The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Rethinking

  • Rethinking research in Nigeria

    Why should the federal government still be happy in giving university lecturers grants for research? Where are the commercialized research outputs that warrant further research investments? But is the federal government funding research to the expected level? Are we doing the kind of research that will bring development to Nigeria? Again, what has the federal government received in return for its over 50 years of funding scientific research? What specific products or processes can we point to in Nigeria that resulted from research that we conducted? As scientists, are we pleased that there is still poverty and hunger in Nigeria in spite of the vast knowledge that we boast of?

    The TETFund 2016 Budget was N213.4b, with only a small part of this devoted to research while most went into capital expenditures and training. Nigeria’s total federal government 2018 budget of N9.12 trillion is less than the amount the United States spends for medical research alone. The 2018 budget for the USA National Institutes of Health (NIH) is $37 billion (about N11.5 trillion); National Science Foundation (NSF), $7.8 billion (about N2.5 trillion); and NASA, $20.7 billion (about N6.5 trillion). The USA budget for 2018 is S4.094 trillion which is about 1,250 trillion naira (not 10 times but a whopping 140 times Nigerian budget). What a difference!

    Considering the state of our economy, our research must be linked to industries. Our institutions must partner with industries and source for research funding from them. For example, about 20% of the research funding at the National University of Seoul, South Korea is sourced from industries (http://www.useoul.edu/research/facts). When research is tied to economic results, significant funding will come from industries. Therefore, our institutions must learn to work hand-in-hand with industries to build the economy.

    Why is the US economy thriving and its budget so huge? It is simply because it has so many companies that pay good taxes to the government. Even scientists including professors are encouraged with grants, cheap loans and venture capital to commercialize their research and start companies. Hence research parks and business incubators dot areas with universities in several western countries. Instead of complaining and criticizing the government, we should endeavor to become part of the solution by conducting real research that will lead to job creation and new products. We must learn to work with those from other fields including engineers, agriculturists, economists and software developers to make our own versions of products and services that we now import. There are so much we import that we can easily make in Nigeria. Are we not ashamed that we import enzymes, vitamins, hormones and organic acids into Nigeria?

    Can we not practice some of what we teach by producing these biochemicals in Nigeria? On the contrary, we export so many assays like paternity tests abroad that we can easily carry out in Nigeria. We lose so much foreign exchange. Many of us got the federal government postgraduate and now TETFund scholarships to study for our masters and PhDs. But, the question is, ‘what have we given back to Nigeria in appreciation?’

    We import so much into Nigeria today, that it has become so embarrassing. Many industries are closing, and several service firms are folding up. So many things are wrong, and we lecturers and professors are part of the problem. How many of us have real industrial experience that qualifies us to teach industrial biochemistry? Why can we not engage our colleagues in industries to teach part of our industrial biochemistry courses with us? Do we really know what is currently happening in Nigerian and international industries or we are just teaching what is in the stale textbooks? Why are we so happy to quote foreign companies as the source of our chemicals and equipment? We should patronize indigenous companies and laboratories. There is no doubt that we need some encouragement like what China is giving to its industries if we are to have real strong companies in Nigeria. But we must not wait for such governmental encouragements. We must do what we can; we need to refocus some of our research into those areas that will lead to products and services that we can commercialize and profit from financially.

    But what should we really do? It is now time to rethink and refocus our research such that it will contribute meaningfully to the Nigerian economy. We must conduct investigations that will lead to products or processes that we can point to instead of chasing awards, papers and promotion. Commercialization of research output should be given a priority. Researchers should be encouraged to pursue patents in addition to papers so that they can benefit financially from the research. Also, there is need to introduce challenge researches. Here, scientists, policy makers, industries and stakeholders will identify real problems that we need to tackle. TETFUND and other donor agencies will call for proposals and fund the ones that will lead to solution thereby creating products and services, and ultimately jobs.

    In addition, there is need for the establishment of strong research collaborations and consortiums. Instead of giving each individual researcher two million naira for research which will end up in a meaningless promotion-focused paper, scientists with different expertise should collaborate to solve specific problems or create products and services that will promote the economy and society. Meaningful grants of at least N500m should be given to consortium of a minimum of 10 collaborating scientists that come from different fields and universities (including research institutes) to solve specific problems or create some novel products. Such call for proposals should be made public and a national panel of experts should screen them and recommend the outstanding ones for funding.

    We have been producing alcohol from different raw materials in Nigeria since pre-historic times. And we have so many grains and tubers to use as substrates for alcohol production. Then why are we still importing industrial alcohol into Nigeria? I think some of us including engineers, microbiologists and economists should come up with proposals to establish mini-alcohol production plants from cassava and other tubers and grains in all parts of Nigeria. Imagine how many jobs that will be created!

    Can we not produce better anti-malaria drugs and even work towards the eradication of malaria? Nigerians have been publishing papers on anti-malarial plants since the 1960s; yet there are no real commercial Nigerian-made drugs in the market. We have investigated so many medicinal herbs from all parts of Nigeria. I am confident that with good funding and encouragement, we can produce combined anti-malarial drugs with better efficacy than the current artemisinin-based drugs that we now import.

    As Robert Kennedy once said, “the future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of bold projects and new ideas. Rather, the future will belong to those who can blend passion, reason and courage in a personal commitment to their ideals.” The future belongs to the bold.

     

    • Excepts of the keynote address delivered by Professor Tonukari at the 3rd South South Annual Zonal Conference of the Nigerian Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Port Harcourt.

  • Rethinking football and national interest

    SIR: As most sport enthusiasts would know, there was a Nigeria – South Africa match on Saturday, June 10 at Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. In order not to miss watching it live, those of us who found ourselves in Atlanta in the United States had to go to the CNN Centre to arrange the facility. Doing that had its own pleasant hassles but it was worth it.

    Tragically, Nigeria lost to South Africa. Again, as most sport enthusiasts would remember, the score was 2- 0. Perhaps, that was a ‘good’ defeat in relation to what followed. One is referring to the ambience of a funeral that descended on all the many Nigerians that were part of the arrangement of watching it live through the CNN facility. There was no tribalism, no ethnicity, no regional or religious differences. It was national grief of inestimable proportions, to recast late Chief Awolowo’s similar usage decades ago. To the extent that many were weeping, it was genuine outpouring of nationalism, even as our friends in psychology might call it banal nationalism.

    Watching the entire spectacle play out was as personally humbling as it was an unpacking of Nigeria in terms of what we might, collectively, have taken for granted. That is that, like the national economy, there is also the national culture in shared values, hopes, aspirations, sentiments and sensibilities. The defeat and the reaction to it that one saw in Atlanta strongly suggests how losing is such a devastating downside of Nigeria’s national culture. And how strategic winning is to that national culture, thereby necessitating the question: if winning has such a powerful unifying import, why is sports in Nigeria not organised in such a way that we keep on winning and winning and winning? This cannot be too much to ask for if we are the giant of Africa and should manifest a winning way unique to that status.

    In other words, is it not possible to isolate the organisation or administration of sports in Nigeria as the country’s model of a merit system? It should be possible to implement a merit system that is, however, not exclusionary. The idea here is that the spirit of excellence in a merit system would keep us winning and winning and winning and coming together to share the benefits of primacy in an arena of joy for all. After all, from what we can see, sports is the only arena where differences disappear, be it class, ethnic, religious and regional differences.

    One might still be under the influence of that emotional moment at Atlanta but this might be one instance where emotion has been more powerful than reality or, in fact, created a reality. In any case, sports has become an all involving social domain with something for everybody – national and international unity, professionals and professionalism, governments, business, security and tourism.

    One is, therefore, associating oneself with the dominant sentiment in Atlanta as to whether the Nigeria Football Federation, (NFF) is fully aware that the only thing which brings people together in a manner unique to it across the above barriers is football. Like the military uniform when Nigeria goes to military or humanitarian engagement outside, the jersey has its own magnetic pull that winning is no longer something to be pursued as a matter of chance but of strategic thinking and actions. This is a process from which other actors and factors cannot be excluded but which, for the start, the Nigerian Football Federation, (NFA) is well placed to lead on behalf of the government. This is not naira and kobo stuff at this level but about strategising on how best to convert main features of this particular domain in relation to national interest. Here also, it is not national interest in terms of old fashioned territorial integrity, but the projection of national identity through the sporting competences of nationals.

    It is amazing how a single experience could have had such a transformative impact on one’s thinking as far as the potentials of sports in national interest is concerned. This is an area that has hitherto been relatively remote even as involving as sports has been in one’s life.

     

    • Chief Steve Lawani,

    Abuja.

  • Rethinking the Nigerian federation

    There is a sense in which the unsettling state of the world today describes the state of our country Nigeria. It is so pathetic, so embarrassing and so fearful that disaffection, doubts, gloom and anxiety have come to dominate discourses among global leaders at every opportunity and meet.

    It is even more frightening that a sizeable proportion of internal activities of most nations of the world are on the defensive against torrential threats to existence rather than breaking new grounds of human advancement and world peace.

    In Europe the arguments about British exit from EU is resonating with the current, increasingly pronounced security challenges in the UK. Whereas America, Middle East and even the smaller but economically gifted nations are dealing with economic recessions, insecurity, terrorism, racial prejudices all of which are drawing attention of statesmen to ask the questions : What happened to us? What have we got wrong? When did we take the wrong step? Will this world continue as one piece ?

    In Africa, particularly in Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, South Africa, Mali and a few more nation – states, leading questions about redefining nationhood are presenting themselves for answers through the wars and social disaffection pervading the entire lands. In nation states like Syria, Libya, France, Iraq and others, the call is equally too close for comfort.

    With the foregoing, I am suggesting that there is nothing happening to our country, Nigeria at present that is new or strange or out of place with happenings elsewhere in the world. The Yoruba have a proverb that captures the matter succinctly: “A kò rí irú èyí rí, a fi ndérù b’olórò ni”.

    In other words, our vexatious experience today as a country is all a dialectical process of answers asking questions about themselves in order to confirm their state of existence. I believe Nigeria already has answers to its questions; it is just the will to ask the right questions the right way, with the right words, at the right time, with the right temperament and for the right purpose that is our task in building our own nation.

    I am also suggesting that we must get beyond these problems because it is in our best interest to do so. The answers which are asking questions in Nigeria today are: We need a new nation where equity, justice, peace and progress shall be the guiding principles of coexistence. We must redefine our nationhood. We need to create a new nation and create new citizens who have a different infrastructure of mind from those of present Nigerians.  We need a new Nigeria, now!

    The questions which the answer is asking therefore are: when then is the nowness of our now for our rebirth? Will our nationhood come by force of arms or with mutual understanding? What manner of nation do we want to have? Will it be on agreed points and issues negotiated and debated? Will it be with open arms and warmth? Will the risks be worth it? Do we have the capacity to evolve it and so forth.

    Let me buttress the worrisomeness of my above assertion with quotes of the words of a few  Nigerian leaders. On Tuesday the 3rd, June 2017, Jerry Gana, Professor and former Minister of Information, former secretary, Board of Trustee of the then ruling PDP made a declarative statement when asked about the fate of Nigeria in the future.” I don’t know what tomorrow holds, only God knows it but if they think when it comes to break up, we will go along with the North, then it must be a huge joke. We have already told them that if they allow this country break up, we are not going with the North. We are staying where we are. So, just take notice. If it comes to that, we will tell you that we are not Arewa, we are middle belters, 10 states for that matter.”

    Even Professor Ango Abdullahi, tempestuous academic, controversial administrator and foremost Northern leader, in his comments on the 4th of June 2017, had this to say: “If people are still asking for Biafra after 50 years of Civil war, then it is necessary for us to sit down and ask ourselves how we want the nation to be.”

    Another elder statesman, respected academic, constitutional lawyer and former President Ohanaeze Ndigbo Prof. Ben Nwabueze while ruminating on the current state of Nigeria, argued that Nigeria will not know peace until it restructures itself to reflect ease, consensus and justice. Hear him: “The power at the centre of the federating units is too much. It is prone to abuse and misuse. Every Nigerian has a right of equality and respect in this joint stock company called Nigeria. The Nigerian nation has the responsibility, indeed the obligation to treat every tribe or race equally.”

    Similarly, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, elder statesman and former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, was forthright and resolute in his own precious summation on the current existential challenge of Nigeria . He says: “If we had six federating units, you would have more viable basis for planning economic development. Our country continues to under perform because of the 36 states we now have. We must wake up from our state of denial  and face the facts about our underdevelopment “.

    I am not going to encumber us with the violent words of Nnamdi Kanu of Independent  People of Biafra, (IPoB), nor those of Alhaji Asari Dokubo of the Niger Delta People’s Volunteer force, (NDPVF), nor that of Mazi Nwazurike of MASSOB and their ilks.

    We know their radical positions already. We also know that their words reflects the extreme position of anger, frustration and violence against the Nigerian nation as it is today.

    The situation is so challenging, yet frustrating, so embarrassing and yet so marveling. Nigeria today appears to have defeated researchers, commentators, observers and analysts as its issues have been over flogged almost to a saturation point. Today realities have overstated themselves, Truth has moved almost beyond constancy to stagnancy while appearance and realities are now at conflict with themselves. In the circumstance where leaders and men of power inexplicably appear clueless and lethargic about how to respond to these challenges, fear comes in and seems to rule our world without bounds.  The facts of our existence as a nation called Nigeria today fill one with horror.  This indeed is the worst of times.

    Nigerian elites, and by this reference I mean those who lay claims to some appreciable level of education in the country, not partakers of the current unprofitable parody of the essence, the certification process which ensures the ubiquity of graduates who lack confidence and understanding, continue to romanticise with the idea of a suitable political system. While some have issues with the current presidential system and advocate for a return to the parliamentary system practised in the First Republic, others agitate for devolution of powers from the centre to the so called federating units. Some still feel uncomfortable with that arrangement. They settle for confederacy.

    Restructuring is the new slogan in the political lexicon of the country. Political pundits, jobbers, erstwhile policy makers, former political office holders, civil society organisations, human rights entrepreneurs, upgraded street urchins, among others, are relentless in their agitation for a new political order. Very few have been able to articulate their positions as justification for this call beyond the facile, sometimes annoying, references to some unfortunate incidents involving ethnic groups. Some want more states not minding the fact that the existing ones are on the brink of insolvency.

    Others want more local governments for increased revenue allocation from the centre. For some still, it is “resource control”.  There seems to be this pervasive belief that once these divergent political aspirations are actualised, the country slips into a blissful moment without much exaction. Nothing can be more illusory than these hopes hinged on slippery and shifting ground.

    Those who want this country to disintegrate ignore many facts, the most prominent of which is the artificiality of the state structure in determining origin. The most outspoken of the proponents of restructuring have been unable to articulate their position beyond the incoherent statements made on devolution of powers. Some funny persons are even insisting on the implementation of the recommendations of an appointive committee known as the National Conference, 2014.

    They do not consider it as arrogance to have a handful of selected persons, not elected by the people, recommend on matters which require constitutional amendments, and insist on the implementation of same as the “irreducible minimum” for peace in the country.

    Until Nigerians begin to see themselves first as brothers and sisters with shared destiny beyond the artificial amalgamation of the colonialists, there will be no end to the agitation for self-determination. The Federal Government must, as a matter of urgency, take steps to discourage the activities of certain elements who harbour extraneous reasons other than the expressed. On no account must anyone be allowed to use our air space to disseminate hate speech.

     

     

    • Excerpts from a paper delivered yesterday by Ondo State Governor Rotimi Akeredolu at the Obafemi Awolowo University, lle-Ife.
  • Rethinking the Nigerian federation

    Rethinking the Nigerian federation

    There is a sense in which the unsettling state of the world today describes the state of our country Nigeria. It is so pathetic, so embarrassing and so fearful that disaffection, doubts, gloom and anxiety have come to dominate discourses among global leaders at every opportunity and meet.

    It is even more frightening that a sizeable proportion of internal activities of most nations of the world are on the defensive against torrential threats to existence rather than breaking new grounds of human advancement and world peace.

    In Europe the arguments about British exit from EU is resonating with the current, increasingly pronounced security challenges in the UK. Whereas America, Middle East and even the smaller but economically gifted nations are dealing with economic recessions, insecurity, terrorism, racial prejudices all of which are drawing attention of statesmen to ask the questions : What happened to us? What have we got wrong? When did we take the wrong step? Will this world continue as one piece ?

    In Africa, particularly in Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, South Africa, Mali and a few more nation – states, leading questions about redefining nationhood are presenting themselves for answers through the wars and social disaffection pervading the entire lands. In nation states like Syria, Libya, France, Iraq and others, the call is equally too close for comfort.

    With the foregoing, I am suggesting that there is nothing happening to our country, Nigeria at present that is new or strange or out of place with happenings elsewhere in the world. The Yoruba have a proverb that captures the matter succinctly: “A kò rí irú èyí rí, a fi ndérù b’olórò ni”.

    In other words, our vexatious experience today as a country is all a dialectical process of answers asking questions about themselves in order to confirm their state of existence. I believe Nigeria already has answers to its questions; it is just the will to ask the right questions the right way, with the right words, at the right time, with the right temperament and for the right purpose that is our task in building our own nation.

    I am also suggesting that we must get beyond these problems because it is in our best interest to do so. The answers which are asking questions in Nigeria today are: We need a new nation where equity, justice, peace and progress shall be the guiding principles of coexistence. We must redefine our nationhood. We need to create a new nation and create new citizens who have a different infrastructure of mind from those of present Nigerians.  We need a new Nigeria, now!

    The questions which the answer is asking therefore are: when then is the nowness of our now for our rebirth? Will our nationhood come by force of arms or with mutual understanding? What manner of nation do we want to have? Will it be on agreed points and issues negotiated and debated? Will it be with open arms and warmth? Will the risks be worth it? Do we have the capacity to evolve it and so forth.

    Let me buttress the worrisomeness of my above assertion with quotes of the words of a few  Nigerian leaders. On Tuesday the 3rd, June 2017, Jerry Gana, Professor and former Minister of Information, former secretary, Board of Trustee of the then ruling PDP made a declarative statement when asked about the fate of Nigeria in the future.” I don’t know what tomorrow holds, only God knows it but if they think when it comes to break up, we will go along with the North, then it must be a huge joke. We have already told them that if they allow this country break up, we are not going with the North. We are staying where we are. So, just take notice. If it comes to that, we will tell you that we are not Arewa, we are middle belters, 10 states for that matter.”

    Even Professor Ango Abdullahi, tempestuous academic, controversial administrator and foremost Northern leader, in his comments on the 4th of June 2017, had this to say: “If people are still asking for Biafra after 50 years of Civil war, then it is necessary for us to sit down and ask ourselves how we want the nation to be.”

    Another elder statesman, respected academic, constitutional lawyer and former President Ohanaeze Ndigbo Prof. Ben Nwabueze while ruminating on the current state of Nigeria, argued that Nigeria will not know peace until it restructures itself to reflect ease, consensus and justice. Hear him: “The power at the centre of the federating units is too much. It is prone to abuse and misuse. Every Nigerian has a right of equality and respect in this joint stock company called Nigeria. The Nigerian nation has the responsibility, indeed the obligation to treat every tribe or race equally.”

    Similarly, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, elder statesman and former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, was forthright and resolute in his own precious summation on the current existential challenge of Nigeria . He says: “If we had six federating units, you would have more viable basis for planning economic development. Our country continues to under perform because of the 36 states we now have. We must wake up from our state of denial  and face the facts about our underdevelopment “.

    I am not going to encumber us with the violent words of Nnamdi Kanu of Independent  People of Biafra, (IPoB), nor those of Alhaji Asari Dokubo of the Niger Delta People’s Volunteer force, (NDPVF), nor that of Mazi Nwazurike of MASSOB and their ilks.

    We know their radical positions already. We also know that their words reflects the extreme position of anger, frustration and violence against the Nigerian nation as it is today.

    The situation is so challenging, yet frustrating, so embarrassing and yet so marveling. Nigeria today appears to have defeated researchers, commentators, observers and analysts as its issues have been over flogged almost to a saturation point. Today realities have overstated themselves, Truth has moved almost beyond constancy to stagnancy while appearance and realities are now at conflict with themselves. In the circumstance where leaders and men of power inexplicably appear clueless and lethargic about how to respond to these challenges, fear comes in and seems to rule our world without bounds.  The facts of our existence as a nation called Nigeria today fill one with horror.  This indeed is the worst of times.

    Nigerian elites, and by this reference I mean those who lay claims to some appreciable level of education in the country, not partakers of the current unprofitable parody of the essence, the certification process which ensures the ubiquity of graduates who lack confidence and understanding, continue to romanticise with the idea of a suitable political system. While some have issues with the current presidential system and advocate for a return to the parliamentary system practised in the First Republic, others agitate for devolution of powers from the centre to the so called federating units. Some still feel uncomfortable with that arrangement. They settle for confederacy.

    Restructuring is the new slogan in the political lexicon of the country. Political pundits, jobbers, erstwhile policy makers, former political office holders, civil society organisations, human rights entrepreneurs, upgraded street urchins, among others, are relentless in their agitation for a new political order. Very few have been able to articulate their positions as justification for this call beyond the facile, sometimes annoying, references to some unfortunate incidents involving ethnic groups. Some want more states not minding the fact that the existing ones are on the brink of insolvency.

    Others want more local governments for increased revenue allocation from the centre. For some still, it is “resource control”.  There seems to be this pervasive belief that once these divergent political aspirations are actualised, the country slips into a blissful moment without much exaction. Nothing can be more illusory than these hopes hinged on slippery and shifting ground.

    Those who want this country to disintegrate ignore many facts, the most prominent of which is the artificiality of the state structure in determining origin. The most outspoken of the proponents of restructuring have been unable to articulate their position beyond the incoherent statements made on devolution of powers. Some funny persons are even insisting on the implementation of the recommendations of an appointive committee known as the National Conference, 2014.

    They do not consider it as arrogance to have a handful of selected persons, not elected by the people, recommend on matters which require constitutional amendments, and insist on the implementation of same as the “irreducible minimum” for peace in the country.

    Until Nigerians begin to see themselves first as brothers and sisters with shared destiny beyond the artificial amalgamation of the colonialists, there will be no end to the agitation for self-determination. The Federal Government must, as a matter of urgency, take steps to discourage the activities of certain elements who harbour extraneous reasons other than the expressed. On no account must anyone be allowed to use our air space to disseminate hate speech.

     

     

    • Excerpts from a paper delivered yesterday by Ondo State Governor Rotimi Akeredolu at the Obafemi Awolowo University, lle-Ife.

  • Rethinking green energy

    One of the great challenges haunting the present administration and indeed all past administrations is and has always been the subject of Nigeria’s power deficiency. In Nigeria, power is erratic, unstable and outages are more than frequent. With an installation capacity of over 7,000MW (or 12,000MW depending on who you ask), Nigeria barely manages to generate, on average, a dismal 3,800MW of electricity to meet the needs of its growing population. Over the years, several issues have been cited as major causes of Nigeria’s paltry power generation capacity and output, including pipeline vandalism, corruption, lack of adequate infrastructure, mismanagement and incompetence.
    Just weeks ago, Nigeria’s power generation output dropped from around 3,959mw to 2,662mw. The sudden drop was attributed to low water levels at the hydro power stations and lack of gas due to pipeline attacks. And with a population of over 180 million people, Nigeria is only able to connect 40% of its citizens to the power grid. Lack of adequate electricity affects all strata of the economy, costing Nigeria billions per annum, while crippling the industrial, agricultural, & service sectors. This along with lack of adequate security, water and transportation is costing Nigerians an arm and a leg with devastating consequences for the road ahead.
    Why have we as a people not solved this problem? Are we created differently from our western or far eastern counterparts? Surely all men are created equal, and if so, those saddled with the responsibility of solving these issues over the years have no excuse. Our natural resources are abundant, technology is obtainable, and adequate man power is available. Why are we still in this quagmire? By comparison, South Africa has a generation capacity of 52,811MW; Egypt 30,000MW; Canada 130,000MW and the United States, 1.17 million MW. Despite their output, these countries are determined and projected to increase their generation capacity with set targets and innovative ideas to meet rising energy demands yet to come.
    Along with the electricity conundrum, Nigeria also faces a serious waste problem. Waste is a harbinger of various environmental impacts such as air, water, soil and pollution. Along with numerous risks to life and health, the desecration and decay of local communities and cities ruins the aesthetic quality and natural beauty of each state and, consequently, our country. Our answer over the years has been dumping our waste in open heaps and landfills, attracting vermin, disease and infection. Despite our pitfalls and mishaps, there is a solution to solving such foundational problems to the framework of our great nation. The answer lies in an effective and efficient waste-to-energy programme. By enacting a sufficient waste management initiative for Nigeria, we can create renewable energy that will help fuel economic development while adding value back to our natural ecosystem and biosphere. Investing in waste to energy conversion will not only help reduce our waste management issues, it will also help alleviate the electricity problem by providing an alternative/reliable source of energy.
    With evidential benefits abound, waste to energy conversion policies in Nigeria should be pursued aggressively. The advantages for a country struggling with excessive waste and rampant power outages are enormous. Although funding a huge project such as a waste to energy incineration plant can be taxing for state governments, the federal government can render assistance by commissioning large scale projects; that along with private sector participation can help see such programmes through to fruition.
    Currently, the two major power sources being used in Nigeria today are natural gas (70%) & hydro power (30%). With hydro power, disturbances and disruptions are usually blamed on low water levels, while thermal power (natural gas) mishaps remain the result of pipeline vandalism. Converting waste to energy on the other hand has none of the above stated weaknesses, and doubles as a waste disposal agent. Making sure Nigeria’s waste is put to good use, thus cleaning and lighting up the nation concurrently.
    In Sweden, less than 1% trash ends up in landfills. This is due in part to the 32 waste-to-energy plants that have been setup across the country. These plants incinerate over two million tons of trash annually; almost 50% of the waste produced by the country (the other 50% is recycled). Waste-to-energy plants in Sweden provide close to a million homes with heating and electricity, and thus, are responsible for reducing the amount of trash that ends up in landfills, as well as helping to reduce Sweden’s reliance on fossil fuels. The waste-to-energy project in Sweden is made more effective by the government’s insistence on the segregation of waste in both households and commercial institutions prior to incineration. Waste is a relatively cheap fuel and Sweden has, over time, developed a large capacity and skill in efficient and profitable waste treatment and management; so much so that Sweden imports 700,000 tonnes of waste from other countries yearly.
    Besides incineration (combustion), other viable waste-to energy/bioenergy methods include: anaerobic digestion (biogas) and gasification (syngas). Both methods can be used on a much smaller scale to power local communities, industries and hamlets around the country. The private sector should be encouraged in areas such as this. The more people/organisations involved in the generation of power, the closer we are to powering the whole nation.
    According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), bioenergy is the single largest renewable energy source today, providing 10% of the world with a primary energy supply. It also plays a crucial role in many developing countries where it provides energy for cooking. Apart from bioenergy, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and tidal energy are all forms of viable renewable energy sources. Diversification is important and Nigeria’s dependency on thermal energy is costing us dearly.
    There is no set pattern or formula for energy expansion. We can and should add to our current energy mix and capacity with great devotion. The United States for instance relies on; natural gas (33%), coal (33%), nuclear (20%), and renewables (including bioenergy, hydro & solar) (13%), as energy sources respectively. The key is focusing on certain areas and working vigorously to achieve set goals. Sweden (bioenergy), Kenya (geothermal), Morocco & Rwanda (solar), and Denmark (wind) are all major players in renewable energy. We must think ahead as a nation by investing in the future, embracing change and employing innovation into our resource bank to construct a brighter tomorrow.
    For too long, Nigerians have suffered the consequences of inadequate electricity, starkly diminishing efficiency in the workplace and at home. We must light the way to better understanding and planning for courses of action that meet the needs of our country. It is often said that only light can push out darkness, and in the same vein, only action can cure grief. Through waste-to-energy investment, we will light up the streets, roads, homes and minds of our nation, transforming our economy, and in time, our position on the global stage.

  • Rethinking the NYSC scheme

    Over its 40-year-plus of existence, the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme has proved the most enduring legacy project of governance in Nigeria. In our peculiar clime where the wheel is perpetually being reinvented as every new government habitually dumps whatever idea is linked with its predecessor, only to start its own thing from scratch, the youth service scheme has been a lasting baton handed down across dispensations – military as well as civilian. It won’t beyond the pale if former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, harbours especial pride about this persisting imprint of his on our national life.

    The scheme’s undying relevance derives obviously from its singular effectiveness in bonding Nigerian youths across primordial fault lines of tribe, ethnicity, culture and religion, weaning them from a nativistic to nationalistic worldview, and instilling in them the spirit of selfless service to community and fatherland.

    The icing is its affording freshly graduating youths a modestly provisioned transitional year between the school and the marketplace, during which they also get paramilitary orientation for personal physical and mental fitness. And in the course of the service year, fortunate (or do we say smart?) ones are inaugurated in the job market and set off on the path of lifelong careers: their labour comes quite cheap for employers in that year, but they are as well afforded a good career starting point. By all accounts, it’s a win-win tangle.

    It is moot whether the youth service scheme is as potent today in achieving its founding objectives as it was in the early years. But whatever may be the shortfalls even now, there is simply no programme or feature of our national life – well, maybe other than the armed services – that gets even close to replicating the unity vibes of the NYSC.

    And that is not mentioning how the scheme comes uniquely handy in providing critical manpower for Nigeria’s nascent democracy. It is widely known that the NYSC has for some years now provided the bulk of temporary staff deployed on election duties by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). And with all the attendant hazards of our notoriously rudimentary political culture in this country, the scheme’s members on election duties have repeatedly proven – naturally, with very few exceptions – to be disciplined, patriotic, energetic and dispassionate in their comportment, thereby imbuing the electoral process with needed credibility.

    All the foregoing positive factors regardless, it would seem that the enduring relevance of the youth service scheme has railroaded its implementation into a fossilized mode, such that the scheme now appears out of joint with modern-day realities of our nationhood. At the last count, mobilisation of eligible participants for the scheme has turned an excruciating obstacle race that leaves throngs of fresh graduates in uncertain pendency after school, and in gruelling suspense about the titanic struggle for space in the marketplace that yet lay ahead.

    Anyone who knows jack about the youth service scheme these days knows that call-up and mobilisation of eligible graduates are anything but seamless. Actually, you could say the conventional joy that these youths should savour upon completing their studies gets readily muted in the furlough of uncertainty where they hang in for God-knows-how-long, until they get mobilised for the service scheme. Parents and guardians, of course, aren’t spared the agonizing suspense.

    If you asked their opinion, not a few of these young ones would tell you they preferred being excused from the scheme, and in effect the gruelling wait, so they could save the time and go do whatever else they could with their lives. But they would find they really couldn’t cut out, because the extant provisions of the scheme’s enabling law make completion and formal discharge from the scheme mandatory for proceeding to the marketplace. In other words, they are haplessly stuck with the scheme.

    It is only fair to mention here that the challenge is not entirely new. The NYSC directorate needs government funding, which is never in abundant supply, to mobilise eligible graduates to the scheme; and this is compounded by the fact of a swelling rank of potential participants who often outstrip the directorate’s projections. Besides, with increasing proliferation of tertiary institutions and perpetual disruption of academic calendar by all manners of emergencies, not the least of which is perennial industrial action by lecturers, it is only to be expected that the NYSC directorate can’t sustain a rigid scheduling of the scheme.

    Apparently to get a handle on those intervening factors, the directorate has for many years now broken its mobilisation of eligible graduates into batches. One practical consequence of this, though, is that youths with differing years of graduation overlap in batches that obliterate whatever advantage of a head start there could have been for those who left school in the earlier years.

    Now, the harsh effects of the recession Nigeria is currently undergoing expectedly make matters worse, and the NYSC directorate hasn’t really made off with a bid to downplay its difficulties. Reports last week cited the NYSC Director-General, Brigadier-General Sulaiman Kazaure, as pouring cold water on a widely harboured fear that the directorate would not mobilise all eligible graduates for the 2016 service year. But he as well confirmed the directorate’s funding and logistical challenges, which have compelled its splitting up the 2016 Batch B orientation and scheduling mobilisation of the second stream to early next year.

    Speaking with journalists in Abuja, the NYSC boss is reported to have said: “The NYSC is prepared as always to mobilise qualified graduates for the next service year batch. However, it must be emphasised that as a budget-dependent organisation, the scope of our activities is facing financial constraints, just like every other government agency in the present recession.

    “In the 2016 budget, provision was made for mobilisation of 210,000 corps members. However, the figure for 2016 Batch A and Batch B more than doubled the original projection. As we did before the 2016 Batch A orientation, we have appealed to government for special intervention grant to mop up the excess of this figure. So far, we have received the green light from relevant government agencies to prepare for the mobilisation of all qualified prospective corps members.

    “However, the limited cumulative capacity of the orientation camps nationwide necessitates a second stream orientation course for the 2016 Batch B, which is being planned for January 2017.”

    Two issues came out clearly in General Kazaure’s statement: (i) There are severe funding constraints necessitating an appeal for government’s special intervention grant, and (ii) There are capacity limitations in the scheme’s orientation camps nationwide. But it seems curious to me that the NYSC boss insists, as reported, that there is no plan to amend the enabling Act making mobilisation compulsory for all graduates.

    My view is that we need a rethink of the NYSC scheme in this country by taking another look at the enabling Act. Perhaps we need to consider what Nigeria stands to lose by making the scheme voluntary, because if you asked me, the country would lose nothing. Actually, we would harvest operational efficiency of the scheme along with keener commitment of voluntary corps members. Willing fresh graduates would yet have opportunity to enlist in the laudable scheme, while those that may have ready options of other life pursuits would be unbound to pursue their dreams. And the consequent impact would be salutary on the scheme because the logistical burden would be considerably relieved. If I must restate my view pointedly: I think it is about time the NYSC scheme was made voluntary for graduating students.

  • Rethinking Southwest priorities (3)

    Rethinking Southwest priorities (3)

    In the history of Egbe Omo Yoruba, U.S.A. and Canada, one of the great associations with an untiring focus on the unity and progress of Yoruba nation, this week is special.

    Following the model of Egbe Omo Oduduwa, founded in London in 1947, Egbe Omo Yoruba was launched in the United States during the dreary days of military occupation of Nigeria. It was the response of concerned Yoruba patriots to the siege mentality created by the military, just as Egbe Omo Oduduwa was the forum that Chief Awolowo and his colleagues used to battle British colonial exploitation.

    At its inception, Egbe Omo Yoruba, USA and Canada (henceforth referred to as Egbe); branded itself as an anti-military dictatorship and pro-democracy advocacy group for the restoration of the mandate that Nigerians overwhelmingly gave Chief M. K. O. Abiola on June 12, 1993. As such, it entered into alliance with other pro-democracy organisations, including NADECO Abroad, National Liberation Council of Nigeria (NALICON), United Democratic Front of Nigeria (UDFN) and the World Congress of Free Nigerians (WCFN).

    With selfless frontline activities of prominent patriots including Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka, the late Pa Anthony Enahoro, General Ipoola Akinrinade, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Chief C. O. Adebayo, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, Commodore Dan Suleiman, Leidum Mitee, and a host of others, these groups jointly and severally engaged in diplomatic offensives against military interests, crisscrossing the hallowed chambers of governance institutions in North America, Africa and Europe, leading to biting sanctions against the Abacha regime.

    The groups demanded the release of political prisoners, including those incarcerated on false charges of phoney coup d’etat. Even when they knew that a few of the victims of military tyranny occupied an unfriendly political and ideological terrain, they defended them and fought for their release. Now, of course, those same individuals, acting true to type, would credit their survival exclusively to the kindness of foreign agents. Such is life.

    At the end of the nightmare of military occupation in 1999, the Southwest, as the bastion of progressive governance and the battle front for the democratic war against military dictatorship, rewarded NADECO and its pro-democracy allies with an electoral mandate for the Alliance for Democracy to govern the six states of the region. It was a vindication of Afenifere for remaining true to the spirit of Chief Awolowo and his progressive ideas. Egbe issued a press release as a paid advertorial urging the new governments in the Southwest to stay the course.

    But human frailty set in and the promise of a glorious dawn was broken even before it got started. In 16 years, with more resources at our disposal, we have not been able to achieve the equivalent of what the old West achieved in eight.

    The Action Group of the 50s had the same ideological focus as the Alliance for Democracy of the late 90s. So, it wasn’t ideological difference that accounted for the failure. Rather, the challenge that dashed the hope of millions that looked upon the leadership to take them to the Promised Land was regrettable egoistic pettiness. Recall the debacle that was D’Rovans Hotel and its aftermath. The wisdom of the ancestors suggests that when the young focus on felling a tree in the bush, the elders must watch for and warn about its possible landing. The failure to abide by that wisdom created the unwholesome political and cultural environment that we have today.

    In the wake of that crisis, Egbe sent a powerful delegation to the homeland in early 2002 to plead with every individual and group to embrace peace and pursue unity. The delegation visited with Afenifere, Yoruba Council of Elders, Governors and Odua Self-Determination groups. It was a clarion call without any selfish interest.

    Egbe received assurances of a new era. But it went from bad to worse. Our people blamed it again on the curse of Aole. I have always considered that a phantom excuse and a reluctance to accept responsibility for our own weaknesses. Egbe does not give up on the challenging cause of Yoruba unity and progress. Hence its decision to take the message that it has been sending from its comfort zone in the diaspora back to the land of the ancestors.

    This week fulfils a dream of the association to return to motherland. As the last stanza of its anthem reiterates, Omo Oduduwa ni wa/Nibikibi taa ba wa/E je ka fe ra wa/Ka si maa ranti pe/A o pada sile. (Oduduwa is our spring/wherever we may be/Let’s be kinsfolk/And remember/That home is home for us). The dream has always been to get back home, and this week, after more than 20 conventions across the United States and Canada, the Egbe is back home hosting the Yoruba World Summit with its theme, “Yoruba renaissance: Understanding our past to benefit the future.”

    This summit couldn’t have been more timely, in view of all that is happening around us as a people. Indeed, the spiritually-inclined may, with justification, insist that the summit had been destined to be held this year rather than two years ago when a combination of unanticipated events, including the dreaded Ebola scare, caused its postponement. Whether destined or contrived, it is heartening that Egbe Omo Yoruba is back home with its message of unity and progress.

    What is at stake is the unfulfilled dreams of millions of young people who have been compelled to a state of hopelessness that gives way to despair. The education that their nation cannot provide for them makes them incapable of productive work. And the void is filled for them by the destructive genius of the devil. In the remotest villages, elementary school pupils do drugs and engage in cultism. How a leadership that claims the inheritance of Awo can live with this and feel no unease about the terrible state of the nation is mind-boggling.

    But as odious as the overall condition is, the most worrisome is the moral degeneration that has been the lot of the nation in the last four decades when it appears that the devil has taken control and the large majority of our people have chosen to do its bidding.

    How else do we explain the callousness of adulterated and fake drugs that send innocent victims to untimely deaths? Or hospital workers who privatise public resources and then charge poor patients for their use? What about education officials who collude with principals and headmasters to create ghost teachers whose salaries they share? And these individuals are always the loudest in the raucous critique of government ineptitude!

    What is to be done? Political leaders in the Southwest need to ask themselves the hard question: What will be my legacy? How do I wish to be remembered? In my quest for immortality, which individuals or groups should I partner with? There are sycophants and there are tested objectivists and the difference between them is very clear. Unfortunately, far too many of our leaders prefer the former. If the late author of The Tale of June 12, Professor Omoruyi, is to be believed, that mindset was the undoing of General Babangida who chose the sugar-coated poison of Arthur Nzeribe over the sound advice to avoid the annulment of the 1993 presidential election.

    Organisations, such as Egbe Omo Yoruba are made up of selfless individuals who just want to contribute to the progress of their nation. They sacrifice their time and money. Back in 1997, the standing policy was that every member must pay his or her way to any meeting inside or outside of the United States. Many maxed out their credit card accounts for the good that they desire for their nation.

    A few years ago, Egbe came up with the idea of championing agricultural revolution in Yorubaland. They looked for land across the Southwest. The Jegun of Ile Oluji, Oba Julius Adetimehin, responded by making available several hectares of land to Egbe and one of the highlights of the 2016 Yoruba Summit is the launching of Egbe Omo Yoruba agricultural project in Yorubaland. This patriotic gesture deserves the deep appreciation and encouragement of Yoruba men and women at home and in the diaspora.

  • Rethinking Southwest priorities (2)

    Rethinking Southwest priorities (2)

    Of course, I am not a reader of minds and I cannot unequivocally vow for every person that seeks leadership position what their motivations are. It is possible that the people are deceived and manipulated by sweet-talking political charlatans. It is also possible that the people are too poor and ignorant to know when they are being conned. Such would not be unique to our clime. It happens everywhere including in the most advanced countries.

    But I know that the only reason that a genuine human being with a moral conscience would consider making the sacrifice to run for a leadership position is to make a difference in people’s lives and to make a mark. That was the case with the leader of the West in its golden era. I would like to assume that our current crop of leaders share this motive.

    And I would also assume that they have the skill sets needed to make a mark. There could be a difference in the degree to which these skill sets are shared. But that is not unusual and it should not be a liability in the discharge of the responsibilities of leadership. Therefore, between the past and the present, leadership should not be the difference. To the extent that my assumption is wrong, we have a serious problem.

    How about followership? There is no doubt that there has been a serious erosion of the values that sustained us through the 19th century civil wars and the brutal colonial exploitation. But erosion, serious as it is, is not annihilation. Those values still predominate in the larger Yoruba culture despite the incidences of 419 and it is by appeal to them that we judge actions and behaviours, including those in the economic and political realms.

    We still hold dear our obsession with hard work as we detest laziness and parasitism. We still believe that good education is key to a successful life. Therefore, households make the effort to give their children good education even when they have to pay through the nose. And what must be a concern to all is that the poorest worker or artisan now holds firmly the belief in the superiority of private schools over public schools and is not deterred by the exorbitant cost.

    I think that it is safe to assume that our people are generally good and they have an abiding faith in those cherished values. However, they need the encouragement of leaders and the hope that their hard work will be rewarded.

    To my mind, however, one important difference between the past and the present is the “us” versus “them” mentality that comes with the artificial division of the region into autonomous states. Surely, not all was well between the sections of the Yoruba nation in the remote and immediate past. I touched on this sordid history two weeks ago. And as we know, the creation of states has inadvertently opened up some old wounds of tribal animosity to the detriment of the desperately needed cooperation across the Southwest.

    It was because I believe strongly that we must find a creative way of blurring the sharp and dangerous edges that the artificial boundaries between states have created, and remove the wedges that had effectively blocked the development of the entire region that I and other well-meaning citizens welcomed the emergence of the Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN), a bold initiative of the Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG) a few years ago.

    For no matter the divisions, the people of Southwest are one and their leaders, no matter what the temptations are, must refrain from putting them asunder. States are supposedly created for administrative purposes. They must not be used in a way that retards growth or limit the opportunities for the people, and certainly never in a way that tears apart the fabric of the Yoruba nation.

    In the light of the difference between the past and the present Southwest in terms of the transition from one region to six states, what adjustments need to be made to ensure that the people still matter and their social and economic interests are enhanced?

    Voluntary regional integration must be the policy objective of the leaders of the states and region and party affiliation must not stand in the way of this important ideal. Years ago, I made this point in a keynote address to Egbe Omo Yoruba National Convention that took place in Baltimore, Maryland. It was also part of my submission when I gave the Bola Ige Memorial Lecture a few years ago. DAWN had not been established in those days, and the partisan war over rigged elections was still very much fierce. The challenge was for victims to accept the leadership of those who stole their mandate and work with them for the integration of the region. Happily, that war is over and political enemies of the past now wine and dine together on the same political table.

    What needs to be overcome now is fiefdom mentality and leadership temptation to resist cross-fertilisation of ideas and practices across territorial boundaries.

    Thankfully, the present leadership is making the effort to reassure us that it gets it, as demonstrated by the recently reported lecture that Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola delivered on “The Imperative of Unity” in Ado-Ekiti at the invitation of Governor Ayo Fayose on the occasion of the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the creation of Ekiti State.

    I would like to end with three observations on this development. First, we should all be pleased with the visuals of Ogbeni Aregbesola and Governor Fayose sitting side by side at an event commemorating the founding of Fayose’s state. Ordinarily this should not even be a remarkable scene but for the degrading level of our politics. That reason appears to be prevailing is therefore a thing of joy. Of course, there will be various interpretations of motivation. I am not worried about that. As I mentioned earlier, I do not read minds. I am genuinely happy however that our political leaders have attained the maturity that enables them to reach out across party divide.

    Second, according to media reports, Ogbeni Aregbesola identified the revival of agriculture, especially food production, as one area of cooperation among the states of the Yoruba nation in order to eliminate hunger. This ought to be a priority of the region’s political leadership. Years ago, with the creation of artificial scarcity, Governor Fashola learnt the hard way that a state must not outsource its food supply to other sections of the country. Vowing to prevent a recurrence, he wisely invested in agricultural projects across the Southwest.

    Ogbeni Aregbesola also advised Yoruba nation to “unite in terms of integrating our development strategies in education, commerce, economy, agriculture and tourism, among others.” Again, this is commonsensical and no one appears better qualified or motivated to lead this effort especially in educational integration. The feat that Aregbesola has accomplished in education in Osun is legendary despite the challenge of resources. Imagine if there is a common effort across Yoruba nation such that, for example, there is a coordinated effort to integrate tertiary institutions with campuses specialising in major areas of learning and scholarship.

    Finally, then, this last point leads me to the unwholesome development in the common effort of Oyo and Osun states in the promotion of tertiary education in the very important field of technology. Both Governors Aregbesola and Ajimobi are two of my favourite leaders with clear headedness and strong commitment to development.

    I am aware that there is a history of rancour dating back to the tenure of Governors Oyinlola and Alao-Akala who also belonged to the same party. The issue is therefore beyond partisan divide. It is past time to ditch the tempting resort of our people to the worst parochialist devil of our nature. Rather, we must now appeal to the best angels therein. It is time for both traditional and civil leaders to resolve the issue in the interest of Yoruba integration of which Ogbeni Aregbesola spoke so eloquently in Ado Ekiti. The future of the innocent youths is at stake.

     

     

     

  • Rethinking Southwest priorities (1)

    Rethinking Southwest priorities (1)

    In the last dispensation, marginalisation was the battle cry of an integral segment of a political tendency in the Southwest. It was a reflection of its perception of a centre and its periphery, a core with a favoured occupant and a margin with its forsaken elements. The tendency was unwavering in its complaint and, though too little and too late, the presidency was forced to respond in some form. Evidence: The over-publicised reconstruction of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway which it still was not able to get off the ground until the present administration revived it with a demonstrated dedication.

    In reality, however, as aggressive as it was, that political tendency was neither dominant nor self-serving. It was not dominant because there was a greater number in the zone that preferred confronting the administration on the vital question of restructuring to asking for crumbs from the federal table. As it turned out, because the former group was not self-serving, and because its complaint was altruistic rather than egoistic, there was a meeting of minds with the other political tendency.

    The Southwest complaint about marginalisation was less about the distribution of position among political elite and more about the overall development of its infrastructure and the possibility of regional advancement, which had been hamstrung in the politics of the overbearing centre.

    The question for the Southwest has always revolved around the prospect of putting to work, for the advancement of the region in particular, but also the country in general, the mass of largely untapped human and material resources at its disposal. To the extent that it feels helpless in the centralised architecture of a quasi-unitary system that we run in the name of a federal polity, the complaint of marginalisation as arrested development makes sense.

    Having the memory of what the region accomplished in the golden era of Nigerian federalism in the late 50s and early 60s cannot but be frustrating in the present circumstance of retarded growth and unfulfilled expectations. Without the unfortunate brutal interruption of its forward march in the 60s, there is little doubt about where the old West might be now. But here we are with generations of youths condemned to a present mired in confusion, celebrating ignorance and greed, and a hopeless future. It hurts.

    Many of our compatriots who were forced into the trenches in the fight against military dictatorship in pursuit of true democracy truly believed that the successful outcome of the struggle was capable of entrenching freedom and genuinely participatory democracy. In addition, however, they also genuinely believed that the struggle would correct the mistakes of the military with regard to the fundamental issue of the structure of governance. But the midwives that delivered the Fourth Republic and its early paediatricians had also been the loudest cheer leaders for the ruinous policies and practices of the military era. And in and out of office, they have not relented in their defence of the failed ideas and ideals.

    The new administration, which was propelled into office by a coalition of forces that included some of the most strident advocates of political restructuring from the Southwest, appears to still be finding its way. Meanwhile, many of its loyal supporters are expressing the hope that it does the right thing in the matter that could make or mar the success of the progressive brand in four years. While it is still too early to be despondent, there has to be a serious effort in the desired direction to calm worried nerves.

    Of course, no one denies that there are too many irons in the political hearth and it takes wisdom and focused attention to get them all in shape. The inauguration of an Electoral Reform Committee is a case in point. Surely, elections are integral to an efficient and effective democracy, and the administration is right to prioritise the reform of the laws that govern our electoral practice.

    But it is also important to recognise that, as important as elections are, the structure of governance within which elections occur is equally, if not more, important. If the structure is wobbly, elections will not successfully fix it. The demand for the revision of the structure of the polity in the last 30 years has been so unrelenting, even in the face of several successes in the matter of electoral reform.

    So much for crying over spilled milk. My intention here is not to moan or brood over the failures of a quasi-unitary system. Rather my worry is about the state of the Southwest as a cohesive group, a people with a history of achievement that was and is still the envy of others. Assume the worst, that the progressive government at the centre, while willing, finds itself in a situation that it cannot deliver on political restructuring. What ought the Southwest to do? And since “ought” logically implies “can”, what can the Southwest do?

    We are cognisant of the fact that, in view of the constitutional provisions under which we operate, the Southwest cannot secede. There is no self-determination clause that can constitutionally or legally back such a drastic move, IPOB aspirations notwithstanding. A bloodless divorce must have to be the result of a consensual decision of all the parties. In any case, given the differing and sometimes contradictory tendencies within, it is unlikely that such a consensus is reachable, even within the Southwest. The lesson from the recent struggle for democracy is still too fresh to be forgotten.

    But the drastic option of secession is just that. The object of the rallying cry for restructuring is to enable the components of the federation to develop efficiently and effectively. For this object to be realised in the Southwest in lieu of restructuring, there is a more viable and perfectly constitutional and legal option than secession. It does not even require any out-of-the-box imagining. It only requires us to address ourselves to the questions: what worked for us in the past as a people? How is the present different from the past? In the light of the difference between the past and the present, what adjustments do we need to make to our past approach so that we can have a good outcome in the present?

    To the first question there is a simple answer. We had a fortunate combination of selfless leadership with the skill sets for economic and social development, a people with the inculcated values of hard work and the urge to self-improvement, and a large expanse of land and territory that was a boost to the fundamental requirement of the economy of scale.

    Consider this last factor for a minute. From Okeho in the north to Ikeja in the south, from Ado-Odo in the west to Ado Ekiti in the east, the products of the land complemented one another. Production was enhanced by friendly governmental policies such that there was enough for domestic consumption and export. We saw the beginning of an agro-industrial complex with Lafia Canning Industry, Ado-Ekiti Textile Factory, and a host of others.

    There is a need, therefore, to understand what is different from the past in the present. Is it leadership? Is it follower-ship? Is it availability of resources or factors of development? Or something else?

    First, on leadership, I would like to assume that we still have a crop of leaders who are genuinely committed to the development of human and material resources. To be voted into office in a free and fair election in which the  electorate vote their interests on the basis of manifestos shared with them and promises made to them, those electorate must be persuaded of the genuine motivation of the candidates.

    And perhaps more than the writer of the Book of Proverbs, our people believe in the sanctity of names and the fact that riches and honour are important only to the extent that they are not products of activities capable of spoiling one’s good name. Therefore, good leaders try to make their mark and, if they succeed, they have their good names unspoiled. Consciously or unconsciously, Chief Obafemi Awolowo got it. His name has therefore remained unforgettable.

     

    • To be continued

     

     

  • Rethinking Borno

    Rethinking Borno

    •Can governor pick the gauntlet?

    Borno State, in the north east of Nigeria is a huge swathe of land bigger than many countries of the world. For instance, it is three times the size of Belgium and Singapore would be infinitesimal if fitted in the middle of Borno. It is indeed the second largest state in Nigeria in terms of land mass.

    And unlike many other states of the north, it is also blessed with ample water like the Lake Chad, Lake Alua and the Yedseram River, washing its southern parts. It is therefore not entirely an arid land. Borno  largely consists of Sahel and Sudan savannah vegetations though it has a large vegetation cover, part of the tropical forests extending from the Camerouns. It also boasts of the Sambisa Game Reserve. A large eco-tourism forest covering about 520 sq.km, it was created by the British colonialists and once had rare and exotic animals like elephants, leopards, gazelles and an assortment of rare birds and monkeys.

    Under successive state governments, the reserve and most other natural endowments of the state fell into disuse and even decay. The great Sambisa reserve actually became haven and indeed bastion for the extremist sect, the Boko Haram terrorists; from where they have continued to unleash mayhem on the state and its environs.

    In the last six years Borno has been virtually the theatre of a vicious terror war that is yet to completely abate. Relentless raids by the terrorists left social and economic life of the state utterly disrupted and indeed prostrate. Majority of the over 2.1 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Nigeria today are in Borno State.

    The serious human disaster in the state particularly has sparked acute malnutrition crisis in the camps, resulting in the death of many children and young people.

    The situation in the north east and especially in Borno is quite grave and requires sobriety and reflection by the government and officials of state. It is neither time nor an occasion for grandstanding nor showmanship. This is why we take exception to the statement credited to Governor Kashim Shettima of Borno State in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recently.

    Governor Shettima had boasted that Borno State is safer than Lagos and Abuja. “Maiduguri is more secured than even Lagos or Abuja. There are two million people living in Maiduguri; we celebrated Sallah without any incident,” he said.

    He noted further: “We have to dare the terrorists; I have bulletproof cars, but I do not use them; I want to be exposed to the elements as the ordinary people do… sometimes I drive myself around the town to see things for myself,” the governor enthused.

    Ironically, just the day after his remarks, Boko Haram struck and killed six civilians travelling in a commercial bus and injured three soldiers escorting them in an ambush. Indeed, hardly any day passes without one form of casualty or the other reported in Borno State coupled with overwhelming IDP issues.

    While we understand the need for the governor to boost confidence among the populace, not much is achieved by flippancy and unguarded, empty remarks.

    The north east and more especially Borno State is caught up in a most harrowing condition. The governor has his work well laid out. There is need for a total rethink and reconfiguration of the old template. There is need to rally the elite, the intelligentsia, elders and all leaders of the state so they work in concert to formulate ideas and implement same with method and promptitude.

    Under quality leadership, Borno can rise from her current troubles into a new and glorious era. With national and indeed world attention focused on the state, she can latch on the moment to harness all her huge potentials and lost opportunities of the past years. Great men are forged on the anvil of adversity. Can Governor Shettima rise to the occasion?