrors the story of the Discos across the board. In fact, with perhaps one or two exceptions, the same could be said of the majority of the 11 distribution companies foisted on the country at the conclusion of what is apparently now a dubious privatisation exercise. But then, this would appear to be a minor part of the more intriguing tales of lack of requisite capital and technical know-how, incompetence, gross mismanagement and non-fidelity to the letters and the spirit of duly executed MoUs for which the Discos were renown – all of which this newspaper had long forewarned, had come to necessitate some drastic action on the part of the government. 

    Read Also: Moghalu backs CBN’s decongestion move, says relocating staff to Lagos “logical”

    Of course, it would have been a different matter if the problem of the entities had stopped at under-delivery of which the electricity consumer had come to accept as standard fare, and which has now metastasised into the manifold perverse, anti-consumer practices that have come to define the sector. Dragging the financial sector – alongside the disparate actors in the electricity sector value chain – into the abyss would seem to us in the circumstance a most needless price to pay. It would be a case of double trouble, which the country could ill-afford.

    In any case, it is not as if the Federal Government has very many options left. The erstwhile owners, as it were, have demonstrated an astounding lack of capacity; even now, it is said that the banks wouldn’t touch the entity with a 10-foot pole. The issue now is how to get new investors with requisite financial muscle and technical and commercial know-how on board to salvage whatever remain of the distribution entities – and we are not referring here to the KAEDC alone but all such other Discos that have run into insolvency problems. 

    President Bola Tinubu’s words in this regard are particularly instructive. Speaking at the 10th anniversary of the privatisation of the power sector and the 1st Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry (NESI) Market Participants and Stakeholders Roundtable (NMPSR) in Abuja last October, he had said: “We have to create the environment where the worst performers do not continue to drag the sector down”. We couldn’t agree more.

    And while alluding to a preliminary analysis which showed that the Discos were undercapitalised to the tune of N2 trillion, he was just as emphatic: “We must facilitate a reorganisation and a recapitalisation process that brings in new partners and new capital to jumpstart performance in this critical sector of the value chain”. 

    Surely, the time to do this is now. 

  • No, not my food…!

    Every country produces some of what her citizens require to survive. However, in Nigeria, there are too many factors that have imperilled even that tiddly diddly effort.

    Dear reader, so many stories broke during the week I found myself gawking, hissing or simply flipping. Oh yes sir, you can definitely flip when you don’t believe what you’re reading. For instance, I gawked when I read about how the El-Zakzaky man was being expected back in the country from his trip abroad. All I kept thinking was, if being the government’s ‘guest’ would afford me such fame so that the media would be compelled to report my every footstep to you, dear reader, then I had better look for one law to … Well I was going to say ‘save’ but if you say ‘break’, no problem. Anyway, now you understand why I gawked.

    I gave one loooong and loud hiss though when I read that our entertainment circuit had finally lost it, and had gone head over heels insane. I heard that one Mr. Kelechi, also called Techno, had organised some ladies to dance naked through the streets of Lagos just to shoot a music video. Seriously! The society normally draws the line at decency in artistic expressions or scientific experiments. So why in decency would ladies dance in the nude round the streets of Lagos? Unemployment? No parents?

    No, I’m hardly your barometer for decency. Anyone who eats pounded yam with salad instead of soup and takes sandwich with Vaseline instead of mayonnaise should not talk of decency. Should I go on? Everyone knows what decency is. It is that line you get to and your brain tells you ‘get back, idiot, before you corrupt your toe.’ Mr. Kelechi crossed that line, corrupted his toe (but that is his business), corrupted the ladies he used (that’s our business) and even attempted to corrupt the entire society! Now, that is a dare! That was why I hissed but I was a little pacified when I heard that he had been arrested. I hope they make him dance naked round Lagos.

    When I read, however, that Pres. Buhari had given the Central Bank of Nigeria a directive that forex should no longer be given for food items, I flipped. All food items? I mean, there is just so much a girl can take. Now, I am wagging my finger. For long, I have noted the government’s anti-PU tendencies – little or no power in my house (I hate that), no pipe-borne water at all except from my well (I manage that, thanks), no rain over my zone (ok, I’ll not hold that against the government too much), just name it. Now, the only comfort left me is being threatened.

    Have you ever heard the saying, ‘when all else fails, eat’? Well, it’s true. Unfortunately, though, you have to have food to eat. This column has joined voice with others long and loud enough to cry out about the abysmally low level of food production in this country. It was during his first and second coming I think that Pres. Obasanjo launched the two green growing programmes to try and turn our faces away from the oils that lie beneath the grounds to the nutrients and how to use them to grow food. He only succeeded somewhat. The oil had got somehow under our skin, so to say. Now, out of the blues, the present president has directed that…

    There were reasons why the previous green revival attempts failed. To start with, the migration tendencies of Nigerians has always been urban-ward rather than rural-ward. Reason: the few social amenities Nigeria has are distributed mostly around the cities. The rural areas have been left to fend for themselves, actually, which is as good as saying they have been abandoned: electricity-wise, health-care-wise, road-wise, job-opportunities-wise, schools-wise, just name it. So, the ones who can also abandon those areas for their fewer life-enhancing opportunities.

    Have you also noticed that people in the cities don’t farm? Reason: no land; they have mostly landlords. This means that for culinary sustenance, we city slicks have been at the mercy of the wise few who remain behind in the rural areas to farm. So, your dependable, stick-through-it-all close-to-the-earth rustic has also been thinning out. Logically, food has also been thinning out.

    While it is understandable to want the country to be self-sufficient in food production, the facts on ground point elsewhere. And, simply giving a directive to stop paying forex to food importers will not solve the problem. It will make food more expensive.

    The fact, as far as I know it, is that no country is self-sufficient in food production. Food imports range from country to country, depending on economic (e.g., importing coffee from a neighbouring country for cheapness), political (e.g., importing apples from nations in alignment with your nuclear disarmament interests) and super political (e.g. importing eggs from countries that would sell arms to one) reasons, etc.

    So, I don’t think food self-sufficiency means totally producing all a country needs but that she should be in a position not to be held to ransom by anyone. Every country produces some of what her citizens require to survive. However, in Nigeria, there are too many factors that have imperilled even that tiddly diddly effort.

    To start with, local efforts in food production are still too small to feed the nation. Everyone has remarked on the success of rice production, and they should. The point however is that a great amount of rice is still brought into the country to the relief of many of us. I’ll tell you why.

    Not too long ago, I set out to purchase OFADA rice in order to proudly acquaint my stomach with a home-grown product. To my horror, it proved that between harvesting and my table, there appeared to have been little or no cleansing intervention. It came bagged but was still as dusty, nay muddy, as when it was first dried. Worse, there were things in it that crunched like stones. Oh yeah, they were. Even worse, it was more expensive than the smuggled rice. Naturally, I am thinking of re-joining the rank of smuggled rice eaters.

    I understand that to fully process that rice to a level of comfortable consumption, i.e., no stones or mud, some basic infrastructural help would be needed such as ELECTRICITY, STORAGE, AND WATER for goodness’ sakes! To encourage people to invest in food production, there must be a corresponding act of readiness from the government, such as providing amenities or overseeing the provision of such. If the government would just hand off many of the things it has presently dipped its hands into and do its own work, many things would fall naturally into place. As an example, what is the business of government with things like RUGA? If enabling infrastructural environments are provided, people would sort themselves out. That is the meaning of a free society.

    Then the incessant attacks and constant harassment of farmers by bandits and herdsmen that have gone unchecked and unreproved by the security forces is somewhat reprehensive. The government scores very low on this, no doubt. Not many people are too eager to increase their farming efforts when people are being killed, hacked, maimed, and women raped, on farms.

    That presidential directive on food importation has the ultimate good of the country at heart but I believe it’s time has not come. People are too hungry, despondent and hopeless right now for any governmental experiment. I would advise that we let things be until we put the necessary things in place. If we are looking to cut spending, I suggest we look in the direction of fuel subsidy spending that appears to be growing daily. I ask, sir, look not in the direction of my food; no, not my food.

  • No, No…Yes!

    Benjamin Franklin was born on January 17, 1706 as one of the 17 children of Josiah Franklin. Though his father wanted him to school with the clergy, there was only enough money for Benjamin to go to school for two years. He had to continue his education through personal voracious reading. At the age of 12, Benjamin became a printing apprentice with his brother James who founded The New-England Courant three years later.  Benjamin wanted to seize the opportunity of his apprenticeship to write a letter for publication in his brother’s newspaper but it was denied. Therefore, he created the fictitious name, Mrs. Silence Dogood, a middle-aged widow, and wrote letters to the paper. Not only were the letters published, they became subjects of conversations in town.

    Benjamin Franklin later achieved outstanding feats such as becoming one of the founding fathers of the United States of America but those are not the focus of this article. Our focus is that he did not allow a “no” to keep him from achieving his goal. Those letters written by “Mrs. Silence Dogood” are today valuable pieces of the American history.

    Several people’s lives have been marred by the “no” responses they received. They have chosen to be discouraged and have given up because someone said “no”. You must learn that when people say “no” to you, it doesn’t mean you are worthless. It is an evidence of their slowness or outright failure to recognise your worth. If one person does not see it, another person will. I don’t know how long you have to keep going until you find someone who appreciates your talent; all I know is that you have to try the next person.

    You think you are the only one who has been rejected? Try this for size. William Golding wrote his first novel, Lord of the Flies, and hoped to have a good career in writing. The novel was, however, rejected 20 times before it was published. Even after it was published in 1954, only 3,000 copies were sold. Amazingly, it has been adapted to film twice, was listed by TIME magazine in 2005 among the 100 best English-Language novels from 1923-2005, and William Golding won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1983. I wonder what would have happened if he gave up after his 19th “no”.

    Gone with the Wind, written by Margaret Mitchell, was rejected 38 times before publication in 1936. By 1937, the author had received the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for the novel and a National Book Award from the American Bookesellers Association. Gone with the Wind polled twice (in 2008 and 2014) as the second favourite book among American readers after the Bible. The novel was adapted to film in 1939 and it received 10 awards at the 12th Academy Awards, setting a record that took a while to beat. It also became the highest-grossing film produced up to that time and held the record for another 25 years. Can you imagine how all these would have been lost if Margaret gave up and kept the draft under her pillow?

    The stories of those who persevered until they succeeded are the ones that inspire us; no one is motivated by the story of those who gave up. We may not be able to control other people’s reactions towards us but we can determine our response. Why should someone who is too blind to recognise your talent rob generations unborn of the blessing of the gift you have inside you? Surf on the ‘No” until you get a “Yes”.

    Thanks for reading my article today. I would really love to hear from you. So, do share your views with me by sending SMS to 07034737394, visiting www.olanreamodu.com and following me on twitter @lanreamodu. Remember, you are currently nothing compared to what you can become. Don’t lock your potentials in; let them breathe!

  • No, no…Yes!

    Benjamin Franklin was born on January 17, 1706 as one of the seventeen children of Josiah Franklin. Though his father wanted him to school with the clergy, there was only enough money for Benjamin to go to school for two years. He had to continue his education through personal voracious reading. At the age of 12, Benjamin became a printing apprentice with his brother James who founded The New-England Courant three years later.  Benjamin wanted to seize the opportunity of his apprenticeship to write a letter for publication in his brother’s newspaper but he was denied. Therefore, he created the fictitious name, Mrs. Silence Dogood, a middle-aged widow, and wrote letters to the paper. Not only were the letters published, they became subjects of conversations in town.

    Benjamin Franklin later achieved outstanding feats such as becoming one of the founding fathers of the United States of America but those are not the focus of this article. Our focus is that he did not allow a “no” to keep him from achieving his goal. Those letters written by “Mrs. Silence Dogood” are today valuable pieces of the American history.

    Several people’s lives have been marred by the “no” responses they received. They have chosen to be discouraged and have given up because someone said “no”. You must learn that when people say “no” to you, it doesn’t mean you are worthless. It is an evidence of their slowness or outright failure to recognise your worth. If one person does not see it, another person will. I don’t know how long you have to keep going until you find someone who appreciates your talent; all I know is that you have to try the next person and keep getting better in the process.

    You think you are the only one who has been rejected? Try this for size. William Golding wrote his first novel, Lord of the Flies, and hoped to have a good career in writing. The novel was, however, rejected 20 times before it was published. Even after it was published in 1954, only 3,000 copies were sold. Amazingly, it has been adapted to film twice, was listed by TIME Magazine in 2005 among the 100 best English-Language novels from 1923-2005, and William Golding won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1983. I wonder what would have happened if he gave up after his 19th “no”.

    Gone with the Wind, written by Margaret Mitchell, was rejected 38 times before publication in 1936. By 1937, the author had received the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for the novel and a National Book Award from the American Bookesellers Association. Gone with the Wind polled twice (in 2008 and 2014) as the second favourite book among American readers after the Bible. The novel was adapted to film in 1939 and won 10 awards at the 12th Academy Awards, setting a record that took a while to beat. It also became the highest-grossing film produced up to that time and held the record for another 25 years. Can you imagine how all these would have been lost if Margaret gave up and kept the draft under her pillow?

    The stories of those who persevered until they succeeded are the ones that inspire us; no one is motivated by the story of those who gave up. We may not be able to control other people’s reactions towards us but we can determine our own responses. We must never give up.

    I look forward to reading your stories of great successes and your comments. Share your views by visiting www.olanreamodu.com and following me on twitter @lanreamodu.

  • Obaze: No, Buhari, No

    Obaze: No, Buhari, No

    The best of man under anointing is still a man – Bishop Oyedepo

    Considering the instant controversy which greeted the announcement of the unexpected stepping down of the much revered Pastor Enoch Adeboye as the General Overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) and the sensitive nature of religion, it is understandable that the federal government should be alarmed that one of its agencies has stirred the hornet’s nest at a time it needs all the goodwill it can get.

    For a government already being accused of not being sensitive to the plight of Christians, especially against the background of the killings in southern Kaduna, it cannot afford to confirm such allegation by not taking necessary action to address the uproar over the code which is allegedly threatening to sweep away Church leaders who are almost regarded as ‘God’ by their followers.

    It is against the above background that a quick response by the federal government on the matter can be deemed necessary. However, the removal of the Executive Secretary of the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) is an unnecessary overkill which could be counterproductive.

    By removing Obaze who is already about to complete his tenure, the federal government has succeeded in complicating the issue. If Pastor Adeboye had agreed to abide by the controversial law after a failed attempt by some groups to challenge it at the federal high court, the federal government need not panic by penalising a diligent civil servant who must have assumed that the Buhari government is committed to enforcing regulations.

    Instead of being seen as a law-abiding Church which believes in due corporate governance structure, the federal government’s action has exposed the RCCG and the person of Pastor Adeboye to unnecessary criticisms. If 89 out of 23, 216 registered churches in the country have complied with the regulation, why should RCCG be treated differently?

    By its action, the federal government has given the wrong impression that some individuals and organisations are above the law. RCCG had the option of not complying with the code like many others who have not. But having done so, the sanctity of the code needs to be protected instead of being suspended.

    Instead of being excited by Obaze’s removal and engaging in chest-beating like some Christian leaders have been doing, Pentecostal churches particularly should be worried about the negative image the controversy has earned them as organisations that do not believe in corporate governance.

    I am trying hard to understand the conflicting explanation the RCCG has been forced to offer over the status of Pastor Adeboye after the announcement of a new General Overseer. If Pastor Adeboye remains the General Overseer as the Church insists, how has the code, which requires that administrative heads of non-profit organisations step down after 20 years of service or attained the age of 70, affected him?

    I have read many arguments about how some Pentecostal churches are ‘God ordained’ and cannot be subjected to human laws. I do not accept this claim as the God we serve is a God of order. The best of man, as Bishop David Oyedepo of Winners Chapel once stated in the quote at the beginning of this piece, remains a man and should not be equated with the almighty, unquestionable God.

    Asking Church leaders to be accountable, which is the main reason for this code, should not in any way be equated to questioning any divine mandate. If churches have remained faithful to their divine mandate of soul-winning and evangelism and not been involved in commercial ventures, there would have been no need for the intense scrutiny they have been subjected to.

  • No, No… Yes!

    Benjamin Franklin was born on January 17, 1706 as one of the seventeen children of Josiah Franklin. Though his father wanted him to school with the clergy, there was only enough money for Benjamin to go to school for two years. He had to continue his education through personal voracious reading. At the age of 12, Benjamin became a printing apprentice with his brother James who founded The New-England Courant three years later.  Benjamin wanted to seize the opportunity of his apprenticeship to write a letter for publication in his brother’s newspaper but it was denied. Therefore, he created the fictitious name, Mrs. Silence Dogood, a middle-aged widow, and wrote letters to the paper. Not only were the letters published, they became subjects of conversations in town.

    Benjamin Franklin later achieved outstanding feats such as becoming one of the founding fathers of the United States of America but those are not the focus of this article. Our focus is that he did not allow a “no” to keep him from achieving his goal. Those letters written by “Mrs. Silence Dogood” are today valuable pieces of the American history.

    Several people’s lives have been marred by the “no” responses they received. They have chosen to be discouraged and have given up because someone said “no”. You must learn that when people say “no” to you, it doesn’t mean you are worthless. It is an evidence of their slowness or outright failure to recognise your worth. If one person does not see it, another person will. I don’t know how long you have to keep going until you find someone who appreciates your talent; all I know is that you have to try the next person.

    You think you are the only one who has been rejected? Try this for size. William Golding wrote his first novel, Lord of the Flies, and hoped to have a good career in writing. The novel was, however, rejected 20 times before it was published. Even after it was published in 1954, only 3,000 copies were sold. Amazingly, it has been adapted to film twice, was listed by TIME magazine in 2005 among the 100 best English-Language novels from 1923-2005, and William Golding won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1983. I wonder what would have happened if he gave up after his 19th “no”.

    Gone with the Wind, written by Margaret Mitchell, was rejected 38 times before publication in 1936. By 1937, the author had received the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for the novel and a National Book Award from the American Bookesellers Association. Gone with the Wind polled twice (in 2008 and 2014) as the second favourite book among American readers after the Bible. The novel was adapted to film in 1939 and it received 10 awards at the 12th Academy Awards, setting a record that took a while to beat. It also became the highest-grossing film produced up to that time and held the record for another 25 years. Can you imagine how all these would have been lost if Margaret gave up and kept the draft under her pillow?

    The stories of those who persevered until they succeeded are the ones that inspire us; no one is motivated by the story of those who gave up. We may not be able to control other people’s reactions towards us but we can determine our response. Why should someone who is too blind to recognise your talent rob generations unborn the blessing of the gift you have inside you? Surf on the ‘No” until you get a “Yes”.

     

    Dr. Amodu teaches at the Department of Mass Communication, Covenant University, Ogun State.

     

  • 6 reasons you should say no

    6 reasons you should say no

    You are a single young lady in your twenties or thirties and you meet this dashing young man who makes your heart skip. He looks like a perfect gentleman, has a good job, and is single to boot. He treats you like a queen and you start to think that he might be “the one”, until he starts to pester you for sex, what do you do? Give in or not? Here are six reasons to say no!

    1. Sex makes it difficult for you to know if it’s you he wants, or just your body. The great bard of Avon, William Shakespeare once said, “There is no art to find the heart’s intent by the face’s construction.” Simply put you can’t tell a man’s intents or plans from looking at his face. Ladies, when next a man you are not married to asks to sleep with you, politely decline. Why? Because, even if he vows that he loves you, you can’t be sure if it’s just your body he wants, or something more serious. Sex to most men is like eating a meal when famished, what is his business with the restaurant owner, after paying for the food? Giving in to male demands for sex is the single reason most single ladies remain unmarried.

    2. Sexual intimacy dulls your reasoning faculty. Sexual intimacy makes it hard to discern the truth about the character/personality of your boyfriend. Many women who found themselves in abusive relations report that they had an inkling or were even warned about the character of their men, but being sexually involved made it hard for them to end it. So, babe, until he puts a ring on it, keeps your legs firmly crossed.

    3. It cheapens the woman. Many men report that when a lady gives in too early to their demands, it makes her look cheap. If she gave in so early, she must be doing the same for everybody else. Meanwhile, there you were bending your rules to please him, while he thinks you are cheap. You don’t want to look cheap to your husband.

    4. It never guarantees a future for the relationship. After all, why should he buy the cow when he can get the milk for free? In Nigeria, there are guys from a certain part of the country who can date the most sophisticated ladies in town, but when it comes to marriage, they go back to their villages to pick wives, what happens to all the ladies they sampled? Your guess is as good as mine; they were good enough to bed, but not to wed.

    5. Saves you from heartbreak. Sex is meant to be the climax of a relationship between a man and a woman, but the sexual revolution has turned things upside down, hence the endemic promiscuity, marital breakdown and high divorce rates. Sex before marriage puts you at risk of giving yourself to the wrong person. Sex won’t save a relationship that is not going anywhere in the first place, so he dumps you, leaving you heartbroken. For women who make the same mistake over and over, they find that heartbreak becomes their constant companion.

    6. It erodes trust. More often than not, many women who had sex with their men report that the men don’t really trust them, perhaps in the belief that she could do it with someone else it without the commitment of marriage she could do it again.

    So what do you think ladies? Questions and comments are welcome.

  • No to TVC

    •INEC must give a regular update until the PVC gets to every registered voter

    What does the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) intend to achieve by its announcement that 68, 833, 476 Nigerians have been registered for the 2015 general elections that kicks off on February 14, but that just more than 38 million have collected their permanent voter cards (PVCs)?

    If it is to galvanise the public to collect their PVCs, the commission is welcome; and it is on the right track. But if it is to, Pontius Pilate-like, make public the numbers but shop for sympathy by washing its hands off its inability to distribute a good number of the PVCs, then it is on a perilous path.

    INEC must deliver on its first primary duty of conducting a clean, transparent and credible poll: a credible voter register. By announcing its new voter register is ready, and calling political parties to come and collect that register, it has passively delivered on that first basic test.

    But for that passive delivery to pass into voters’ hands for active civic action, INEC must ensure every voter — in any case, most voters — get their PVCs. On that score, INEC is failing fast: 38 million collecting PVCs out of 68 million, is barely 56 per cent.

    That is not good enough, given that turnout in elections is seldom up to 60 per cent. If elections were to be held today, therefore, it means that barely half of the 38 million already armed to vote would turn out: 19 to 20 million — too low for comfort!

    That is why, for INEC, playing Pontius Pilate is absolutely no option — except, of course, it wants to be accused of basically sabotaging an election, a very crucial election, it is organising. That is why INEC must get its hands dirty — if need be, very dirty — by going the extra mile to ensure everyone that it registers gets his or her voter card.

    On the positive side, INEC Chair, Prof. Attahiru Jega’s announcement that his commission was further decentralising PVC collection, down from local governments to the ward level, is commendable.

    Hear him: “We have further directed RECs [Resident Electoral Commissioners] to further decentralise distribution, which is now 8: 30 am to 5: 30 pm, Mondays to Saturdays. Our staff will strictly comply with the announced hours of distribution. Failure by any of our staff to comply with the schedule,” he added, “can be promptly reported at the local government and state offices of the commission, as well as the national headquarters, through the INEC Citizens Contact Centre (ICCC).”  The INEC chair must be judged by his words.

    But while INEC tries to sort out the PVC collection challenge, political parties and other stakeholders must be wary of further muddying the waters, with emotive suggestions that could turn counter-productive.

    We refer to no less than the lobby in the House of Representatives, suggesting that PVCs with temporary voter cards (TVCs) be used, should INEC fail in its efforts to deliver PVCs to most voters. A motion to that effect, sponsored by Femi Gbajabiamila, All Progressives Congress (APC) member and House Minority Leader, was passed.

    With all due respect to Mr. Gbajabiamila, that resolution was founded on emotions, which could terribly backfire. If INEC is using card readers to make the elections clean, and it is producing PVCs to work with the card readers, it is defeatist to push the use of any other mode of card, if clean election is the goal.

    Rather than pandering to present passion to birth future confusion and chaos, the political parties must think strategically. It is better to pressure INEC on PVCs, and mobilise their supporters to cooperate, en route to credible polls, than to explore alternative routes, which may deliver TVCs but fail to guarantee free polls.

    So, let there be no discordant tone. Let INEC deliver PVCs to most voters. It is the very minimal condition to deliver a near scientifically guaranteed clean election.

  • No! Jonathan No!

    President Jonathan appeared to have opened Pandora’s Box when last week, he sought to establish the conditions for the growth of democracy in this country. Obviously worried by intense rancour that was the outcome of the primaries of his party, the PDP, he had urged aggrieved members not to quit the party so as to enhance the growth of democracy.

    Hear him: “the only way you can strengthen democracy is for you to stay in your party. If there are some issues you feel are not too correct, it behoves on us to stay together and correct them. That is the only way we can grow democracy. If out of anger or frustration you leave the party because you did not get what you wanted, then you are not contributing to the growth of democracy”.

    On face value, it would seem Jonathan’s perspective on this matter is a very innocuous one that holds tremendous prospects for the growth and sustenance of democracy in this country. This is more so when it is viewed along the lines of encouraging party members to sink their differences for the overall good of their party.

    It is no less a truism that there must be differences among members of the same political party in the pursuit of their individual ambitions. And in this pursuit, some interests must definitely suffer as not all will be accommodated when many seek the same goal. And in matters relating to contest for political offices, this could be more appreciated. There must be losers and winners in such game situations. Those who lost ought to accept their defeat in good faith. This however, presupposes that extant rules of the game have been followed to the letters. If that is the situation Jonathan had in mind, then one can understand him.

    But that was not the situation in the instant case. Those planning to ditch the party are not aggrieved because they lost out in the primaries. They are not aggrieved because they did not get what they wanted. It is also not that they are impatient. These are not the issues and Jonathan cannot pretend the issues go beyond these.

    They are aggrieved because of the scant regard of the party for due process in matters concerning party primaries. They are frustrated by the serial inability or refusal by the party to allow the sovereignty of the people to have free reign. They are piqued by a flawed system that has over the years been irresponsive to the frustrations of members who have never been allowed to participate in decisions as to who are to represent them. The inability of the party to allow popular participation in the choice of leaders at the ward, local government, state and federal levels is the issue to contend with. It is this scant regard for the sovereignty of the people that stultified the ward congresses of the party and gave rise to lists of delegates that were at variance with the wishes and aspirations of the constituents which they purport to represent.

    Having laid a weak foundation at those levels, the outcome of the primaries had obviously been primed for a total fiasco which it turned out to be. People of conscience and principle will be hard put to remain in a party that has no ordered way of conducting its affairs. People of principle will prefer a party that has established processes for conducting congresses and primaries. If such people dump a party that has shown scant regard for rules, procedure and order, they should be hailed and not vilified. In their action lies the path to the growth of democracy. For them to be encouraged to stay on and grow democracy there must be some order. That is the issue that has been elevated to the fore by the bad blood in the party leading to defections.

    So Jonathan missed the point completely when his suggestions gave the impression that those aggrieved were merely impatient people grumbling because they did not succeed in the elections. That is not the issue here.

    Neither does it make any sense to heap the blames of the current challenges facing the party on these frustrated members. The issues that demoralize them leading to defections are very fundamental and at the very heart of representative democracy. And they are not entirely new to the party. They formed part of the grouses of some governors and key leaders of the party that culminated into its implosion early this year. They are issues relating to internal democracy, arbitrariness, imposition of candidates and scant regard for rules.

    Given the above, the minimum expectation was that the party would have been guided by this experience in preparing for this election. The general feeling was that the PDP would seize the momentum of current events in the country to reform and reposition itself in the overall interest of our wobbling democracy. But events have proved all that wrong. Rather than abate, such negative tendencies and dispositions were further reinforced by the outcome of the ward congresses and primaries of that party.

    Jonathan’s reaction that the party will be guided by this sad experience when preparing for the 2019 elections is rather ridiculous. So also is his exhortation to aggrieved members to remain in the party and resolve whatever they felt is wrong in the party.

    Since these issues have been with the party, a President or political party that is desirous of deepening democracy ought to have taken steps to ensure they were corrected before the primaries. To allow things get out of hands only to blame the aggrieved for impatience is not a mark of good leadership. All the signals for whatever happened at the primaries had all along been there. Jonathan saw them. The corrupt party leadership saw them and was interested in lining their pockets. They cannot pretend at the bazaar that was the fate of their ward congresses and primaries.

    They cannot pretend there is now a strong opposition waiting in the wings to provide credible alternative. They cannot pretend that the impunity of the party when it comes to electing members into party positions or elective offices has long been a huge source of worry to all lovers of democracy. It is also not new that many have left or shunted out of the party on account of these. There have been enough signals that it should no longer be business as usual.

    Yet, for the party, nothing changed. Whatever reverses the party is currently passing through are self-inflicted.

    Jonathan was pushing his luck too far when he promised to redress the undemocratic conduct in his party affairs when preparing for 2019 elections. He may be able to do so if he wins the 2015 election. But there is no guarantee he will win as the current disputes over the primaries have been taking a toll on the membership of the PDP. Maybe all these have been primed to weaken his candidature.

    Even then, more than any other, this is the time he needed to hold his party members together given the armada of opposition that has been lined up against him. Having failed to take advantage of this imperative, he should be prepared for the consequences of his inaction.

    But he must hold himself and his party leadership largely responsible for the spate of defections arising from the flawed congresses and primaries. If we cannot grow democracy through such outcome, he and the PDP leadership should take the blame and not aggrieved members.

  • No, thanks

    No, thanks

    •Tariff obsession by NERC is wrong; Nigerians shouldn’t pay more for electricity now

    THE latest review of the Multi-Year Tariff Order (MYTO) by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) must have come as a disappointment to the electricity consumer. There is, clearly, a lot to say against retaining a tariff structure which appears to reward the inefficiency of the operator, while doing nothing about the lingering frustrations of the electricity consumer.

    It isn’t that we do not understand the rules of the MYTO which provide that where the aggregate of the variables of rate of inflation, the exchange rate, gas price and available generation capacity change by plus or minus 5 percent of the MYTO figures, the changes would necessitate a tariff review. Our bone of contention is not just the perverse incentive it seems to confer on the inept operator, but the armour it has since provided for doing nothing.

    We recognise two legs to the review expected to have taken off yesterday, June 1 – one barely good; the other hopelessly bad.

    The first or rather the good part is the retention of the fixed charge component of the electricity tariff at N750 rather than N1,500 per month as projected under the MYTO. Although the electricity consumer would rather that the fixed charge be abolished completely, it is nonetheless a smart move. Clearly, the elements would seem in favour of the reduction. The MYTO had projected an inflation rate of 13 percent; the rate as at March 30, cut-off date for the review, was 7.8 percent, that is, 5.2 percent less than projected. Exchange rate was also projected at N178 to the dollar; whereas the March 30, data from the Central Bank of Nigeria was N157.30 to $1, which is 11.6 percent less than projected. The review, under those prevailing macro-economic variables obviously makes sense.

    However, in the reasoning of NERC, this should not suffice to earn the electricity consumer significant respite since, according to it, the other two components of transmission and distribution leave the gross available capacity short by a whopping 52 percent. Whereas the total electricity generation output as of March 31 review date was 4,306 MW, this was far les than the 9,061 MW projected by NERC.  The effect of the loss, according to NERC, “completely outweighs the benefits that were gained from the positive macroeconomic indices”. In effect, residential consumers will have to pay one naira more per unit.

    We understand the need for NERC to follow its own rules scrupulously; unfortunately, in this instance, the rules are not only skewed against the electricity consumer; they have somewhat amplified the unfair practices which typified the old order.

    This has again brought to the fore an issue that was a subject of an earlier editorial, which is the obsession with tariff hikes at the expense of delivery of quality service. Obviously, both NERC and the Distribution Companies (DISCOs) have chosen to remain unfazed by the growing frustration of the electricity consumer with the epileptic power supply situation, hence their elevation of tariff issues over and above the responsibility to deliver quality service. The point is that their prerogative to align their tariffs with the dictates of the market should not detract from their responsibility to ensure that the consumer is availed full value for his money.

    Much as we do not deny that the transition in the power sector has been something of a learning curve for the operators and the regulator alike, the current one-sided obsession with tariff issues at the expense of qualitative service can only breed consumer resistance in the long run. In short, we understand that the operators will need all the revenue they can get to deliver quality service; this however cannot be at the expense of the goodwill of the electricity consumer.