The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Political

  • Report: militancy, political uncertainty pose risks for businesses in 2018

    Investor sentiment across West Africa may experience uplift in the new year, following Nigeria’s exit from recession this year.

    Still, political uncertainty ahead of Nigeria’s 2019 presidential elections and on-going security concerns are among the key risks for businesses  in the region, Control Risks, a specialist global risk consultancy, has said in its yearly political and security risk forecast titled: ‘RiskMap.’

    According to Control Risks’ Senior Partner for West Africa,  Tom Griffin, this year has been tough  for businesses. He however, said that with Nigeria exiting recession, and foreign exchange shortages easing, “We see a strong improvement in investor sentiment emerging.”

    Griffin said another major engine of growth will be Cote d’Ivoire, where economic expansion is projected at around seven per cent next year.

    He said there would be only a handful of elections in the region next year, meaning continuity would largely prevail with policy decisions having the biggest impact on the business environment.

    In Nigeria however, though presidential elections are next slated for 2019, campaigning has already started.The uncertainty that generates, as well as the need for cash that an election brings, mean that political instability and regulators whose actions will be difficult to predict remain among our top risks for businesses in the year ahead,” Griffin said.

    Control Risks in the forecast accessed by The Nation identified terrorism and militancy, irregular regulators and political instability, among others, as key risks facing businesses in West Africa next year. Specifically, it said business assets and personnel in West Africa will remain vulnerable to attacks by transnational or domestic militant groups.

    The report said al-Qaeda and its affiliates would continue to threaten operators in the Sahel, while the oil and gas industry in Nigeria’s Niger Delta would remain exposed to attacks by domestic militant groups. “Failure to resolve the underlying political and socio-economic grievances at the root of these movements will see the threat persist in 2018,” it warned.

    Control Risks added that as countries in the region, notably commodity-dependent economies, face growing fiscal pressures, operators are likely to see regulatory bodies increasingly act as revenue-generating bodies, strengthening local content provisions, introducing stricter fiscal terms, reviewing contracts or erratically imposing fines in companies in the hope of boosting state finances.

    Noting that this would give rise to commercial disputes, legal challenges, and the need for businesses to engage with government stakeholders, the report added that protracted political and socio-economic grievances will continue to fuel popular discontent and a desire for regime change in parts of the region.

    It pointed out, for instance, that Cameroonian President Paul Biya’s re-election bid amid a continued crisis in the Anglophone regions would exacerbate tensions, while Togolese would continue to protest   the end of the 50-year-old Gnassingbé dynasty.

    “Protests will pose security threats to businesses, while regime changes would prompt major institutional changes and complicate engagements for operators,” it warned.

    Continuing, Control Risks said new sectors would throw up new risks in the coming year. It said from Senegal’s offshore potential to the country’s embryonic mining sector, some countries would be foraying into previously-undeveloped sectors in 2018. It, however, advised that prospective investors need to monitor closely how the government’s ability to oversee these sectors evolves and what the associated risks around these projects become.

    On operational risks, the report said many of the major risks  businesses face in West Africa were  impediments to operations. It listed some of them to include shortages of or difficulties in sourcing fuel, foreign currency, equipment and skilled labour.

    The report further noted that infrastructure deficits that persist in the majority of the region, such as in electricity and transport, would continue to mean higher costs, higher demands on management resources and a tougher capital-raising environment, as well as greater uncertainty for businesses than in other regions.

    According to Control Risks, many countries in Africa, Nigeria and Cameroon among them, face the prospect of what could become a sovereign debt crisis, a decade after they followed Ghana’s lead in entering the international bond market. “The problem is driven by high levels of external debt, persistent uncertainty over the recovery of commodity prices to fund repayments, and borrowing to fund recurrent expenditure,” it said.

    While pointing out that countries dependent on oil revenues are particularly vulnerable to ballooning debt in 2018, the report said in Nigeria and Ghana, plans to borrow to finance long-term infrastructure will not generate sufficient revenues in the coming year to finance debt repayments.

    “Amid rising inflation and muted oil prices, Nigeria’s debt servicing payments – which in 2016 doubled to 66 per cent of total revenues – are likely to rise further, placing extreme strain on an already stretched budget.

    “With the government of President Muhammadu Buhari well over halfway through its term, yet to fulfil many of the promises that brought it to power and already entering campaign mode, businesses in Nigeria will remain acutely sensitive to political and operational instability in 2018,” the report added.

  • ‘Sango’s kidnap was political’

    ‘Sango’s kidnap was political’

    The Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Plateau State, John Akans, has alleged that the abduction of the party’s state Chairman, Damishi Sango, was politically-motivated.

    Sango, a former Minister of Sports, was abducted with three others on their way to Abuja for the party’s national convention.

    He was freed on Sunday after the result was announced.

    Akans, who spoke with The Nation on phone, said: “You know our Chairman, Sango, was kidnapped with Chief Emmanuel Magnin, the state coordinator for Uche Secondus. This thing is clear; certain political forces never wanted the delegates from Plateau to vote in that convention, thinking that their own candidate will win, if Plateau did not vote.

    “That was why Sango and Magnin were abducted two days to the convention, only to be released the day the convention ended. In fact, they were released immediately voting ended.

    “Obviously, his abductors were in touch with certain forces on ground at the convention because as soon as voting ended and counting began, they asked the kidnappers to release Sango and Magnin. They were given torchlight because they were released in the midnight..”

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Neurosis in the political space

    Neurosis in the political space

    Psychiatrists define neurosis as a relatively mild mental disorder that affects only a part of the personality, whose symptoms include stress, anxiety, obsessive behavior. In what follows, I suggest that the national political space provides a credible ground for modeling neurosis. How we name it doesn’t matter: political neurosis, social neurosis, or national neurosis. The symptoms are eerily similar, and we may identify two variants.

    The first is an acute mental illness that affects a section of the national space, namely, the political class. It presents as irrational anxiety and obsessive behavior on the part of its victims. The second manifests the symptoms of individualized neurosis, including stress and irrational fear on the part of the general population in the political space. I start with the second.

    There is ample evidence that neurosis afflicts many of our fellow nationals, whether it is a personality trait developed over a period, or a temporary character adaptation to some specific situation, when such adaptation tends to negatively impact a long-term goal. In a social enclave that is stress-inducing at every turn, the condition is optimal for the manifestation of an underlying neurotic personality trait or a maladaptive response to the social dysfunction of the larger society.

    A diverse political space that is otherwise promising for prosperity and human fulfillment becomes a source of morbid fear and distrust when rationality takes flight from us and our collective effort at governance runs short. We emphasize individualism and the competitive spirit in place of cooperation and community, and then we (seriously?) hope that no one is left behind. But that is delusional because many are going to be left behind. Furthermore, a lot of those at the top of the ladder morbidly fear for their future and the generations of their offspring that they only feel obligated to plan for that family future even if it takes stealing from the public treasury, thus imperiling the present survival of many.

    The consequence of the collective path that we have taken is that individuals who are deprived of the legitimate means of well-being see each other as potential competitors in the strategies of survival. It creates the war of all against all that Hobbes theorized. Ego responds with fear of loss of glory when others are perceived as threats to its prospering. The failure of Hobbes is not that such a situation never exists. It does. His error is to aver that it is a natural phenomenon. It is not. In the mentality of possessive individualism created by the contrived reality of economic, social and political competition, anxiety, fear, and depression are co-travelers.

    Neurotic disorder in the masses of the population in our clime is largely generated by the realities of contemporary life with economic dysfunction, political corruption and social anomie, the totality of which creates a stressful environment. Those who are not equipped to effectively navigate the terrain of political quid pro quo, economic rat-race, and social disequilibrium so essential to success in that terrain are either condemned to fate or, in the worst-case scenario, social deviance.

    That many consider their plight of abject poverty and hopelessness their fate is what has kept the nation from boiling over and hanging delicately on the cliff without falling off. Fatalistic mentality is a way of channeling anger and despair so that aggression is controlled, and society avoids the violent revolution that its actions or inactions may otherwise engender. That mentality is however not necessarily innate. Society deliberately socializes its members to the thought system. Destiny and fatalism are social ideologies with a mission. In various ways our acclaimed religiosity from traditional to modern only reinforces these social ideologies.

    While many subscribe to the ideologies of destiny and fatalism and live by it, a few others choose the path of deviance in apparent protest of a life that they believe society forces on them. We should not be surprised about the emergence of cultism because it is reasonable to expect that a people alienated from the fabric of social life will find a haven for their kind. We must not be too idealistic to ignore the reality that comes with the social consequences of our public policies.

    Rational people will adopt what they consider the most effective means towards the ends that they seek. When they perceive that the cards are unfairly dealt against them in the lottery of life, and they escape the mental poisoning of fatalistic ideologies, they may withdraw and pursue non-social or anti-social ends in which they believe there is “fulfillment” even when everyone thinks otherwise. Cultism is the response of an individual or a group to a social condition that collective irrationality creates. To combat it effectively, we must deal with the collective irrationality that creates the condition for it in the first place.

    Of course, we may raise the question whether the cultists’ response to collective irrationality of society is itself not irrational. It is a valid question. But it elides a more fundamental issue of what rationality connotes. If it is the most effective means of achieving a desired end, the means of cut-throat competition that society chooses is devoid of rationality, if we assume that the end which society craves is social harmony and progress. For that choice only creates the condition of a war of all against all.

    On the part of the individual who chooses cultism, what is his or her end? If it is to rebel against society in any way, we can query the rationality of that end but not the means of getting there. And to query the rationality of the end without also querying the means that society chose is a partial approach to apportioning blame.

    What about kidnapping or armed robbery and the other social ills? How about ethnic and sectarian neurotics? They abound aplenty for similar reasons. Ethnic jingoists have a pathological fear of those unlike themselves for the same reason that “haves” fear “have-nots”. We have been unfortunately wired to the belief that there is a national cake that is baked fresh in the national oven and all there is needed is to share it. The question is “who or which section gets what size?” Like ducks on the lake of life with crumbs of bread thrown at them, we struggle to take our portion of the cake. How we might cooperate to make the cake bigger is a question that others may struggle with.

    Thus, the nation, with its economic and political realities, creates and nurtures the conditions for the manifestation of neurotic disorder in its space among its population. But while the general population is afflicted in this way with the escalation of poor-on-poor violence, including cultism, kidnapping, and armed robbery, the political class across the divides of ethnicity and religion manage to get along. Or don’t they?

    There is no doubt that the political class manages to avoid some of the most debilitating consequences of the social and political order that victimizes the general population and make neurotics of them. There are two reasons for this. First, members of the political class are responsible for the policies that define the economic, social and political order. With human nature in the saddle, they take good care of themselves. If you need convincing, just compare the well-flogged horse of the humongous emoluments of the members of the National Assembly with the plight of teachers who are expected to teach with empty stomachs.

    Second, with the resources at their disposal, and in some cases, the protective measures that come with their office, members of the political class and their business counterparts could take care of their security needs and avoid the threat of violence that the poor and working class are constantly subjected to.

    Nonetheless, the competitive nature of the political terrain creates its own political neurotics in the political class with presentations of anxiety and obsessive behavior. Absent any ideological differences, inter-party and intra-party clashes are driven by petty rivalries and anxieties, fueled by ethnic and religious animus. But sadly, even here, the ultimate victims are the dispossessed masses.

  • The art of political deception

    The art of political deception

    Since the beginning of recorded history, two notions of politics have endured. One suggests that politics is about the good of the community. The other argues that it is all about the self. Between the two, there is a consensus that politics is about “who gets what, when, and how?”

    For the first notion, the community decides the question of “who gets what when and how?” and that decision is almost always favorable to the entire community. For the second notion, the community has no independent existence because it is made up of individuals and what each person makes is what he or she gets. Community has no right to the assets of its members except for the purpose of securing them.

    Of course, this debate is an offshoot of democratic politics and therefore only makes sense therein. Monarchies care less about individuals who are not part of the divine inheritance. This ideological dichotomy between looking after the good of the community and the interest of individuals has driven the politics of the western world especially since the beginning of modern politics in the 18th century.

    In the beginning, both sides argued their cases without blushing, and in defiance of any public opprobrium. In the vanguard of the politics of self-interest are the libertarians, the most radical of whom was Ayn Rand whose glorification of selfishness has fueled the passion of generations of libertarians, especially in the US and Western Europe.

    Recently, however, while those who insist on the primacy of community have not felt embarrassed about their position, many politicians who would pass as defenders of self-interest now cover their core position with a deceptive facade of community interest. They argue, that is, that pursuing policies that promote the self ends up benefiting the general interest. Their position has two arguments with the same conclusion.

    First, promoting the interest of individuals, as they see it, is the right policy for a government to pursue because individuals are the components of the community. Second, even if pursuing individual interests is not morally defensible in its own right, it is justifiable as an ultimate means to the promotion of the interest of the community.

    While the first position is unapologetically a glorification of naked individualism, the second camouflages as anything but individualism. It is what I refer to as political deception. It has been elevated to the level of an art, and it has been the motivating force behind the politics of the last few centuries. With its center of gravity in the West, it has traveled wide to most corners of the world, including ours.

    The sad part of the politics of deception is that it often succeeds in recruiting its actual and potential victims as its most prominent and reliable advocates. Concrete examples to prove the veracity of this claim are not out of reach. Just as charity veritably begins at home, however, we may start our journey to the mindset of political deception with our clime, in which it is certainly not a stranger.

    The free education of every child has long been the passion of egalitarians like Chief Obafemi Awolowo. But in 1954 Awolowo faced the battle of his political life when his free primary education policy was the subject of opposition attack and blackmail in the federal elections of that year. Awolowo’s party, Action Group, had calculated almost to the penny what it would need for the policy to take off in January 1955. A special educational poll tax was imposed on each adult to raise funds for the new program. The opposition kicked and campaigned effectively against the ruling party.

    The attack line was that Awolowo was going to deprive the parents of the services of their children on the farm. It was a low blow coming from the educated elite who certainly knew better. But it worked. Action Group lost the federal election. But it did not lose its focus; it implemented the policy and, with its success, stole the heart of the masses. Because our people were quick to discern the benefits of free primary education to their families, political deception backfired against its creative artists.

    In other climes, including the most developed ones, the masses negatively impacted by its catastrophic grip have not been as quick in recognizing political deception.

    Very early on, the Obama administration saw the plight of many US citizens who had no access to health care because health insurance was beyond their reach. They carried diseases without knowing until it was too late because they could not afford regular medical checkups. Then the cost of late treatment bankrupted them. Obama and the Democrats proposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) bill and got it approved by Congress. Obama signed it into law and the difference in the lives of many was immediately clear.

    But political deception fought back. Individual mandate, a key component of the law, was characterized as anti-freedom. This campaign rhetoric was sold hook, line, and sinker in the 2010 midterm elections. And many of the beneficiaries of the law bought the rhetoric. Republicans picked up enough seats to win back the majority in the House. Though Obama was re-elected in 2012, Senate was captured by Republicans and the repeal of the ACA was their major campaign issue. They passed repeal and replace bills multiple times but because of Obama’s veto power, none became law.

    Then entered President Trump with the House and Senate as co-travelers in the “repeal and replace” train. Suddenly, the eyes of the beneficiaries were opened as the prospect of a real repeal with no good replacement became clear. They jammed town halls in protest. And the masters of political deception retreated. A great lesson in the art of the protest!

    But political deception doesn’t give up easily. It comes back to fight again. If it is defeated by beneficiaries of Affordable Care Act, it comes back in the form of “a huge tax cut” for everyone. And so was born the Tax Reform Bill of 2017, which the CBO has determined will add $1.4 trillion to the deficit and make four million lose health insurance in 2019, and 13 million in 2027. While it is also determined that Corporate tax cuts will be permanent if the bill becomes law, many individuals especially in the middle and lower income group will have temporary gains in the short term but tax hikes in the long term when the life of the bill expires.

    The central aspect of the tax reform bill is its targeting the ACA, again! It will repeal the individual mandate, leading to many young people neglecting to buy health insurance once the prospect of penalty for not buying is removed. Along with this is the availability of the subsidy that those who neglect to buy health insurance are entitled to receive under ACA. Such subsidies, estimated to be in hundreds of billions, are now targeted by Republicans to fund extra tax cut for the wealthy.

    Sadly, some beneficiaries of the ACA are all for the repeal of the individual mandate. Note that these group will benefit the least from tax reform. But they are indoctrinated to believe that it is good for the economy, and therefore for them, and that the removal of individual mandate is only for the defense of their freedom of choice.

    No one can infallibly predict the trajectory of American politics in the next few days talk less of few months. Will the masses know better and turn against the party in power for its assault on their interests in affordable healthcare? Will the same electorates that gave Obama and his party a shellacking for passing the ACA into law now see the light and give the GOP a revenge shellacking for its unbending efforts to kill the law which they (masses) have now undoubtedly recognized to be for their interest?

    Time will tell. But one thing is sure. Political deception has a proven record of resilience. It will survive any temporary defeat provided its victims remain as gullible as they tend to be.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • In whose interest is political restructuring?

    In whose interest is political restructuring?

    The matter of political restructuring continues to generate political heat in the public domain. It is not unusual to have the kind of robust debate that we have had especially since the beginning of the new administration of President Buhari.

    Even for a party that made change its political totem, the pursuit of change could be unnerving. Who knows what is on the other side? And how does one manage the transition state between the undesirable present and the desirable future state? Every business organisation that seeks profitability must face these questions at some point. Does a political community that seeks stability and prosperity for her citizens need to worry about such issues?  The answer is obvious.

    There is, however, a major difference between a political community and a business organization. A business organization that refuses to change in the light of new developments and the competition around it, will collapse under the weight of its own redundancy.

    On the other hand, in a political community, power is wielded by those who are entrusted with it, ideally on behalf of the people, but realistically for the interest of the powerful few. If business calculations feature at all, it is the business interests of the few that drive political calculations. Thus, the clamor for change may fall into deaf ears for fear of the unknown or for calculations of self-or sectional interests.

    What is lost to those calculations is the inevitability of change which, as Heraclitus observes several millennia ago, is the only constant. Especially, in situations of universal frustration with the status quo, where life is akin to the state of nature condition, change is the only certainty. But in the eternal wisdom of J. F. Kennedy, those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.

    There have been many attempts at obfuscation. We manufacture confusion where there is none just so we could slow down or disrupt the course of change. There has been fear-mongering of the worst kind. A few weeks ago, I was at the annual convention of the National Association of Yoruba Descendants which had restructuring as a theme. While almost every speaker appeared to have a clear vision of what restructuring meant and what social and economic gains might accrue therefrom, there was a holdout. An otherwise smart and obviously learned gentleman expressed the fear of the unknown. “The Southwest had no oil-fields”, he observed. “From where would our wealth come and how are we to feed our populations if advocates of restructuring had their way?”

    Note that this was a convention of a Southwest Nigerian organization in the most federalized nation in the world, where presidents and congressmen and women jealously guard state rights against the intrusion of federal might. I bring it up to show that in the current debate on restructuring, the resistance to change is not a sectional one. There are equal opportunity resisters in all the zones of the federation.

    Resisters hide behind such platitudes as “we need mind-restructuring, not political restructuring”, “ we must pursue poverty alleviation not political restructuring”, or “we need constitutional amendment not political restructuring.” Still others continue to ask for the meaning of restructuring, or they dismiss true federalism as nonsensical because, in their confused judgment, there is nothing like false federalism. But pray, how else does one describe a unitary system that camouflages as a federal system?

    I have tried, in several comments on this page, to isolate the issues and clarify confusions. But it appears for one who is determined to avoid thorough understanding, there is nothing much that can be done even by the most down-to-earth simplification. But I have also learnt from the wisdom of the elders that the one who genuinely asks questions deserves satisfying answers.

    From recent debates on this matter, there are two questions that deserve answers. First, to the still yet to be convinced about what restructuring is, perhaps a better approach is to first answer the question what restructuring is not. Second, an answer is required to the question “in whose interest is political restructuring?”

    Restructuring is not secession. This horse has been flogged so mercilessly that by now one would expect it dead and buried. But in low and high places, the argument is still being frustratingly canvassed that talk about restructuring empowers and inspires the rhetoric and threat of secession. This is far from the truth.

    Secession demand is for an out of a marriage that both believe no longer works. The demand for restructuring is for an acceptable modification to the terms of the relationship to make it happy and endure the vicissitude of life. The one is negative while the other is positive. There is no denying the fact, however, that if the positive drive is discountenanced, it sends a wrong signal to those who might resolve to engage the negative gear.

    Restructuring is not against national unity. Advocates of restructuring are some of the most patriotic and nationalistic groups whose love of country is beyond doubt. What they espouse are the principles of governing a diverse nation so that the ideal of unity in diversity is preserved and respected. They are genuinely concerned that when diversity is blurred for the sake of uniformity, the country loses out on one of its most profoundly potential contributions to the world political community: the idea of the many voluntarily becoming one without losing their diverse cultures.

    Restructuring is not the imposition of the will of one group or section over others. In the first place, it is, in reality, impossible for advocates of restructuring to impose their will on the nation since their demand must go through the crucible of public opinion and be acceptable to all for it to be adopted as the law of the land.

    Second, that an individual or a group or section is persistent in the advocacy of a cause does not reveal anything about a motive and none can be judiciously attributed. In the case of restructuring, advocates have good arguments and must hope that they can persuade opponents to their side. This has always been the rational course of our political debates since the days of the nationalist struggles.

    Restructuring is not an irrational pursuit of danger. A person who runs towards an obvious danger without minding the outcome is at best irrational, at worst, insane. While some may think that advocates of restructuring are irrational, they are nothing but. As I observed above, the fear of the unknown is what is irrational. Surely, a demand for the return to a principle of governance that worked well in the past cannot be considered irrational. Besides, the only danger is to continue the path that has not worked for the good of the people.

    Political restructuring is the alignment of levels of government vertically, and branches of government horizontally, for the deepening of democracy and the promotion of the welfare of citizens.

    Advocates of restructuring have variously asked for devolution of power to the states, regionalism, or return to the 1963 constitution, which gave more power to the regions and prioritized derivation as a revenue formula. It is disingenuous to conclude that advocates are mired in confusion because of the differences in their demands. We know better that when there is a consensus on moving with restructuring, all metals will be thrown in the fire and subjected to the heat of public debate.

    In whose interest, then, is political restructuring? Every level of government, every branch of government, every zone and every state of the federation, labor, the poor, the rich, and most important of all, national unity, stands to benefit from a well-planned political restructuring.

    With states cooperating in zonal arrangements in the areas of education, agriculture, mining, and infrastructure, economy of scale kicks in for maximum benefit for citizens. As current experience demonstrates, the future of fossil fuel is bleak. In any case, this nation is sufficient evidence that it has been a curse against development and national unity. Do we really need further evidence in favor of restructuring?

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Political and spiritual leaders should lead Biafra struggle, says Mbaka

    Political and spiritual leaders should lead Biafra struggle, says Mbaka

    Controversial clergy, Reverend Father Ejike Mbaka, says the Biafra struggle should be taken off the poor and taken over by Igbo political and spiritual elite.

    “Where are the leaders? They’re all hiding in Abuja and abroad. I am not saying the Igbo should be killed, I never said they should not agitate for Biafra, but let the leaders be in the forefront and not our youth,” the spiritual director of the Adoration Ministry Enugu (AMEN) said at a programme in Enugu.

    “Whatever that will happen to these children should first happen to me, that’s what the Lord teaches us.

    “Not the big men using our children as sacrifice. Young ones that don’t have a kobo for their businesses. They will bring them out on the main road for nothing.

    “They’re not the ones that should go for this but people like Alex Ekwueme, Peter Obi, Emeka Offor, Andy Ubah, Ifeanyi Ubah in Anambra.

    “They will come to Enugu and there are people like Ike Ekweremadu, Ken Nnamani, Sullivan Chime and a lot of others. There is also Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, Pius Anyim and many others. We will lead while the young ones will follow us.”

    He said there is nothing wrong with the agitations for Biafra but what makes him sad is “big men using our children as sacrifice” in the course of the struggle.

  • Igbo groups to IPOB, MASSOB: political leaders behind region’s woes

    Igbo groups to IPOB, MASSOB: political leaders behind region’s woes

    The leadership of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and the Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) got a piece of advice yesterday – blame the political leadership of the Southeast for the region’s woes.

    The advice came from two Southeast socio-cultural and political groups, the Igbo Peoples’ Congress (IPC) and The Igbo Aborigenes (TIB). The groups said IPOB and MASSOB should look inward for those who mortgaged their future.

    They said: “The leadership of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) AND Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) to blame political leadership in Igbo land who have been pauperising Igbos over the years before blaming the North or other Nigerians for the Igbo woes.”

    In a statement by their spokesmen Pastor Okey Colbert and Chidi Obisike, the groups noted that Igbo had occupied all positions, except the executive presidency, and this did not translate to anything positive for Ndigbo.

    The statement reads: “During the Jonathan regime, Igbo constituted more than 50 per cent of his inner cabinet and yet nothing was brought for Ndigbo by these appointees, except their families, girlfriends and bootlickers.  It is these people that IPOB and MASSOB should first query before querying Nigeria.

    “What about Ralph Uwazuruike who made Igbos to be the minority of the majorities, courtesy of preventing Igbos from participating in the 2006 National Census? Is that not affecting Ndigbo today and do we blame Nigeria also for that?

    “What Nigeria has done to Ndigbo is lamentable but what Igbos have done to themselves is even more lamentable.

    “How many times do our Igbo governors and leaders make concrete case to empower our suffering youths as Niger Delta governors and leaders strenuously made case for the amnesty deal which has now seen to the empowerment of more than 200.000 Niger Delta youths and their placement on a stipend of N65,000 every month?

    “Who speaks for the suffering Igbo Youths in Nigeria and why would they not be agitating when they are abandoned by their own leaders and by Nigeria? Nnamdi Kanu and pro-Biafra agitators should ask themselves these questions and not just blaming Nigeria and the North for all Igbo woes.

    “In the house of Ralph Uwazuruike today are all manner of state-of-the-art cars and he has luxurious estates everywhere at the expense of thousands of Igbo youths who were mowed down by Nigerian security forces in the Biafran agitation. Have IPOB AND MASSOB members looked into all these?”

    “IPC and Igbo Aborigenes support Restructuring or Referendum in the alternative, but pro-Biafra agitators must ask relevant questions and put their searchlight on Igbo land first before looking outside.

  • Of five percent and political stability

    If on current speculations are to be taken seriously, any moment from now we shall witness a cabinet reshuffle at the federal level. Given that not long ago, the acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo returned from consultations with President Muhammadu Buhari, it is possible that they would have agreed on the scope and details of the reshuffle. Even at that, in the light of the fact that Osinbajo had sworn in two new ministers without assigning them portfolios, it is obvious that the reshuffle will be done in the absence of the President. We therefore join other patriotic Nigerians in praying for the speedy recovery of the President so that he can return to full time duties at home.

    Well, a cabinet reshuffle is not a surefire panacea to the problems of the country. Yet, there is no doubt that re-jigging the cabinet can add new energy to the administration; it can lead to better deployment of human resources in which case round pegs are put in round holes; it can even lead to a cutting of cost if, for instance, reshuffling is accompanied with a reduction in the number of portfolios. Whatever the case, Nigerians expect that the government will be rejuvenated to give a new impetus to the implementation of the change agenda of the administration.

    In carrying out any reshuffle, it will be useful to highlight the imperative of a political re-engineering process that recognizes the need to douse the tension in the land and reassure those who feel excluded from the power matrix. Those who tend to dismiss the current political imbroglio as a façade that will soon fade away must learn from the currents of history. If the truth must be told, the seething angst in the land, the polarization of every facet of national life, with the attendant distractions, definitely undermines any collective effort at governance.

    Government is about solving problems; not ignoring or compounding them. Though it is not necessarily the ultimate panacea to the current agitation in the South-east, nothing will be lost if the government takes advantage of the reshuffle to address some of the genuine misgivings of the zone. For instance, as I have argued in the past, the position of Secretary to Government of the Federation (SGF) can be ceded to the South-east. I am not oblivious of the argument that the position ought to be reserved for the North-east since Babachar Lawal comes from the zone. But the same argument is defeated by the fact that we have not always gone that route. A good example is the case of the former Director General of the Pensions Commission, PENCOM, from the South-east who was replaced with a candidate from another geo-political zone. And that was done in complete contravention of the Act establishing PENCOM which specifies that in the event of the premature departure of the CEO, his/or her tenure would be completed by another candidate from the person’s zone.

    We can even stretch the argument further by looking at the federal character principle, the diversity management principle which often times calls on people from some zones to sacrifice merit so that others can be accommodated. A very good example of this is in the area of university admissions. It can be argued that just as some candidates with better JAMB results have to sacrifice their university places for candidates with poorer results from other zones, the North-east or any other zone for that matter can equally pass up a political position if, by so doing, we can advance the course of national stability and unity. After all, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

    To put the matter in perspective, it is important to recall that, at the first caucus meeting of the APC, the position of SGF was explicitly zoned to the South-east. The imperativeness of that decision became inevitable given that the failure by the party to produce a senator from the zone had robbed it of the position of Senate President which would have come to it by virtue of the party’s zoning arrangement.

    In this regard, the matter of political inclusion cannot be properly disposed of if politicians do not discard the nebulous and dubious argument over the level of support the President received in the South-east. Time and again, the performance of the President in the South-east in 2015, the celebrated “five percent” factor, has been stridently cited as the argument for denying the zone some strategic appointments. What exponents of this argument have failed to realize is that President Buhari actually won the 2015 elections because of what happened or did not happen in the South-east. Let us look at it this way: In 2011, the South-east gave President Goodluck Jonathan about five million votes, a feat it could not repeat or perform in 2015. If the zone had repeated the 2015 feat, it would have cancelled out the electoral armada that took place in the north in favour of then candidate Buhari thereby paving the way for Goodluck Jonathan’s re-election. After all, the vote difference with which Buhari rode into power was just about 2.4 million votes-the difference in margin is even lower than 2.5 million between South-east votes of 2011 and that of 2015 for President Jonathan leaving a difference of about 100, 000 votes in favour of the later.

    Now, even if we are to ignore the above points, we are still left to wonder whether the ruling All Progressives Party, APC, wants to position itself as a serious contender for electoral victory in the South-east come 2019. Or has the party given up on the zone? I am inclined to posit that the APC will be sending a dangerous signal to the South-east if it does not take advantage of any reshuffle to reassure the restive voters of the zone that they are still part of its calculations for electoral victory at future elections! That will be unfortunate indeed.

    Besides, such indiscretion will rob most Buhari die-hards and APC loyalists such as Minister of Science and Technology, Ogbonnaya Onu and Labour Minister Chris Ngige of much of the political capital they had acquired over the years. To put it starkly, it would be likened to a betrayal of sorts if immediate steps are not taken to redress what is seen as some imbalance in the present set up. The south-east zone argues, correctly, that it has not been properly represented in the top decision-making echelon of the administration. Take for instance the fact that such a large and important ethnic group does not head any of the security outfits in the country: the Army, Navy, Air Force; Police, Customs, Immigration, Civil Defence, Nigeria Intelligence Agency (NIA), etc, even if we were to allocate the positions by zone. Consider again that there is no former head of state from the zone on the Council of States. Yet these are fora or entities that determine the deployment of security agencies for elections and other strategic uses. Is it surprising therefore that agitation for inclusion is most strident from that zone?

    Luckily, the south east zone, like any other zone, has a surfeit of qualified candidates for the position of SGF. These include Ngige (Anambra), Onu (Ebonyi) and a number of others political heavyweights who have paid their dues and are ready to serve. However, given the political exigencies of the moment, it is my considered opinion that the incumbent minister of labour, Senator Chris Ngige, is the most suitable to be considered for the position of SGF. Though diminutive in size, he stands head and shoulders taller than any other person because of his disposition as an avowed nationalist and a dogged political realist whose commitment to Nigeria is unimpeachable. Besides, he is a team player with a track record of administrative, legislative and political exposure, qualities that equip him to serve as the clearing house of governmental administration at this critical watershed in the history of Nigeria.

    APC leaders had better make haste while the sun shines for 2019 is already here; it is no longer far away for that will be the year of reckoning of reckoning

    Agu, is former managing director/editor-in-chief of Champion Newspapers Limited.

  • Olubadan Declaration Review a political, says Oyo govt

    Olubadan Declaration Review a political, says Oyo govt

    The Oyo State government has said the massive attendance and responses by various stakeholders to the current Olubadan Declaration Review panel vindicated its action on the review of the chieftaincy law.

    It noted that 91 of the 118 memoranda received during the open sessions requested for additional beaded crowns while the remaining 27 called for a review of ascendancy into the Olubadan stool.

    The government restated its position that the proposed review was not targeted at any individual or group of people.

    It said it is meant for the development, modernisation as well as growth of the traditional council of Ibadan city, Ibadan land and other parts of the state.

    It said change is the only constant in life, adding that all parties would be convinced of the sincerity of government’s proposition.

    The state government said its action was within the ambit of the law of Olubadan Declaration of 1957.

    It assured the stakeholders and other residents that it would be just and fair in examining the recommendations of the Justice Boade’s panel and align with the wishes of Ibadan residents.

    In a statement yesterday in Ibadan, the state capital, Commissioner for Information, Culture and Tourism Mr. Toye Arulogun said the action of the government had precedence and was in tandem with the aspirations of the people.

    The statement reads: “It is high time we reiterated  our earlier position and put issues in proper  perspective. The action of the government is  backed by law; there are precedents. The governor  has the power to review the declaration and, most importantly, the government is fulfilling the  yearnings of the people.

    “We are not being political with this issue and not targeting any individual. The purpose is to elevate the status of the Olubadan title and pave the way for the development and modernisation of Ibadan chieftaincy and Ibadan towns and city. We are running an all-inclusive government and our government believes in collective responsibility in the Ajumose spirit.

    “Our decision to review the Olubadan Declaration of 1957 was a response to several calls by stakeholders and we will follow the principles of openness, fairness and justice.”

    Arologun said members of the Olubadan-in-Council, many high chiefs in Ibadan as well as stakeholders, including Central Council of Ibadan Indigenes, Ibadan Elders Forum, Ibadan Progressive Union, Association of Recognised Mogajis, the warlords’ families in Ibadan and eminent individuals attended the sitting of the panel for three weeks.

    The commissioner said the panel received 118 memoranda during its sitting.

    He added that the panel concluded its sitting on June 23 and requested for four weeks extension.

  • Agitation for restructuring political, says Agbakoba

    Agitation for restructuring political, says Agbakoba

    •Ex-NBA President: Nigeria’s sovereignty not sacrosanct

    Former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) yesterday argued that the agitation for restructuring is a political calculation for 2019.

    At a briefing in Lagos, Agbakoba said most politicians advocating restructuring today will abandon it when they get power.

    He said: “What Nigeria needs is a new deal and the present political elite cannot deliver it because of entrenched personal interest.

    “Going forward, civil society needs to wrest power from this ruling political elite to achieve a new system that is inclusive and works for all and not a few. Nigerians need to determine if they want to stay together and under what arrangement. I believe Nigeria needs federalism.”

    Asked whether he was proposing a conference where the agreement to live together would be reached, he said: “The President is the one to initiate the discussion and pull people together. What Nigeria needs is a political system that we all accept. Right now, we don’t have it.”

    He faulted the Federal Government’s position that Nigeria’s sovereignty was not negotiable.

    “Nigeria’s sovereignty is not sacrosanct. Government needs to adopt a flexible stance. The attitude should be: ‘How do we bring Nigerians together?’” he said.

    According to Agbakoba, in Nigeria’s evolution from colonialism, independence, military rule and “military democracy”, there has been authoritarian governments and “exclusion of the people”.

    Nigeria, he said, was yet to produce a “home-grown constitution”.

    “No serious effort has been made to engage the people and build consensus. The colonial and post-colonial constitutions did not emanate from the full involvement of the Nigerian people. The result is that Nigeria has remained a geographical expression,” he said.

    Agbakoba argued that contrary to the Acting President Yemi Osinbajo’s position, every constituent part of Nigeria has a right to self-determination as guaranteed by Article 1 (2) of the United Nations (UN) Charter and Article 20 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

    Agbakoba said self-determination has origins in natural law and fundamental rights, which led to the American declaration of independence, the French revolution, the Scottish referendum and Catalan referendum.

    “Aspiration for self-determination is not new or peculiar to Nigeria. The caveat, however, is that self-determination must be carried out peacefully and within the law. Nigeria’s situation can be likened to a failing marriage.  To salvage it, the couple need to make adjustments/changes to make the marriage work,” the former NBA president said.

    Agbakoba believes most of those championing restructuring have ulterior motives.

    On President Muhammadu Buhari’s long absence, Agbakoba said how long the President stays away due to ill-health does not matter much as long as the Acting President exercises full powers.

    He said agitations for secession as championed by Nnamdi Kanu of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) must be “according to constitutional law”.

    He said the quit notice issued the Igbo by Northern youth groups was “not politically correct”, but he did not “see what law they broke”.