The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Olusegun Obasanjo

  • Obasanjo hosts celebs at son’s wedding

    Obasanjo hosts celebs at son’s wedding

    FORMER Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo, last week Saturday, 30th November, 2013, played host to celebrities at his son’s wedding. Bisoye Obasanjo and Chigozie Nwenyi were joined in holy wedlock at the Chapel of Christ the Glorious King within the Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library (OOPL) in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital. Those at the wedding were ex-military president, Gen. Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida; Ogun State Governor, Senator Ibikunle Amosun; Chief Tony Anenih; Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola; Eng. Segun Oni; Alake of Egba, Oba Aremu Gbadebo; Olowu of Owu Kingdom, Oba (Dr) Olusanya Adebgoyega Dosunmu and host of others. The traditional wedding was held on 10th of November at Okpuitumo, Ndufu Ikwo Development Centre of Ikwo LGA, Ebonyi State.

    By: OLUSEGUN RAPHEAL

  • Emeka Offor starts New Year on fresh note

    Emeka Offor starts New Year on fresh note

    BUSINESSMAN and politician, Sir Emeka Offor, may have given politics a wide berth following his long absence from the political scene. The founder of Chrome Oil Services has become a godfather of sort by virtue of his boundless financial resources. It would be recalled that he was a major financier of former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s campaigns; Offor single-handedly funded the election of former Anambra State governor, Chinwoke Mbadinuju, whom he would later fell out with. He threatened that the governor would not come back to office like other PDP governors. He made good his threat. Mbadinuju has been in political wilderness since then. Well, the news making the rounds is that the Igbo billionaire has picked January 3 for his wedding to his new wife, Adaora.

    The wedding billed to hold at Nnewi, Anambra State will be spiced up by Nigerian hit stars P-Square, Flavour and Banky W. Emeka Offor and Adaora had their traditional wedding on October 12, 2013, at the residence of the father of the bride in Oraifite, Ekwusigo local government, Anambra State.

  • Iyabo Obasanjo plans second marriage

    Iyabo Obasanjo plans second marriage

    FORMER President Olusegun Obasanjo’s daughter, Iyabo has indeed moved on from the murky waters of Nigeria politics. She relocated abroad to further her studies, but the news making the rounds is that the mother of one is planning to give marriage another shot. We gathered that she met her new man abroad and plans are in top gear to solemnise the union. Iyabo Obasanjo’s former husband, Oluwafolajimi Akeem Bello, had since remarried his long-time girlfriend, Olajumoke Katherine Thompson, in December 2011, eight years after of he divorced the ex-president’s daughter.

  • Waziri Mohammed’s widow remarries after eight years

    Waziri Mohammed’s widow remarries after eight years

    Zainab, widow of the late former chairman of the Nigeria Railway Corporation and close ally of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Waziri Mohammed, has finally shaken off the trauma of her late husband’s death.

    Waziri Mohammed was one of the passengers on board of Bellview Airline flight that crashed about eight years ago and suddenly turned Zainab into a widow. But now, her eight-year mourning of her former soul-mate is over with her decision to settle into a new matrimonial union with a member of the House of Representatives from Jigawa State, Hon. Sabo Mohammed Nakudu.

    But for death, the love life of Zainab would not have taken the new turn. The delectable woman was so deeply in love with her late husband that some said their love life would make a classic for the Mill and Boon series. But that was until October 22, 2005 when the unfortunate crash occurred at Lisa, a remote village in Ogun State.

    Zainab was simply inconsolable after the incident, unwilling to embrace life once again. Many even feared she might never survive a year without Waziri. But all that is now in the past as she has got married to Hon. Nakudu.

    The 63-year-old winsome lawmaker chairs the House Committee on Customs and Excise.

  • ‘How national conference can succeed’

    ‘How national conference can succeed’

    In this piece, legal scholar Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) highlights the differences between the 2005 Abuja Political Conference and the proposed National Dialogue and offers suggestions on the mode of operation, membership composition and report ratification.

    In February 2005, President Olusegun Obasanjo suddenly convened what he called the National Political Reform Conference (NPRC).

    The charade did not end with the abrupt disbandment of the NPRC, but was continued by the National Assembly Joint Constitutional Reform Committee (JCRC) under the chairmanship of the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ibraham Mantu, whose main object was to obtain, by fraudulent manipulation, a semblance of public approval for the elongation of the President’s and state governors’ tenure of office.

    Purpose of the proposed national conference and a legal framework for its operation

    Being a palpable fraud, a farce, and programmed to come to nothing, the 2005 NPRC cannot in any way be equated with the proposed National Conference, or be used as a basis for saying that the latter will also come to nothing. As conceived, the proposed National Conference has a specific purpose, namely, to discuss and agree on the terms and conditions to be embodied in a new Constitution as the basis on which the diverse nationalities and peoples comprised in Nigeria can live together in peace, security, progress and unity as one country under a common central government. This is the primal purpose of the proposed National Conference, the crux or pivot of its agenda, and to which everything else is ancillary.

    Given the above primal purpose for it, the initial problem facing the Conference is to fashion out a Legal Framework for convening and holding it, and for holding a Referendum to approve a Constitution adopted at the Conference. Without such a Legal Framework, the Conference cannot effectively take off as conceived, and will be doomed to fail as did the 2005 NPRC for the reason, among others, that, as earlier explained, there was no law establishing it and backing up its work. The task of fashioning out appropriate Legal Framework for the proposed National Conference has, happily, been entrusted to a Presidential Advisory Committee. No Committee of this type, with wide-ranging Terms of Reference, was set up in 2005 as a prelude to the convening of the NPRC, and to lay the foundation for its successful outcome. In any case, as earlier stated, fashioning a new Constitution for Nigeria was never part of the agenda or purpose of the NPRC.

    Some years ago, in October 2001 to be precise, The Patriots prepared such a Legal Framework in the form of a Bill, titled the National Conference and Referendum Bill, which it submitted to the Presidency and the National Assembly. The Bill, after some revision, was re-submitted to the two bodies in 2013.

    The long title of the Bill describes it as “A Bill for an Act to make provisions for convening a National Conference of the peoples of Nigeria for the purpose of discussing and adopting a new Constitution to be submitted for consideration and approval by the people of Nigeria at a Referendum and matters ancillary thereto.” The long title thus provides a clear enough description of the character of the Conference proposed. This is reaffirmed by a declaration in a Preamble that the Conference is “a Conference of the nationalities and ethic groups comprised in this Nation so as to give them the opportunity to exercise their inherent right to determine democratically for themselves the Constitution by which they wish to be governed in one united Nigeria” (emphasis supplied). The Preamble further declares that the need for the Conference arises from the fact that the Constitution under which the country is governed “came into existence as a result of a Decree enacted by the Federal Military Government.”

    The Bill then goes on to spell the process for holding a Referendum for the approval of the Constitution by the entire mass of the people, which is to bestow legally binding force upon it.

    A Referendum of the people to approve the Constitution is the most fundamental aspect of the whole process. It is no doubt a novel process in the country, but that is what is legitimately due to the Nigerian people– an opportunity, for the first time since the creation of the Nigerian state in 1914, to adopt, through Referendum, a Constitution by and for themselves in exercise of the constituent power inherent in them as a‘sovereign people, not just to make an input in the amendment of an imposed Constitution. It is their birthright as a sovereign people, a birthright of which they have long been denied, first, by our British colonial masters, then, by our military masters, and, now, by our so-called democratic rulers in the Presidency and the National Assembly. There is no justifiable reason for continuing to deny them that birthright.

    Given an existing legal order, constituted by a Constitution, the principle of the Rule of Law, by a Legislative Assembly, a Presidency, a Judiciary and other instrumentalities of government, such as we have in Nigeria, a National Conference to adopt a People’s Constitution, and a Referendum to approve the Constitution so adopted, must be authorised by a law enacted by the National Assembly and assented to by the President, in the terms set out in The Patriots’ Bill. There is no way a Referendum can be held in the country under the existing legal order without an enabling law prescribing how it is to be conducted, its outcome and the force of the result in law. People cannot just troop out to vote in a referendum. Anything else outside the legal framework set out in The Patriots’ Bill can only take place by way of a revolution, such as happened in the eight African countries where the Conference took place outside the pre-existing legal order. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether such a revolution can take place in Nigeria, as things are at present. The impediments are too many and too great.

    Sections 16(1) and 17(8) of the Bill deserve to be specially noticed. Section 16(1) provides : “The Chairman and Secretary of the National Conference shall certify the Draft Constitution as passed by the National Conference and lodge authenticated copies thereof with the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall cause it to be laid before the appropriate House but the said Draft Constitution shall not be subject to any change or amendment by any of these authorities.” (emphasis supplied).

    Section 17(8) says : “… the Draft Constitution for the Federal Republic of Nigeria adopted and passed by the National Conference shall become law and be binding on all persons and authorities when and if there is a majority of ‘YES’ votes at the Referendum approving it….”

    Thus, the National Conference and Referendum Bill prepared by The Patriots sets out in clear enough terms an appropriate Legal Framework for the proposed National Conference. The Presidential Advisory Committee may propose amendments to it.

     

    The vexed question whether the conference has the character of a sovereign body

     

    The Legal Framework for the convening and holding of a National Conference and a Referendum, as set out above, does not confer upon the Conference the character of a Sovereign National Conference. It is a contradiction, both in ideas and in terms, to demand a Sovereign National Conference when a sovereign government is still in place and in control; you must first displace or emasculate the latter before you can have an SNC, as was the case in the eight African states of Benin, Togo, Congo (Brazzaville), Niger, Mali, Chad, Gabon and Zaire in the period 1990 to 1993.

    For the sake of a proper understanding of the meaning of the term, “Sovereign National Conference”, it needs to be explained that the provisions in The Patriots’ Bill to the effect that a Constitution adopted at the National Conference “shall not be subject to any change or amendment” by the National Assembly or the Presidency (section 16(1)), and that the Constitution, so adopted, “shall become law and be binding on all persons and authorities” directly it is approved at a Referendum (section 17(8)), do not make the Conference a sovereign body, in the strict sense of the term, inasmuch as the finality of its decisions and the legally binding force of the approval of its decisions by the Referendum derive from a law enacted by the sovereign legislative authorities under the country’s existing legal order.

    But refusal by the National Assembly or the Presidency to enact into law, the provisions in sections 16(1) and 17(8) of the Bill, or to abide by them after their enactment into law, will be a test of the ability of the Nigerian people, in spite of the impediments, to assert and demonstrate their power and supremacy as the repository of the country’s sovereignty and the source of the sovereign power exercised by the legislative and executive organs of government. From the contest of power over this issue between the sovereign government and the people as the ultimate sovereign, the National Conference may emerge as a sovereign body.

     

    Ensuring the adoption of a suitable new constitution by the conference

     

    Ensuring that the National Conference adopts a suitable new Constitution for the country raises a problem perhaps more troublesome and more perplexing than the issue of fashioning out appropriate Legal Framework; the problem is not taken care of by fashioning out an appropriate Legal Framework. Unless the adoption of a suitable new Constitution for the country is ensured and is realised, it (i.e. the Conference) may become a talk-shop, as did the 2005 NPRC, without achieving its primal purpose, which is to give us a new Constitution. It would thus be a failure, as asserted by those opposed to the idea. To ensure the accomplishment of this primal purpose, the Conference, when it convenes, must have before it, a Draft new Constitution to form the basis of its deliberations; without this, its meetings are bound to become a talk-shop and will not accomplish their primal purpose. Clearly, a situation where every Nigerian or every member of the Conference may submit a Draft new Constitution for consideration by the Conference will result in the Conference having before it too many Draft Constitutions, which may make it difficult for it to accomplish its primal purpose.

    Thus, the problem boils down to the issue of a modus operandi for the Conference.

    But, whilst the Committee’s recommendations are awaited, it seems clear that we cannot run away from the imperative necessity of having a Constitution Drafting Committee. The Okurounmu Presidential Advisory Committee itself is not envisaged as a Constitution Drafting Committee, and is neither intended nor mandated by its Terms of Reference to function as one. The job requires a specialist committee of experts.

    A Constitution Drafting Committee was part of the modus operandi used in making the 1979 Constitution. The Federal Military Government (FMG) had in 1976, by an executive instrument, set up a Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) of 49 members (the 50th member, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, declined to serve) composed of prominent lawyers, men and women knowledgeable in the principles and practice of statescraft, and other seasoned experts/specialists (the 49 Wise Men, as they came to be known), to prepare a Draft Constitution. A Draft was duly prepared by the Committee. Thereafter, the FMG enacted a Decree establishing a Constituent Assembly – the Constituent Assembly Decree 1977 – corresponding more or less to the proposed National Conference. As constituted under the enabling Decree, the Assembly had 230 members, of whom 20 were appointed by the FMG, seven were the Chairman of the CDC (Chief FRA Williams SAN) and the chairmen of its six sub-committees (I was one of the six), and the remaining 203 members were elected, not directly by the people, but by the local government councils acting as electoral colleges.

    But the important point to note as regards the issue of modus operandi is that the Draft Constitution prepared by the CDC was laid before the Assembly and formed the authorised basis for its deliberations. The enabling law required the Draft Constitution to be presented in the Assembly in the form of a Bill, which the Assembly was to deliberate upon following a procedure of first and second readings and detailed clause by clause consideration in a committee of the whole Assembly. The procedure allowed for amendments to be moved by members. Indeed, an amendment seeking to replace the presidential system proposed in the Draft with the parliamentary system of cabinet government was rigorously pressed upon the Assembly in two different forms and lost : see Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, Official Report, vol. 11, cols 1943 – 55; cols. 1981 – 8. The Chairman of the CDC and the Chairmen of its six sub-committees, sitting in the front benches, were assigned the responsibility of piloting the Draft Constitution Bill through the Assembly. It needs to be stated, despite the controversy that arose over the issue between the Assembly and the FMG, that the 1977 – 78 Constituent Assembly was not a mere deliberative body, and that the substance, content and form of the 1979 Constitution were the product of its decisions, notwithstanding a few changes surreptitiously slipped in by the FMG at the last minute after the Constitution Bill had been passed by the Assembly. Such, then, was the modus operandi used in making the 1979 Constitution.

    Recognising the imperative necessity of having before the proposed National Conference a suitable Draft ew Constitution to form the basis of its deliberations, I formed in the course of the Uyo National Political Summit the idea of getting a team of prominent lawyers, political scientists and other experts with specialist knowledge to work with me to prepare a suitable Draft new Constitution and, when the Draft is ready, to re-convene the Uyo Political Summit to have a thorough and critical look at it, and make such revisions and changes as may be considered necessary. The re-convened Uyo Political Summit would be a kind of mini National Conference. Leaders from the various geo-political Zones attending the Summit will be duly inducted to mobilize and enlighten participants from their Zones on the provisions in the Draft in order to facilitate deliberations on it and its adoption at the National Conference proper.

    As I said in my last letter, dated October 31, 2013, to the 15 members of my Committee of lawyers, political scientists and other experts, drawn from the six geo-political Zones,, “unless the National Conference, when it convenes, has before it a Draft New Constitution, to be piloted by people well acquainted with its provisions and well inducted on what is necessary to be done to get it adopted, the Conference may lose focus and degenerate into a talk-shop and end without achieving anything, like the previous ones”.

    In preparing a Draft, we will look at Drafts prepared by Pronaco, The Patriots, the amendments/revisions made on the 1999 Constitution or under consideration by the National Assembly, and proposals from other quarters, as well as the constitutions of some other African countries. When my Committee completes its work, then, its Draft, with changes made on it by the re-convened Uyo National Political Summit, will be sent to the Presidency, the National Assembly, and the Presidential Advisory Committee if its life/mandate has not expired by the effluxion of the time given to it to wind up its work and turn in a report.

    Chairmanship of the conference

    It needs hardly be emphasised that the character of the proposed National Conference, and its success or failure, would be determined, to a great extent, by the credentials, the personality and forcefulness of character of its Chairman. He or she must be a person with a considerable measure of acceptability in the Northern and Southern segments of the country, and whose mind, attitude and disposition are not known to be unduly conditioned or otherwise affected by the North-South Divide, which must be acknowledged as among the worst of the country’s many afflictions – a person who, therefore, commands the confidence of the generality of people in both segments. In addition, he or she must be a person whose age and condition of health leave him or her sufficient physical strength as well as mental and emotional stability to be able to withstand the enormous strain and stress of piloting, mediating and moderating the proceedings of the Conference, which are expected to be stormy, even acrimonious, a task that would tax the patience of even the Biblical Job.

    It is as well that the President, as the authority to appoint the Chairman of the Conference, should start right away to give serious thought to the choice of a person to chair it. The choice is not going to be an easy one, because there are not many Nigerians that meet the above criteria.

  • My hubby is my role model

    My hubby is my role model

    IBUKUN Waidi-Akanni has been graciously described by her husband of over 20 years, ex-international and former Lagos State Football Association Chairman, Waidi Akanni, as the friend and lover that stood by him through thick and thin. In the words of the ex-Flying Eagles star, “My wife, Ibukun Akanni, has been there for me from the beginning. I met her as a player in Lagos and together we have weathered the storm. She was there for me while trying to find my footing in football and business and she is still there for me, taking care of our children while l am away from our home in the U.S.”

    Mrs Akanni, a leading U.S-based artists manager, was in Nigeria recently to put finishing touches to one of her programmes, and took time to talk with The Nation Sport and Style’s TAIWO ALIMI. In this revealing interview, she discloses her passion for her job as a publicist and how her hubby has influenced her greatly, sometimes ‘pushing me beyond my imagination’. Excerpts:

    About her husband

    He is an amazing husband, very hardworking. He pushes me more than l can imagine. He is a goal getter and l would say l look up to him as a role model. He is an amazing father to his children and they look up to him too. In whatever l am doing he supports me all the way. For example, for this project that l am embarking on, he supports me a 110 percent. And he pushes me more than l push myself and that is a bonus for him. We have come a long way. I met him while he was a young footballer and ever since we have been together. He is full of ideas and that kind of rubs off on me and for whatever l am doing l want to put a 110 percent into it. l have learnt well.

    Children and soccer

    At first l did not like soccer, like football is called in the U.S, but from watching my children play the game, l kind of developed great interest in it. It is very interesting. My children, like their father, play it very well and they are doing well at school and at club level in their own different ways. Sheriff is fast taking after him as a potential great footballer.

    He recently got a scholarship in the U.S just like his father did while he was in Yaba College of Education. (In 1987, Akanni got a scholarship to study at Howard University in the United States, where he earned bachelors and masters degrees in Engineering). Aside Sheriff, Babatunde, and Samid, who is the baby of the house, is also doing fine with soccer. They all have a passion for the game. We are also blessed with two girls and they are into athletics in their own way too. However, for us, education is paramount and we have told them that they can do whatever they want as far as they take their education first. In life, whether in sport or entertainment, l always preach the gospel of mixing education with football.

    As a publicist in the U.S.

    I have been in P.R. for five years and I have been doing the Sylvia P.R. Event, which is a pre-Grammy event thing for the past four years. I also have a pet project; Sylvia P.R. Awards, which in its first year we gave an award to Quincy Jones and this last one in February of this year we gave awards to former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Richard Mofe Damijo (RMD).

    I represent top artists in the U.S. like Miguel, Ciarra, TI and Vashawn Mitchell and in Nigeria l represent RMD and Yinka Davies.

    Assessing the entertainment industry in Nigeria?

    The Nigerian entertainment industry is good, growing but they need the right set up.

    A lot of them don’t have publicists. The job of a publicist is to manage their image and ensure that they have good publicity. A lot of them don’t have stylists, they just go on the rack and wear what they see. A lot of them look ridiculous at award shows. They need a stylist. To call yourself a celebrity you have to spend money on your image because that is what people see.

    On the music level, they are good but we don’t get to hear them abroad. They don’t play it on radio in the US. The only song I heard on radio in Dubai was Oliver Twist by D’banj and neither do we see the videos on BET. That is part of what I’m also trying to do. You have to expand, you have to go international. You don’t just sit in your own small world here.

    The whole idea is to expand and for the artist to be recognised internationally, not just by Nigerians abroad. People have to know you no matter where you are. When I mentioned Miguel, you knew who he was instantly, yet he has never been to Nigeria. They only do the Nigerian thing. D’banj ought to be invited to the U.S to perform for the foreign audience like Chris Brown and Akon are brought to Nigeria to play and get millions of naira.

  • Fascism ala Jonathan?

    There is a myth that the Nigerian president is the most powerful of his kind in the world. That could be true. But only if the president wilfully breaks the law, and hopes he can get away with it.

    That is because for every power the president has, there is a check: in the best tradition of the doctrine of separation of power, on which the presidential system of government is built.

    What has been happening, since the Olusegun Obasanjo presidency (1999-2007), is that the president would essay a constitutional infraction, but flex his presidential muscles to dare anyone to challenge him, since democratic institutions are still rather weak.

    That worked ruinously during Obasanjo’s presidential monarchy, so much so that it gave birth to that myth: the Nigerian president is all-conquering and all-powerful; that it could even challenge the law that gave it life to a wrestling bout – and prevail!

    But isn’t that constitutional harakiri tantamount to the folly of the Achebe wrestler, quoting Igbo folklore, who figured he was so powerful he could challenge his chi (personal god)?

    Indeed, presidential conceit Nigerian style, and its concomitant reckless power play, contrasts the poetic conceit of John Donne (1572-1631), the English metaphysical poet in “The Sun Rising”, one of his famous sonnets, a fragment of which is quoted, prelude to this piece.

    In “The Sun Rising”, the protagonist, one of two lovers, lampooned the early morning sun for its intrusiveness, on the lovers’ nest. The “Busy old fool, unruly sun,” the angry lover fumed, could well make the difference between night and day; between sleeping and waking hours.

    But with a mere wink, he insisted, a man could shut it and its all-mighty rays from sight!

    From the rarefied world of poetry to the brick-and-mortar plain of politics, this translates to the fact that a citizen, relying on the law, could easily damn the most menacing of governments. So long for the myth of the all-mighty powers of the Nigerian Presidency!

    That leads to the delicate mix of power, authority, legitimacy and influence. Power is the most visible but the least potent. Influence is the least visible but the most potent. Authority, in a democracy, is delegated electors’ power to the elected. Legitimacy is the electors’ retentive power to periodically choose, thus guaranteeing regular elections.

    Trouble starts in a democracy when the elected project power as if it were absolute. But every student of Politics 101 knows that once power is challenged, even by the weakest and most abject in the polity, it is defeated. That is why smart governments never rely on brute force, but on legitimacy and influence.

    That is the tragic undoing of the Goodluck Jonathan Presidency and its creeping fascism. It must be checked right now; or the democratic republic will live to rue such tardiness.

    President Jonathan put the wrong foot forward when he assumed the conceit that he, because he was president, could dictate who would or who would not become the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) chair.

    Rivers Governor, Chibuike Amaechi, defied the president as meddlesome interloper in NGF matters. He needed no especial courage to do so. All he needed was to insist on his right under the law, like the lover in Donne’s poem, winking to shut out the sun.

    A similar piece of power illogic caused the split in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Instead of sensitivity to democratic dissent in the federal ruling party, the president and his advisers reached for a fist of mail.

    Again, all the dissenting lobby, led by the G-7 Governors, needed was to stand their grounds, and take their chances against the all-mighty presidential machine. Again, that machine unravelled. But even if it had crushed the “rebels”, that they had defied the president and his awesome powers would have been enough victory – for the myth would have vanished.

    Still, instead of the Jonathan presidency taking the cue and beating a tactical retreat, it has embarked on an ill-advised, if not outright unthinking attack, which has further compromised the authority of the president and the dignity of the presidency.

    Indeed, it is from this attack that putative fascism would appear to be creeping in. An irate president appears on the offensive to politicise, if not personalise, crucial state agencies and apparatuses.

    The sheer misuse of the Police in Rivers, under the command of CP Mbu Joseph Mbu, is well and truly reprehensible. It is the unflattering paradox of an outlaw police! First, Mr. Mbu fancies himself some Abuja-anointed viceroy, contending every inch of space with Governor Amaechi. This is a constitutional infraction deserving of the harshest censure.

    Then, the police under Mbu’s command are so partisan, a bloc of governors has dubbed them the PDP armed wing – and they sound very credible! Indeed, the police ought to be so embarrassed at their own gross misconduct. They would manufacture the most absurd of reasons to push back the governor’s supporters. They would manufacture even more absurd reasons to aid presidential sympathisers, in their war against political enemies.

    Do these corps of misguided officers realise their sympathy is to the Constitution and not to any individual no matter how powerful they feel he is? But the futility of such impunity was borne out of the Amaechi march with his supporters to welcome his All Progressives Congress (APC) guests.

    The sheer dignity of the gubernatorial office reduced Mbu’s men to a contemptible rabble, lobbing tear gas canisters at a trek they could not abort! So, so disgraceful!

    But the most alarming sign of putative fascism is the crude attempt to stop the G-7 governors at all costs: now threatening to demolish buildings associated with them, then violently abridging their constitutional rights as citizens and as governors. Imagine a lowly divisional police officer (DPO) arresting governors, constitutionally immune from arrests!

    Obasanjo, during his imperial presidency, viciously manipulated state legislatures to criminalise their governors, on the suspect motive of fighting corruption, and sending the EFCC after them.

    But never in his imperial conceit did he dare to threaten governors with summary arrest – no matter how rabidly convicted they were in the media!

    But the Jonathan Presidency – or whatever “powers from above” gave that DPO of Asokoro the instruction to bound into the meeting of governors in the Kano State Governor’s Lodge and threaten them with arrest – is already crossing that Rubicon.

    All that remains, it appears, is for the threatened arrest to be effected. Fancy an almighty DPO, lobbing tear gas canisters, and sitting governors running helter-skelter to avoid arrest? It just might not be too far off!

    But then, it would be welcome, fascism!

    This polity would not triumph over vicious military rule, only to succumb to civilian fascism. But what audacity, for a common columnist to warn the almighty powers-that-be!

    Again, like Donne and his intrusive sun: it does not take any especial courage – just an insistence on the law. The rule of law is the straight and narrow path to nurture our democracy.

  • National dialogue: Give FG the benefit of doubt

    SIR: It is no more news that the prolonged issue of national conference which was adamantly opposed by the President some months ago has now received endorsement with his Independence Day broadcast. To crown it, he inaugurated the 13-member conference advisory committee on Oct. 7. Whatever may have induced his change of mind is welcome and should set the pace for frank, rigorous and constructive discourse among Nigerians.

    Some have said that it was a move to divert attention from his administration’s incompetence as the 2015 elections draws nears; some even termed a ‘Greek Gift’, while some have opposed it vehemently because it doesn’t have the term ‘Sovereign’.

    Like late Chief Bola Ige once said, we need to ask whether we will remain as a country and under what conditions. Though the conference can never and will never be panacea to all our problems (political, economical and social), still we need to talk. And talk we must. I think those who are in support of the national conference are right. Unless we sit down to have sincere and meaningful national dialogue, this country will disintegrate. The national conference is imperative to rescue the nation especially now that the nation is faced with intractable crises. The topmost agenda for the conference must be how to restructure Nigeria and make it work.

    As for those who accuse the President of insincerity over the issue of national conference, I think they also have a point. Here one easily recalls the previous conferences called by the late Gen. Sani Abacha and Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. What came out of them?

    For those who oppose the planned conference because it is not “Sovereign”, I would say it is our duty to determine the nature and structure of the proposed dialogue. We should make the conference to go beyond the President’s expectation and make him understand that if he had announced the national conference to suit his personal interest, he has committed the greatest mistake as Nigerians will not allow him to tamper with the outcome for partisan political reasons.

    To the President, I have an urgent message: if the motive for convening the national conference is for the purpose of using it as an organ of distraction and tool for manipulative political shenanigans, then it is better to swallow the idea. It is either we have a conference that is free and unfettered or we have nothing. This government should perform on critical sectors of the country rather than seek to lean on the conference as an alibi.

    My position is that we give President Jonathan the benefit of the doubt and wait to see what he and his conference actually offers. Let’s embrace it and not ruin our future with the pain of the past. It is never too late. Today is our day of salvation, tomorrow may be too late!

     

    • Ogundimu Babatunde Solomon

    Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.

  • What is Dikko Disciplinary Committee up to?

    What is Dikko Disciplinary Committee up to?

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has set up a disciplinary committee headed by Second Republic Transport Minister Dr. Umaru Dikko. But many stakeholders believe that what the party needs is reconciliation and not sanctions. Assistant Editor GBADE OGUNWALE reports.

    Ailing 77-year-old Dr Umaru Dikko, the chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) National Disciplinary Committee. His job is to investigate the allegations of indiscipline against party members and recommend the appropriate sanctions. The seven-member committee, which was inaugurated last week, is coming at a time the ruling party is desperate for peace and reconciliation with aggrieved and alienated members across the country. To make its job easier, the leadership of the PDP had exempted the seven “rebellious” governors, otherwise known as the G-7, from the committee’s brief.

    Also, leaders and members of the Abubakar Baraje faction, otherwise known as the New PDP, have also been excused from the committee. Their case is still pending before the Peace and Reconciliation Committee led by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. A peace meeting between the breakaway group and the camp of President Goodluck Jonathan, which was scheduled for October 7, was put on hold. No new date has been fixed for the meeting. With these exceptions, the scope of the Dikko Committee appears narrowed down to a handful of cases across the various geo-political zones.

    The states where the committee may have a job to do are Kwara, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Ekiti, Rivers, Kano, Adamawa, Bayelsa and Lagos. Only a few days ago, a faction in the Kwara State chapter had approached the national leadership for sanctions against members of the New PDP. Former Kwara State Governor Bukola Saraki, his successor, Abdulfatah Ahmed and former Acting National Chairman, Alhaji Abubakar Baraje, are some of the leaders of the new PDP. A group led by the chairman of the Federal Character Commission, Professor Abdulraheem Oba, stormed the Abuja national secretariat, demanding for decisive action against Saraki and his loyalists. Specifically, the group sought to take over the party machinery from Saraki and his followers, describing them as “renegade members”. The PDP national chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, to wield the big stick, the group said that Saraki and his group have lost relevance. A chieftain Alhaji Salman Alada, said certain individuals who believe that nothing happens in Kwara politics without them will be brought to shame.

    “There cannot be two masters in the ship of PDP. The era of indiscipline is gone. Kwara State PDP will remain with the mainstream PDP. We apoligise for whatever might have happened. The new PDP is not known to any law. We want you to put on ground a strong disciplinary action to restore sanity because, if left undone, a lot of damage would be done by these renegades. We urge you to take steps to restore sanity in Kwara. The new PDP, as far as we can recognise in Kwara, is a party that has been constituted by proclamation and it is unknown to any democratic ideas or principles. If the people promoting that party are doing so on the excuse that they are trying to entrench democracy within the parent party, that is the wrong way to go. We on this delegation urge you, Mr. Chairman, that the time is now; not tomorrow. You must put on ground your strong foot of discipline to restore sanity in Kwara PDP”. Apparently referring to Saraki, Alada added: “People don’t know the true state of affairs in Kwara. Once they see one person, they think it’s Kwara. With the backing of the leadership of the party, Kwara must remain in the mainstream of the PDP”. Professor Oba also implored the National Working Committee (NWC) to ensure that any party chieftain in Kwara State, who identified with the Baraje faction, is brought to book. According to the him the PDP under Tukur’s leadership should not condone acts of indiscipline typified by the actions of Saraki, Baraje, Governor Ahmed and others who walked out on the party to join the breakaway faction. Tukur was however, tactical in his response to the group’s demands. He enjoined the delegation to align with the national leadership in the search for peace and reconciliation. According to the chairman, the leadership of the party would continue to push for total reconciliation with estranged members. Tukur insisted that the party would always be guided by the principle of consensus building.

    He said: “We believe in reconciliation without confrontation; restoring the party’s dignity without revenge, and also to build the party based on equity and justice”. Also in the delegation were Presidential Adviser on Ethics Mrs. Sarah Jubril; Senator, Suleiman Ajadi; former Transport Minister, Isa Bio; Mr. John Dara; Bode Ojomu. But, if the party is to be guided by the principle of reconciliation and consensus building, as enunciated by the chairman, then, what role is expected of the Dikko committee? Again, there is s subsisting national reconciliation committee chaired by the Bayelsa State Governor, Henry Seriake Dickson. The Dickson committee was put in place by the leadership of the party, with the backing of President Goodluck Jonathan.

    The committee had met with the factions in many states, to address their grievances. But, while the Dickson committee has been summoning stakeholders for reconciliatory meetings, the leadership of the party appears to be taking steps that tend to aggravate the existing cleavages. For instance, while the peace committee was still working, the NWC, on September 16, dissolved the executive committee of the Kano State chapter. A caretaker committee was constituted to replace the dissolved executive. The dissolution came shortly after the party received Mohammed, son of the late maximum ruler, General Sani Abacha, back into the PDP. Alhaji Alhassan Kafayos was named as the chairman of the caretaker committee, while Mr. Andrew Musa was appointed secretary.

    They were immediately sworn-in by the National Legal Adviser, Mr. Victor Kwom. The National Organising Secretary Abubakar Mustapha, said other members of the committee would be appointed in Kano during the week. But the other members that were co-opted into the caretaker committee had been on war the path with Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso. Speaking at the inauguration, Tukur said the tenure of the dissolved exco had expired on August 15. According to him, the party observed the rules and provision of its constitution in setting up the caretaker committee. Tukur charged the committee members to ensure that they listen to the grievances of aggrieved members, with a view to addressing them. He told them that winning the Kano governorship election in 2015 is a task that must be accomplished.

    The committee was set up without any input from the Kano governor, lending credence to insinuations that the committee was a ploy to sideline Governor Kwankwaso in the running of the chapter. Speaking with journalists a few days after the committee was inaugurated, MohammedAbacha said he joined the PDP in 2010 and left the party for the defunct Congress for Progressive Change (CPC). He again left the CPC in 2010, owing to what he described as the lack of internal democracy in the CPC. Abacha added that he had held consultations with various PDP stakeholders, except the governor, who he promised to consult later. But the Baraje faction has never hidden it’s disdain for the peace efforts. According to the faction, Tukur is the obstacle to reconciliation.

    The National Publicity Secretary of the faction, Chief Chukwuemeka Eze, accused Tukur of creating crises in the various chapters and making half- hearted moves at reconciliation. Eze said Tukur had frustrated all efforts being made by President Goodluck Jonathan and other leaders to end crises in the party.

    Eze said: “The latest of the belligerent actions by the Tukur faction is the ill-advised move to take over the structures in the states controlled by the governors loyal to Baraje’s leadership. Mr. President should not be deceived by some party leaders, who are making him believe that he can do without us.

    “Most of these leaders cannot, under a properly organised free and fair elections, win their wards. It is obvious that no presidential election in Nigeria can be won without states like Rivers, Kano, Sokoto, Adamawa, Kwara, Niger and Kebbi states, which are under our control. Check the past general elections and you will see that some of these media-created PDP leaders have no followers in their states at the moment, talk less of making any impact come 2015″.

    The faction however, commended Jonathan and other party leaders for seeking amicable resolution of the crises and appealed to them not to relent in their determination to achieve results. According to Eze, what the PDP needs is not a disciplinary committee. Rather, the party, he said, is in dire need of internal democracy. He insisted that all the cases of disagreement and alleged anti-party activities by members were borne out of frustrations arising from the culture of impunity by the PDP under Tukur’s watch.

    Eze added: “We are asking that internal democracy be allowed to thrive within the party and that Tukur and his undemocratic gang should not see the party as their personal property in which they can wake up any day and fire whoever they dreamt about in their sleep. We will no longer condone such undemocratic reasoning and acts. We are adamant on achieving our aim of restoring democratic normalcy within the PDP as envisaged by the founding fathers of the party. This is a battle to which we have committed ourselves and there is no going back, until undemocratic elements within our party are flushed out as their acts have done much harm and brought much shame to our great party”.

    There is not much for the Dikko committee to do. In his acceptance speech after inauguration, the frail-looking Dikko was hardly audible. His movement from the ground floor to the second floor, the venue of the ceremony, was a labourous one. He was aided to his seat and it took some efforts before he could lower his frail frame into the seat. Going by the precarious situation in the PDP today, the Dikko Committee may as well be a window dressing. Analysts are of the opinion that, with the fragile state of party, any attempt by its leadership to hand down sanctions to aggrieved members may deepen the discontent in the ruling party.

     

  • Where’s Abuja Conference’s report?

    Where’s Abuja Conference’s report?

    Many stakeholders want the report of the 2005 National Political Reform Conference to be revisited as the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue headed by Senator Femi Okurounmu moves round the six geo-political zones, seeking contributions to the agenda of the national conference proposed by President Goodluck Jonathan. Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU reports.

    The convocation of the National Political Reform Conference (NPRC) by former President Olusegun Obasanjo on February 21, 2005 would have been the most important achievement of the administration, if its report had not been sacrificed on the altar of the third term agenda.

    Despite the restrictions imposed on the conference headed by Justice Niki Tobi (rtd) by the “no-go areas” highlighted by the former President, the 19 committees produced a vital document, which attempted to proffer solutions to the national question. Although the members were not elected, many of the delegates were credible Nigerians from all walks of life. Apart from Tobi, other principal officers were the Depuy Chairman, Alhaji Sule Katagun, the Secretary, Dr. Mathew Kukah, the Joint Secretary, Prof. I-shaq Oloyede, the Deputy Secretary, (Administration and Finance), Nu’uman Dambatta, and the Deputy Secretary (Conference Proceedings), Mr. Akin Arikawe. But the groundwork was prepared by a pre-conference committee, which produced the blueprint. It was headed by former Kaduna State Governor Mohammed Makarfi.

    The conference restored hope to the troubled country. Although some Nigerians expressed reservations about it, the suspicion initially disappeared during the proceedings. The true picture of Nigeria as a country of diverse interests unfolded. But the ethnic tension did not lead to the collapse of the conference. Indisputably, many of the critical national issues addressed by the conference still stare the nation in the face.

    Among eminent Nigerians, who have called for the re-opening of the conference’s report, is the former Lagos State governor, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. The All Progressives Party (APC) leader noted that the only stain was the third term agenda, which, nevertheless, collapsed like a pack of cards. He said, if the report is revisited and implemented, Nigeria may discover the solution to its numerous problems.

    The report covered the recommendations of the 19 Standing Committees. The committees are: ‘The Economy , Social Infrastructure, Environment and Natural Resources, Revenue Allocation and Fiscal Federalism, National Security, Human Rights and Social Security, Judiciary and Legal Reforms, and Anti-Corruption. Others are Models and Structures of Government, Power Sharing, The Legislature, The Executive, Local Government, Public Service, Foreign Policy, New Sustainable Democratic Order, Political Parties and Electoral Progress, Civil Society, Labour, Trade Unions and Media, and Traditional Institutions and Culture.

    Today, the delegates also occupy strategic positions in the polity as governors, National Assembly members, ministers, commissioners and top party leaders. The members of the Report Writing Committee were Admiral Muritala Nyako, now governor of Adamawa State, Prof. Nur Alkali, Mr. Fidelis Oyakhilome, retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Alhaji Ibrahim Shema, now governor of Katsina State, Chief Richard Akinjide (SAN), former Attorney-General and Justice Minister, Chief Olaiya Oni, former Education Minister, and John Dara. Others are Alfred Eghobamien Alfred (SAN), Ibrahim Lame, Mohammed Buba, Mrs. Franceesca Emmanuel, Prof. Awwal Yadudu, Mrs. Tawa Williams, an engineer, Danjuma Maina, Francis Doukpola, Ambassador Dapo Fafowora, Aminu Gurin, Ambassador B.A. Jidda, Dr. Kukah, now Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Prof. Oloyede, Dambatta, and Arikawe.

     

    Economy

     

    Today, the economy remains ini trouble. Had the conference’s report been implemented, may be, the government would have secured the impetus for the diversification of the economy. Not only did the report hammered on agricultural development, it also directed attention to the development of solid minerals, which would have become alternative revenue sources.

    The Economy Committee was headed by Prof. Adebayo Adedeji, former Chairman of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). The committee recommended that oil companies should be compelled to add value to their activities by refining, rather than merely exporting crude. Also, it recommended that the states and local governments. in co-ordination with the oil bearing communities, should have a say in the development and utilisation of these resources. Also, it was recommended that the Federal Government should enact laws to compel government establishments at all levels to patronise made-in -Nigeria goods. Delegates called for the privatisation of the refineries and the setting up of a Nigeria Mineral Resources Trust Fund for the benefit of future generations.

     

    Revenue allocation and

    fiscal federalism:

     

    The conference recommended that the positions of the Accountant-General of the Federation and Accountant-General for the Federal Government should be separated, adding that a new official to be called the Director-General should be in charge of the collation, allocation and distribution of funds from the Federation Account. Thus, the role of the Accountant General of the Federation would be limited to the supervision of the funds of the Federal Government. Also, it was recommended that the Director-General (Federation Accounts) should function under the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC). Delegates also suggested that the composition and membership of the RMAFC should be from the Federal Government, the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). “The state representatives would be nominated by the governors, subject to confirmation by the Senate”, added the report.

    Also, the conference made two important recommendations. It said that “bulk allocation should be made to states in respect of their local governments, irrespective of the number of the local governments in any particular state”. Also, it was suggested that “the derivation principle should be applicable to all revenues, except the Value Added Joint Tax (VAT), accruable to the Federation Account.

     

     

    State/ Local Government Account

     

    The conference recommended that the State/Local Government Joint Account should scrapped and replaced by a State Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (SRMAFC), with representative of the local government and a chairman appointed by the governor. All nominees must also be screened by the House of Assembly. The report may have enlisted on the side of true federalism, recognising only two tiers; the state and Federal Government. It stressed: “Local government affairs are the sole responsibility of states. Thus, the government of every state shall ensure their existence under a law, which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils. Consequently, Section 8(3) (4) of the 1999 Constitution are unnecessary, just as the listing of Local Government Areas in states in the First Schedule of the constitution should be removed”.

    Also, the conference recommended that the number of local governments in a state should not count as a criterion for revenue allocation.

     

    Judiciary

     

    To reflect the federal system of government, the delegates recommended that the constitution should be amended as follows: to provide that the salaries and other emoluments of the state judiciaries, both for judicial and non-judicial officers, should be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the states; to provide that both capital and recurrent expenditures of the judiciaries at all levels be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Funds and Recurrent Expenditures; and to provide that these funds, together with the funds of the federal judiciary, be deducted at source and paid to the National Judicial Council for direct disbursement to the judiciaries.

    The report called for the separation of the office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. It said: “Recognising that political independence is too much to expect, and as the Attorney-General, by the nature of his duty, appears before judges in court, it is neater that he should have nothing to do with their appointments and any other affair concerning them. Consequently, and in line with previous recommendations, particularly the Judicial Panel on the Reform/Reorganisation of the Judiciary (kayode Eso Panel), there should be a complete separation of the offices of Attorney-General and Minister of Justice”.

    To ensure independence, it was also suggested that “the Attorney-General should not be a politician or a civil servant” and the office should be funded directly from the Consolidated Revenue Accounts of the Federation.

     

    National Security

     

    However, the conference failed to address the threat posed to the federal principle by the centralised police. It recommended that “ the present centralised police structure should remain, but be reformed to make it more effective and representative of the federal character of the country”.

     

    Citizenship and indigeneship

     

    According to the report, “the right of any Nigerian citizen to be resident or domicile in any part of Nigeria should be recognised”. The resident should also enjoy rights, privileges and facilities in the place of his choice, if his parent was born in the place, married to an indigene, has lived there continuously for not less than 18 years, and does not claim indigeneship status in any other community in the country. However, the resident should not harbour the motive of displacing or usurping the rights of the original native inhabitants if the affected area.

    On the social rights, the delegates said that “all Nigerians should be equally treated wherever they choose to reside”. Also, married women should enjoy the same rights and privileges as their spouses in their state.

     

    Immunity

     

    The conference recommended the retention of the immunity clause in the constitution. Thus, the President, Vice President, governors and their deputy are to be insulated from criminal proceedings.

     

    Corruption

     

    The report recommended that “any person convicted of corrupt practices should be stripped of any national award and barred from receiving any in the future and from becoming a director in any public company”. Remarkably, the report added: “Special courts should be set up for the prosecution of cases emanating from corrupt practice and such cases should not last more than 90 days”.

     

    Models and structures of

    government

     

    The conference affirmed faith in the federal system of government, although it also supported devolution of powers to the states to a certain degree. It recommended three levels of government-centre (Federal Government), states as federating units and local governments as grassroots units.

     

    Rotation of executive

    positions

     

    The conference recommended as follows: “The office of the President, governors and local, government chairmen should rotate in such a way that all the geo-political zones in the federation, states, and local governments, as the case may be, should have the chance to produce a President, governor or local government chairman, alternating between the Northern and Southern parts of the country and geo-political zones in the states and local governments, respectively. Because of the emotive nature of the rotation, it should not be included in the constitution. It should however, be given legal backing below the constitution to ensure that political parties are enjoined to apply the rotation principle in order to provide for equity and justice in putting forward people for electoral offices”.

     

    Power sharing

     

    The report is confusing in some aspects. While it recognised the states as the federating units and their supervisory roles over the councils, it also recommended financial autonomy for the local governments. The report recommended that the National Assembly should pass a legislation to ensure that the Presidency rotates between the North and South and among the six geo-political zones.

     

    Independent candidacy

     

    According to the report, “independent candidates should be free under the constitution to contest election into all public offices.

     

    Cost of governance

     

    The report recommended a reduction in the number of federal ministries to 18, nine ministries for states and reduction in the number of parastatals and commissions. It added: “There are too many special advisers, special assistants, and personal assistants in the Presidency, which at present, number about 90. They merely duplicate and perform the functions of the established civil service. Also, it recommended a cut in the overseas diplomatic and consular missions, frivolous travelling by officials with large contingents.

     

    Secularity of state

     

    The report recommended that religion should be separated from governance and no state should force religion on its subjects.

     

    Delegates

     

    Other prominent delegates at the conference include Chief Emeka Anyaoku, Alhaji Umaru Dikko, Prof. Joe Irukwu, Asiwaju Sunday Adewusi, Senator Mike Ajegbo, Princess Tejumade Alakija, Prince Bola Ajibola, Alhaji Femi Okunnu (SAN), Prof. Albert Ogbunshola, Dr. Joseph Wayas, Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife, Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim (SAN), Mr. Dele Adesina (SAN), Prof. Attahiru Jega, Gen. OBM Haruna, Dr. Wale Babalakin (SAN), Chief Godwin Agabi (SAN), Chief Bayo Ojo (SAN), Asiwaju Olorunfunmi Basorun, Senator Sikiru Shitta-Bey, Arthur Nwankwo, Chief Solomon Lar, Alhai Shehu Musa, Bassey Asuquo, Senator Mahmud Waziri, Senator Stella Omu, Dr, Olusola Saraki, Dr. Lekan Are, Prof. Omotayo Olutoye, Dr, Haliru Bello, Chief Mathew Mbu, Dr, Shettima Mustapha, Chief Paul Unongo, Chief Barnabas Gemade, Dr, Kema Chikwe, Alhaji Usman Faruk, Mallam Adamu Ciroma, Gen. Joshua Dongoyaro, Real Admiral Hamzat Sani, Chief Ason Bur, Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe, Mrs. Hellen Esuene, Alhaji Ibrahim Damcida, King Diete-Spiff, Sir George Kogbara, Deacon Gamaliel Onosode, Chief Edwin Clark, Admiral Mike Akhigbe, Chief S.K. Babalola, Senator Sola Akinyede, Senator Uba Ahmed, Justice Chikudifu Oputa, Dr, Christopher Abashiya, Alhaji Ibrahim Commaissie, Co,. Bello Kaliel, Gen. David Jemibewon, Gen. Oluwole Rotimi, Chief Olusola Oke, Admiral Akin Aduwo, Dr. Olu Alabi, Oba Sikiru Adetona, Senator Ayo Otegbola, Prof. Ade Ayoade, Hon. Dosu Oladipo, Chief Bayo Oyero, Chief Albert Horsfall, Commodore Jonah Jang, Dr, Adamu Fika, Gen. A,B. Mamman, Oba Olateru Olagbegi, Alhaji Sheu Usman, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, Prof. Kimson Okoko, Chief John Kolawole, Mrs. Zainab Maina, Chief Don Etiebet, Prince Segun Adesegun, Mrs. Iyabode Pam, Gen. Jeremiah Useni, Bishop Peter Adebiyi, Chief Ajibola Ogunsola, Mr. Nduka Obaigbena, Yinka Ibidun, Dr. Ola kasim, Mr. Fola Adeola, Alhaji Iro Dan Musa, and Comrade Tony Nwoye.