The Nation Newspaper

Tag: on

  • Bring it on!

    •Gov. Ambode seems to tell hoodlums as he kits Lagos police to the teeth

    All the bad guys in Lagos must have left town now if they had any smarts. The new government in the megacity led by ebullient Governor Akinwunmi Ambode has finally shown its teeth. As if to test the will of the new ‘kid’ in Lagos Government House, there have been a series of dare-devil robbery operations in the few months of the Ambode administration.

    The government on the other hand, seems to have decided to respond in kind rolling out for the Lagos police, an armada of hardware perhaps never seen before in the annals of the city-state.

    Barely a week ago, it seemed quite fitting that President Muhammadu Buhari had to inaugurate the N4.7 billion security equipment. In the array are five helicopters, 15 Armoured Personnel Carriers, 165 vehicles, 115 power-bikes and two gun boats. Others include revolving lights, siren, public address system, vehicular radio communicators, bullet-proof vests, helmets, handcuffs and more.

    Even more remarkable is the ‘software’ component of the package which was obviously not palpable to many. This is the improved insurance and death benefits that have been availed to the police in Lagos State.

    From the foregoing, there is no doubt that the state government has once again raised the ante and redirected the narrative in the policing of the state. In just six months, Governor Ambode may have opened a fresh vista in the security architecture of the state and is poised to build on the outstanding precedents of former Governors Bola Tinubu and Raji Fashola.

    While Tinubu had vastly rebranded and re-kitted ‘Operation Sweep’, turning it to the Rapid Respond Squad; Gov. Fashola had reconfigured and deepened the template with the setting up of the Lagos State Security Trust Fund. Working with corporate Lagos, the LSSTF had pooled ample funds needed to support the police and security machinery in the state.

    Governor Ambode captured the mood of the moment when he noted at the event that: “With our commitment to light up Lagos, we are sure we are on our way to creating a robust economy. It is in our best interest. We are all aware of the recent trend in terror attacks all over the world. As one of the emerging global city-states, it has become compelling to reenergise the security infrastructure in meeting with present day realities.”

    It is one thing to push out sophisticated equipment to the police and indeed, the police get equipment boost now and then. But what is vital is the ability of the police to maintain its hardware and manage its store. Police vehicles and equipment hardly last six months before they become disused and barely functional. Most police vehicles and facilities appear battered and unsightly due mainly to reckless usage.

    The police authorities must change its template on the management of its inventory. It will not be out of place to establish a state-of the art repairs yard in collaboration with the private sector to ensure that police vehicles, APCs and other mechanical equipment are kept in good conditions all the time. Often, police operational vehicles have been sighted on unseemly errands such as shopping and house moving. This should never be.

    Indeed, time is now for the police hierarchy to particularly re-imagine the Lagos arm of its operations and gear it to meet the increasingly sophisticated demands of a metropolitan police. The Lagos arm is an elite security and intelligence force that would require specialised training, kitting and civilising process.

    We urge the Inspector-General of Police and the Police Service Commission to rethink the Lagos operation as a model for policing, with a view to building it into a world-class corps. Only this kind of mindset will make policing effective in an emerging megacity such as Lagos State.

  • Limping on at 54

    SIR: It is clear that our country faces a big choice: We can either have a hard decade or a bad century. We can either roll up our sleeves and do what’s needed to overcome our post-colonial excesses and adapt to the demands of the 21st century or we can just keep limping into the future. Given those stark choices, one would hope that our politicians would rise to the challenge by putting forth fair and credible recovery proposals that match the scale of our economic, political and social problems.

    But that, alas, is not what we’re getting today. While we accuse the military leaders of leaving behind, a political morass and socio-economic mess, nepotism, mismanagement and corruption, the civilian leaders, even in the presence of anti graft agencies such as the Economic Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and the ICPC continue to bribe, steal, smuggle and speculate; accumulating vast illicit fortunes and displaying them lavishly in stunning disregard for public sensitivities. In this regard, political activity is seen by ambitious Nigerians as the most direct way of securing wealth and social standing, as a result, post independent Nigeria has become an orgy of power being turned into profit.

    In the words of one of the Nigeria founding fathers, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa in 1959 –”When we have our citizenship, our national flag and our national anthem, we shall find that the flame of national unity will burn bright and strong”. Nigeria, pre-independence was a country of equal men and women who came together for a common goal whereas today, Nigeria is a country made up of gathering of divided people along religion, ethnic and political lines.

    The founding fathers of this great country never envisaged a Nigeria where tradition of autocratic governance and paternalism are all embedded in the institution of governance; they never envisaged a country where massive culture of impunity and total failure of accountability will overwhelmingly thrive unchecked.

    At 54, government has not been able to do anything to break the mould of poverty and to move the nation towards sustainable growth. After 54 years, our political leaders are not bold enough to access our hospitals for their own health needs due to high level of decay they know they have brought to the sector. Our healthcare delivery system is still comatose as a result of massive brain-drain of medical experts due to poor welfare and poor working conditions. Our hospitals can best be described as corridors of death just as Nigerian children are still dying of preventable diseases such as cholera and malaria and high level of infant and maternal mortality.

    At 54, our farmers are still using the same crude agricultural implements used by our forefathers – a reflection of how much our agricultural experts have failed us. It is practically the case that almost all other areas of our national life are equally sick.

    Today in Nigeria, governments at all levels have disowned primary education; public primary schools in many states of Nigeria have been closed down for periods ranging from four months to 11 moths in some states as governments are being wilfully indifferent to the plights of primary schools’ teachers hence their resort to downing tools.

    Despite the esoteric rebasing which placed Nigeria as the largest economy in Africa, over 65% of the population have no access to basic amenities such as clean water, good healthcare system, motorable roads, quality education and so on.

    At 54, Nigeria remains politically, economically and socially malnourished nation.

     

    • Onogwu Isah Muhammed,

    Lokoja, Kogi State.

  • On course

    On course

    •We welcome Reps’ move to tackle weak financial control in MDAs 

    The move by the House of Representatives to tackle frontally the challenge of weak and ineffective financial controls in our public finance system is certainly overdue. Here we refer to the planned amendment of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) under which the House seeks to make funding for the office of the Auditor-General of the Federation (AGF), a first line charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federal Government.

    The rationale, according to the lawmakers, is to secure the financial autonomy for the office charged with curbing the financial excesses of ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) of the Federal Government. The lawmakers also believe that this would address the issue of paltry allocation to the office in the budget, which continues to limit its ability to carry out its mandate. A good illustration is the statement credited to the auditor general, Samuel Ukura, saying that the agency could not audit the accounts of 97 foreign missions in the 2012 budget year because there was no money for his office to work. In the 2013 budget, the sum of N892milion was proposed for the office to audit the accounts of close to 600 MDAs.

    We share in the broad objective of weaning the office off its dependence on the finance ministry and the Budget Office. As it is, the nation has long moved beyond the debate on the need for independence for a critical office like that of the auditor-general. The challenge has always been how to ensure that the institution, as indeed similar ones, have the wherewithal to carry out their jobs and in an unfettered atmosphere.

    Financial autonomy is however only one step in the long journey to improved service delivery. Clearly, the time has come for the National Assembly to look into the books to see how, in addition to the proposed financial autonomy, the operational capacity of the office can be further enhanced. We consider that also key to the whole effort to reposition the office.

    The move by the lawmakers has itself thrown up some related constitutional issues deserving no less attention; these relate to the structure and nomenclature of some of the Federal Government’s agencies, as these have implications for our current practice of federalism.

    A good example is the office of the AGF itself; ordinarily, the correct appellation ought to be Auditor-General of the Federal Government since its mandate covers only the accounts of the Federal Government and its agencies. The same is also true of the offices of the accountant-general and the Attorney-General of the Federation which should be properly designated as those of the Federal Government.

    Of course, the former is without prejudice to the demand for the separation of the office of Accountant-General of the Federal Government from that of the Federation Account. The current situation in which the Federal Government appointee doubles as both the chief accountant to the Federal Government while superintending the federation account is not only far from equitable but also absurd.

    We also urge the National Assembly to take another look at the strident clamour for the separation of the attorney-general’s office from that of the minister of justice. We see great merits in the arguments that the two offices be separated. Indeed, our prescription is that the attorney-general – be it Federal Government or states – as the foremost defender of the public in the matters of law and public policy, should be insulated from the topsy-turvy of executive politics. That done, the minister of justice could then be left with the roles of being the administrative head of justice ministry as well as legal adviser to the Federal Government or the states – as the case might be.

  • Jonathan and Obasanjo on Boko Haram

    Jonathan and Obasanjo on Boko Haram

    By and by, President Goodluck Jonathan will start to understand just how relentless and detached a foe Chief Olusegun Obasanjo can be to anyone, irrespective of the opponent’s status. Hardball had once here captured the quintessential Obasanjo and recounted his political and literary odysseys over the decades. The former president’s quarrel with Jonathan over which approach to adopt in the fight against the extremist Islamic sect, Boko Haram, is merely a short chapter in the long-running saga of his life. In November 2012, Obasanjo had argued Jonathan was slow in tackling the Boko Haram terror problem. He then advised the president to borrow a leaf from the drastic steps he employed in pacifying Odi in Bayelsa State in November 1999 when some militants murdered soldiers and policemen in that small town.

    But the former president reversed himself, according to yesterday’s newspapers, when he told the CNN in an interview that Jonathan was fixated on fighting the sect rather than negotiating with it. According to him, “To deal with a group like that, you need a carrot and stick. The carrot is finding out how to reach out to them. When you try to reach out to them and they are not amenable to being reached out to, you have to use the stick… Jonathan is just using the stick…He’s doing one aspect of it well, but the other aspect must not be forgotten.” The president’s spokesman, Reuben Abati, has responded by pointing out the contradictory positions the former president has taken on the matter in barely two months. But it was unnecessary for Jonathan’s spokesman to respond to Obasanjo’s criticisms. When the former president spoke to the CNN, it was obvious he had forgotten the counsel he gave Jonathan in November. Nor, apparently, did he recollect that in 2011, he had himself tried to reach out to Boko Haram leaders and got his fingers burnt. Those he reached out to in Maiduguri, the hotbed of Boko Haram, were summarily executed for daring to speak with him.

    This column does not dare to defend Jonathan in his struggles with his mentor. However, it must be obvious to even a child in Nigeria that the president has never been opposed to dialogue with Boko Haram. All he wants is peace to enjoy his tenure, no matter the price. That he has vacillated annoyingly over Boko Haram so far is less a reflection of his lack of moral or ideological courage than it is an indication of his own lack of depth in understanding the critical determinants of great leadership. After being thoroughly and repeatedly embarrassed by Boko Haram, Jonathan a long time ago jettisoned the little fight left in him and embraced dialogue with the sect. In fact on one occasion he plaintively announced his readiness for talks if the sect’s leaders would show their faces.

    Obasanjo, it seems, is driven not by logical consistency on any issue but by overriding self-importance and self-interest. In November 2012, it suited him to lampoon Jonathan for pacifism and slow action; and two months later it has pleased him to lambast the same Jonathan for undue use of force and inflexibility. If it will massage his ego on some hypothetical tomorrow, Obasanjo will damn Jonathan for not expediently leapfrogging over Boko Haram to negotiate with Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM). Obasanjo is Jonathan’s mentor, and in the fog of his criticisms of his mentee, we discern the former characterising the latter as a supple soul easily bent by the wind. The mentee, on his own, should by now have understood his mentor as a man of doubtful loyalties whose attachment to anyone is as fickle as a feather in a gale. It is a tribute to their vaunted leadership skills that while they squabble, the Boko Haram menace festers very badly.

  • Akinyemi on Sanusi

    Akinyemi on Sanusi

    In an open letter circulated to the media at the weekend, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, a former Foreign Affairs minister, has defended the public policy advocacy role the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, has assumed with gusto. He did not always agree with the banking chief, said Akinyemi, himself an erudite policymaker, if also a controversial one, but it was necessary for someone who could command attention to fill the vacuum created by the exit of great Nigerians like Chike Obi, Tai Solarin, Ayo Awojobi, Aminu Kano, Gani Fawehinmi, Bala Usman, Obafemi Awolowo. Akinyemi’s position is indeed intriguing. Whether we will discover the true reasons he supports Sanusi remains to be seen. Hardball can hazard a guess that Akinyemi defends Sanusi because the indisputably controversial top banker is a kindred spirit to the former Foreign Affairs minister.

    This column recalls that though Akinyemi as minister was not a public policy advocate in the Sanusi mould, having as an intellectual appreciated the incompatibility of his position in the Ibrahim Babangida years with that unusually public role, he was nonetheless very controversial. Yet, even his controversiality at the time was not because he was recklessly garrulous or because he was an overexcited policy wonk, but because his ideas, such as the Concert of Medium Powers, were misunderstood, being somewhat far ahead of his time. Akinyemi will recall that his Medium Powers idea actually got off the ground, and did not cause the administration either headache or heartache. Yet Babangida still felt queasy about the controversies that dogged Akinyemi’s lively and fecund tenure, and shuffled him out of the cabinet. At the time, some of his supporters felt that IBB moved against Akinyemi because the former military president was uncomfortable with his intellectualism and visibility.

    It is true Akinyemi hedged his support for Sanusi by warning that he did not always agree with the top banker’s views. But it is still surprising that as a seasoned public policy expert himself, Akinyemi is still willing to condone what are sometimes divisive and indefensible policy interventions simply because certain economists he consulted assured him Sanusi’s interventions had not had adverse effect on economic policies. But can anyone deny that some of Sanusi’s interventions have had aggravating effects on the polity generally, as the banker seems to have acted or spoken on some occasions parochially and insensitively to the point that a few regional interests have accused the banker of ethnic favouritism? Must the country wait until things go wrong with the economy much more than the general governmental incompetence has provoked before asking Sanusi to shelve his ambitious public policy advocacy pastime?

    There is no conceivable way to justify the spirit behind Sanusi’s interventions, notwithstanding the rightness of some of those interventions. Public policy advocacy is incompatible with the functions of a CBN governor, here and anywhere. Sanusi must be encouraged to choose between the two roles. Nor is Akinyemi right when he observed in his letter that, “As far as I am concerned, and others may hold different views on this matter, you (Sanusi) are the only one right now holding a position that empowers his views with such gravitas that they command attention. That they often lead to controversy is beside the point.” The fact is that it is indeed truly worrisome that Sanusi’s views often lead to controversy. This fact is certainly not beside the point. Akinyemi also unhelpfully imbues Sanusi’s sometime extreme and undiscriminating views with more importance than they deserve when he suggested that the top banker was the only one with the gravitas to make his views command attention.

    After all, Sanusi’s views on Boko Haram were atrociously divisive, and his comments on “the size of the bureaucracy, the pernicious 1999 Constitution, the need or non-need for more states, the redundancy of Local Governments, to mention a few” were doubtless superfluous.