The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Revisiting

  • Revisiting my ‘Judgment without justice’

    “The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang (so) that jury-men may dine”. Alexander Pope 

    Preamble

    Depending on whether he is conservative or liberal, a judge -whenever he interprets, construe or construct the law- is bound to achieve one of two things: expand or constrict its capacity to do justice. Judges enjoy the judicial luxury to work justice or to occasion its reverse. They may resolve a matter narrow-mindedly (rigidly) according to law or broadmindedly (liberally) even against the grain of it. Where there is no law certain –as was the case of the lacuna that brought Kogi’s Governor Bello- judges may rule to make new laws, so that by a just precedent set, they correct a defect in the body of law. But even where there is a law certain, -as it was in the Supreme Court’s overruling of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act concerning Saraki- judges are known whimsically, to rule to create unjust precedents in law. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA had commendably outlawed interlocutory injunctions/stay of proceedings; but allegedly in aid of Saraki’s CCT matter, the Apex Court had brazenly overruled the Act and thus technically forced, by a judicial process, the amendment of a law made by the ‘legislative process’.

    And so judges do not only interpret or construe, they often also construct, the law -to establish its position especially amidst conflicting provisions. Or they may also create entirely new laws, even where there are extant provisions already. Thus judges have quasi-legislative power in their judicial capacities to make what is termed ‘judge-made’ or ‘court-made’ law -either in aid of errant parliaments or even in disregard of rightly guided ones. And so the judges’ power to determine what the law is supersedes even the much-touted constitutional right of parliament in that regard. In truth judges or the courts –not parliaments- are the ultimate legal sovereigns. Judicial power here subsumes the better part of legislative prerogative. Whatever judges choose to do with such enormous power, their conscience alone is the judge of whether they act judiciously in the interest of justice or judicially in the interest of law. But the danger in judges always acting according to law is that it is not in all circumstances that the law operates to work justice. And it is situations like this that make obvious the need for judges sometimes to rule not strictly according to the ‘letter’ of the law, but also according to its ‘spirit’. Every law, no matter how textually flawed, is animated by the spirit to achieve justice. It is the fault of judges if it does not.

     

    As the court pleases

    Judges have the liberty always to rule ‘as it pleases’ them. And maybe it is the reason that lawyers in court are obligated always to chorus: ‘as the court pleases’, any time a judge rules. It is with delight for some, as with dejection for others, that lawyers must thumb-up a judge for having done ‘as he pleases’ -whether he perverts the law or he ennobles it. ‘As the court pleases’ may conveniently underscore the supremacy of judicial caprice, but it may not always be indicative of justice done -unless judges make the doing of ‘justice’ always their pleasure. By the way, since judges have the liberty always to rule ‘as it pleases’ them, why should it not please them to do so justly, even if they have to do it against the grain of law. Whether or not the provisions of any law are designed to work justice, the judge has an option, either to pervert ‘good laws’ to miscarry justice or to interpret even ‘bad ones’ to carry justice.  Good judges, feel obligated to follow the law but only if the law works justice. The attainment of justice is the ultimate raison d’être for the existence of law. The tragedy is that the English system of law has not always been what it ought to be, namely a measure that brooks no exploitation from selfish man; it has always been a dumb, manipulable ‘ass’! Nor has the law always been what legislators intend it to be, namely an abiding product of reasoned legislation, and not the shifting sands of capricious judges to be found more in precedents than in the statute books. The law is always what judges say it is!

    Said Charles Hughes, a U.S. jurist, “We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is”. The law suffers a form of juristic injustice in the hands of conservative judges who impose on themselves incapacity to navigate its delicate labyrinth to arrive at justice; but it also suffer worse in the hands of liberal judges who may neglect it at the foothill of unconscionable lawyers to ride as they please.

     

    ‘Iron out the creases’

    Whether conservative or liberal, most Nigerian judges have this uncanny ability when dealing both with inherently good or bad laws, to still work injustice! Our judges are either constrained by the illiberal provisions of bad laws to work injustice or they are overwhelmed equally by the liberal provisions of good laws still to arrive at injustice. And so head or tail with our judges, what we get always is ‘judgment’ without ‘justice’.

    Most Nigerian judges persist in elevating legal technicalities above the overarching need to engender justice. Many in fact, appear to have this sneaky penchant for glorifying ‘procedure law’ over and above ‘substantive matters’. Said ItseSagay, “I don’t understand why (judges) would have the ‘law’ which is in conflict with ‘justice’ and (they will) prefer to apply the law”. The public should have no problem with the courts following the law, provided that in doing so they do ‘justice’! What the public rejects is this grotesque idea of ‘law’ for ‘law’s sake’ as if it is a work of art to be appreciated for its form and not for the justice that it occasions. The idea that the ‘hands’ of a judge are ‘tied’ by ‘unjust provisions’ of ‘law’ so that he can only rule to work injustice is lame, escapist and untenable. The powers of a judge to decide what the law is, knows no bounds.  And so if the ‘law’ contains impurities which do not conduce to the attainment of justice, it behoves a judge not to surrender to those impurities but to ‘interpret’ or ‘construe’ them to work justice.

    Or so said Lord Denning, that although a “Judge must not alter the material of which (the law) is woven”, yet “he can and should iron out the creases”. Agbakoba was even more radically when he said that the idea that judges do not descend to the arena is moribund; because nowadays he said, to do justice, judges –especially those handling corruption cases- must descend to the arena to “balance public opinion with law”.

    Judges, no matter of what ideological persuasion, have a voice within that compels them always to prioritize the ‘spirit’ of the law in order to achieve justice. It is a choice that judges have the right to freely make one way or another; to listen to that inner call to do justice or to hearken to the shrill invitation to pervert justice. It is absolutely not true that judges are constrained at any time by one option against the other. It is a clear choice –as the former Chief Justice, DahiruMusdapher would say- between ‘plata’ and ‘plomo’ –or between ‘gold’ and ‘lead’! And that was what the Scottish-born British judge William Murray Mansfield said to a lay colonial governor who was about to become an administrator and a judge: “consider what you think justice requires” he said, “and decide accordingly.”

  • Revisiting ‘neither saint nor rogue’

    Nothing practically defines ‘hate’ better than where the hapless victim of it is crucified both ways: he is damned if he does right and he is damned if he does not’! This extreme is attained when ‘hate’ acquires the pejorative adjective ‘inveterate’. Which means to ‘hate’ habitually; not contingent upon any justifiable reason. In fact to ‘inveterate’ haters it is reason enough that the object of their hate dares in the first place to exist. And they will have neither scruples wishing that it ceases to exist, nor any qualms (if they have their way), to make sure that it ceases to exist. And maybe it is the reason that 17th century English poet Lord Byron said “Hatred is the madness of the heart”. Because only a ‘heart’ that has lost its sanity will hate strictly for hate’s sake. And it must be the reason he said “Love blinds us to people’s faults but hate blinds us to their virtues.

    It takes a sick heart to love those it has good reason to hate and to hate those it should have good reason to love. Although one man’s rogue may be another man’s Saint Vitus, yet a man cannot be both rogue and saint all at the same time. He has to either be a rogue and therefore not deserving of love or he is truly a saint and should either be loved or at the very least not hated. But a man can also be neither rogue nor saint, and therefore not to be hated even if he is not loved. Like President Buhari. He is not a saint yes; but he is definitely not a rogue either. And so if ‘love’ does not blind us to Buhari’s fault of not being a ‘saint’, why should ‘hate’ blind us to his virtue of not being a ‘rogue’. By the way should it not be sufficient that although he is neither rogue nor saint, Buhari is still able to fight roguery without pretending to be a saint? Why should those who celebrate roguery and revere known rogues arrogate the right to hate one who has persevered not to be a rogue, only because he has not lived up to their tall order of being a saint?

    Charlotte Bronte, the 18 Century English novelist gave practical ‘working class’ description of ‘hate’ in her novel ‘Shirley’ -a story set during the anti-industrial riots of the Napoleonic era.  ”Misery” she said “generates hate”, because those in misery have a tendency –often in a most bizarrely unfair manner- to locate someone to blame for their situation. And so referring to the misery of bitter workers displaced by industrial machines in the novel ‘Shirley’, Charlotte said that they “hated the machines which they believed took their bread from them; they hated the buildings which contained the machines; they hated the manufacturers who owned those buildings.”They might as well have hated those who produced the ‘machines’, or even the whole idea about ‘science and technology’, by which the ‘machines’ were made.

    But if all that Charlotte’s justifiably-bitter workers do is ‘hate’ the ‘machines’, and the ‘buildings’ housing the machines, and may be even the ‘manufacturers’ of the machines, only in remonstration of those being the reasons they lost their legitimate means of livelihood, they will, to some extent, be justified –provided that they do nothing to stop the ‘machines’ from working or to destroy the ‘buildings’ housing the machines, or to harm the ‘manufacturers’ of the machine. But what justification will partisan rogues have –who for 16 years had fed ravenously from the fats of the land- to hate a man whose only fault is that he has put an end to their ‘thieving’ bazaar? What justifications have they to suggest that unless he is a ‘saint’ himself, he has no justification to put a stop to their ‘roguery’? Or isn’t that what anti-Buharis are suggesting? That he is not a saint and therefore he should not preach virtue.

    And for Buhari there does not seem to be any let up. Head or tail political hate mongers are determined not only that he does not win, but that in fact he loses: ‘damn him if he does’ and ‘damn him if he doesn’t’! He is damned for not bringing back our girls ‘by any means necessary’ and he is damned for bringing back some of our girls by a means they now insist is unnecessary’. He was damned for being sick -although his sickness was never in the way of governance- and he was damned even for recuperating and getting back on his feet. He was damned because he would not subsidize petrol, and he was damned because he now subsidizes petrol. He is damned because he will not steal; and he is damned because he has blocked all leakages and will not allow others to steal. He is damned for the bad state of the economy (although the one who ruined it is deemed a ‘hero’), and he is damned for initiating necessary measures to revive it. He was damned for being high-handed in securing the nation, and now he is damned for not being high-handed to secure the nation. He is damned for gathering evidence to prosecute corrupt suspect, and he is damned for being unable to secure convictions because of paucity of evidence.

    “The world” said the Spanish poet Juan Ramon Jimenez “is like a map of antipathies, almost of hates, in which everyone picks the symbolic colour of his difference”. Buhari happens to be a beautiful rainbow that attracts all shades of antipathy. They make him worthy of hate by propagating the lie that in his appointment of members of his security team, he is nepotistic and lopsided in favour of the North and Muslims; but they will not admit that he is equally lopsided in favour of the South and Christians in the appointment of members of his economic team. They made him seem like a bigot of ethno-religious kind because he would not visit Benue at the time Ortom’s politically-choreographed ethno-religious burial of 70 was staged; but they will not say a bigot of what kind he was when he did not visit Mambilla where over 800 –attested by a Christian army General- were killed.

    They magnify Buhari’s little, inconsequential frailties to excuse the humongous crimes of their lords and lieges -and so that they set tribe and tongue, religion and geography against one another. “Hypocrisy”, said the British writer, Somerset Maugham “is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue”. It needs, he said “an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirit”; because hypocrisy cannot, “like adultery or gluttony, be practiced at spare moments; it is a whole-time job”. And like prejudice, as someone said, ‘it begets a necessity for carrying on’. For “neither man nor angel” John Milton would say in ‘Paradise Lost’ “can discern hypocrisy” It is the only evil, he said “that walks invisible, except to God alone”.

    But from the allegation of ‘infirmity of mind and body’, to the allegation of ‘Islamization’; from the trumped-up charge of ‘cronyism and nepotism’ in his appointments, to the charge of ‘aiding and abetting ‘killer’ herdsmen’, Buhari’s political adversaries are gradually running out of ideas. And now that all their red herrings have been loaded and expended, who knows, maybe as 2019 fast approaches, they may be forced to return to the only path of decency, the democratic process by which the people alone, and not those who purport to speak for them, can freely and wilfully elect or remove their governments.

  • Revisiting the Air Nigeria project

    Sir: When on July 18, Hadi Sirika the Minister of State for Aviation told a large audience, including aviation experts during the Farnborough International Airshow in United Kingdom of Nigeria preparedness to float “Nigeria Air”, many were ecstatic about the project.

    It therefore, came as a quaking bombshell, when it was announced that the proposed project has been put on hold.

    One continues to wonder if the project was well thought-out and planned, as the sudden suspension clearly portrays a wrong approach and perhaps wasteful decision.  Or how do you explain that a project supposedly well planned was put on hold due to alleged investors’ apathy?

    On July 18, the minister had announced that the erstwhile Nigeria Airways will be making a return to the skies as Nigeria air. The minister said the Nigerian government will inject $8.8million into Nigeria Air as viability gap funding. He said the private sector investors will bring some $300million dollars as start-up capital.

    Perhaps the project would have continued if knowledgeable Nigerians had been involved rather than the snippets dropped here and there by those in charge. Even the views of the Nigerian air operators were waved off as the experts foresaw loopholes in floating a national airline from scratch, when there were still many deficits on the act. One of the notable Nigerians who spoke against the investment was Oby Ezekwesili, former minister of education, who faulted the plan and financial implication of Nigerian Air.

    Having a new national airline is a good and welcome development. However, it would have to go beyond Sirika’s optimism and nice words to become an achievable dream. There must be a renewed commitment from the government and private sector players to see it work, as Nigeria is a sleeping giant that has been stirred from sleep.

    The aviation sector is one of the sectors in the country’s economy that can shake up this giant to consciousness if well harnessed and utilized.

    Therefore, investors with sincere motives should be brought into the plan.

    Also, there should be an agreed plan of such intended and magnificent project just as the place of private public partnership remains valid for this kind of idea. Furthermore, Air Nigeria should go beyond some set of political individuals. We have experts who are Nigerians and will be willing to be part of the think-thank on the initiative and this should be explored totally.

    A project such as Air Nigeria is strategic to the economic growth of the nation and aviation sector. Government should endeavor to resuscitate it. It must not be allowed to die.

     

    • Grace Omowunmi Semudara,

    graciemac1217@gmail.com

  • Revisiting ‘Much Ado About ‘True Federalism’

    People talk about ‘TRUE federalism’ as though there is a particular form of it that is sanctified -and to the extent of which all other forms of it which depart from that sanctity, are necessarily sullied and therefore ‘false’ or ‘untrue’. There is so much noise about Nigeria not practicing ‘true federalism’; or rather practicing a ‘unitary’ system in the disguise of a ‘federal’ one. But truth is no system of power-sharing can be practiced in the guise of another. A system of power-sharing is either ‘con-federal’ and therefore neither ‘unitary’ nor ‘federal’, or it is either ‘unitary’ or ‘federal’ to the exclusion of one and the other. Plus there is neither a ‘true’ nor a ‘false’ form of any of the three, the same way that a person cannot be any less or more ‘human’ merely because he is leaner or fatter than others.

    A ‘confederal’ system is a loose alliance of independent states in full control of their citizens, territories and resources, but bound by a weak centre funded by them to take care of issues of common concern –usually military or commercial or both. Neither the degree of the weakness of the centre nor the extent of the looseness of the alliance, nor again the scope of the independence of the states, can make it any less con-federal or any more so. It is sufficient only that this ‘loose alliance of independent states’ is ‘in full control of their citizens, territories and resources’, and that they are ‘bound by a weak centre funded by them to take care of issues of common concern. It is thus a misnomer to say that a system is a ‘true’ con-federacy –the way we bandy the term ‘true federalism’- when in fact, there is no proof that a ‘false’ form of it exists.

    Or, away from the extreme of ‘loose’ confederacy, a system can be tightly ‘unitary’, with laws conferring virtually all authority to a central, powerful government which controls all the citizens, territories and resources and, at will, can either benevolently delegate to, or malevolently retract, duties from the constituent administrative units, namely the other tiers of government. A unitary system cannot be any less or more so merely because it delegates or retracts less or more duties to or from these constituent units. It is sufficient only that a unitary system arrogates the power to do or not to do either of these. And so it is equally a misnomer to say that a system is ‘truly’ unitary –the way we bandy ‘true federalism’- when there is no proof that a ‘false’ form of it exists.

    A ‘federal’ system on the other hand allows, at least, the sharing of ‘power’ and ‘resources’ between a much stronger centre and its constituent states which, depending on countries, may or may not enjoy varying degrees either of constricting or of expanding ‘autonomy’ –sometimes even bordering on partial ‘independence’. And although the fundamental attribute of a ‘federal system’ basically is that ‘power’ and ‘resources’ are shared between a strong centre and its constituent states, most ‘federal’ systems, almost in a con-federal fashion, are not averse to granting substantial autonomy to states to control even their citizens, their territories and their resources. But this is not to suggest that any such ‘federal system’ that does not do so is any less ‘federal’ than those which do. Bringing us to the same fact, that a ‘federation’ is so called essentially because it allows, even if at the very least, the sharing of ‘power’ and ‘resources’ between two levels of governmental administration, and not necessarily because the central level allows ‘substantial autonomy’ to the constituent parts to control their ‘citizens, their territories and their resources’. Nor will a ‘federal’ system suddenly become ‘unitary’ –as we often allege ours has- merely because it has not moved from ‘sharing power and resources’, to granting ‘substantial autonomy’ to its constituent states to control their citizens, their territories and their resources.

    And so, theoretically-speaking or even if existentially so, a system is either ‘federal’, no matter how profoundly or superficially so, or it simply is not! And so if a system is not ‘federal’ in structure, it can only either be ‘unitary’ or ‘con-federal’ in its make-up. It cannot be a hybrid of one or a crossbreed of the other. The history of these three forms of power sharing arrangements essentially does not admit of classification or definition by half-measures: a cup of these systems is neither ‘half-full’ nor ‘half-empty’! It is either ‘full’ or it is simply ‘empty’.

    Fundamentally therefore, Nigeria, even as it is presently constituted and administered, is not any less a ‘federation’ than virtually any of the so-called democratically-advanced nations of the world that practice that system. That Nigeria has opted to abide only by the most fundamental rudiments of ‘federalism’ –namely sharing ‘power’ and ‘resources’ between the centre and its constituent parts- rather than by allowing ‘full or even substantial autonomy’ to them to ‘control their citizens, their territories and their resources’, neither takes her away from the ‘federation’ that she is nor does it make her the ‘unitary’ system that she is not!

    The system run by Germany for example, in spite of bearing all the semblance of ‘unitarism’ -with the states acting as mere agents for the central government- is equally no less a ‘federation’ than say, even the United States of America which is reputed to operate the best model of it. The sharing of governmental ‘power’ and ‘resources’ between the centre and its constituent parts essentially should be sufficient to preserve the credibility of any nation laying  claim to ‘federalism’ –even as any nation’s partial romance with ‘unitary’ tendencies too, may not be sufficient to make it a ‘unitary’ state. A system –as the German type testifies- may have unitary tendencies and still be a federation even as a unitary system may pretend to tinker with federal tendencies and still be no less unitary.

    And so, how much less of a ‘federation’ any country can allegedly be said to be merely because it exudes partial ‘unitary’ attributes or merely because such country is unable to transit from ‘power’ and ‘resource’-sharing to the granting of ‘partial or substantial autonomy’ to its constituent parts, is a matter more for the contemplation of political science than it is for the consideration of constitutional law. Thus the term ‘true federalism’ essentially is a misnomer, whether it is applied strictly in decrying a nation that ‘shares power and resources’ rather than grant ‘autonomy’, or it is applied trivially in the condemnation of a ‘federation’ that still exhibits unitary tendencies.

    Nigeria is not any less a ‘federal system’ than any of the world renowned practitioners of it, -namely the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Mexico, Switzerland etc. Nor are any two of these listed federations in any way practicing exactly the same form of federalism.

  • Revisiting ‘On Atiku’s ambition’

    “If I can conceive it, and believe it, I can achieve it. It’s not my aptitude but my attitude that will determine my altitude –with a little intestinal fortitude”.  —Jesse Jackson.

    The English playwright John Webster, in ‘The Duchess of Malfi’, was the one who said “Ambition… is a great man’s madness” -impliedly suggesting that the urge to achieve is more the affliction of those who already have achieved, than it is the malady of commoners who should have every reason to want to achieve. If ‘ambition’ is more to the ‘great man’ than it is to the ‘commoner’, the question then arises, ‘why should ‘greatness’ allow itself to be troubled by the wearisome aspiration to be even greater? You would’ve thought that ‘ambition’, if it must be anyone’s ‘patent’, it makes better sense to suggest that it is the hallucination only of the poor or the delirium of the underprivileged.

    And although Shakespeare has said that “lowliness is young ambition’s ladder”, yet the tragedy of the lowly ones, as one British labour leader said, has always been ‘the poverty of their desires’. As the great ones are chastised for being troubled by vaulting ambition, -seeking always to multiply their superfluous possessions and their stations in life- the lowly ones get to be praised for being content with meagre provisions. It is the reason another English playwright Philip Massinger said “Ambition, in a private man a vice, is in a prince the virtue”.

    What higher station in life must a man attain beyond which he seeks no further exploits? When is it enough not to seek to conquer any more territory? Truth is there is no ‘great man’ who has ‘greatness’ enough not to be troubled by the ‘ambition’ to be even greater. Ask America’s Donald Trump who once said “I wasn’t satisfied just to earn a good living. I was looking to make a statement”. Yes, make money, seek the highest political office in the land and have -at the very least- the whole nation, if not the world or a region of it, wait on you!

    Nothing despairs more than to have no further station in life to aspire to. The Macedonian monarch, Alexander the Great must have learnt this lesson the hard way. At the end of all his conquests he would lament the absence of any “more world to conquer”. And so, ‘great men’ will have to do what ‘great men’ have to do: be ambitious; keep accumulating wealth and acquiring stations, in like. Or life’ll cease to have any meaning! It is no sin, Shakespeare said “to labour in thy vocation”. To the high and mighty, vaulting ambition; to the low and lowly, content with high hope for a low heaven.

    And just as Shakespeare described ‘love’ as ‘blind’ because “lovers cannot see the pretty follies that they themselves commit”, so is ‘ambition’ itself ‘deaf’, because the ambitious -the way that the falcon  is doomed not to hear the call of the falconer- cannot hear the freaky voices that often call them to moderation. And maybe it is the reason that Julius Caesar’s Mark Antony said “ambition is (usually) made of sterner stuff”. But as with Philip Massinger’s princes, to whom ambition is no vice but a virtue, so it is with politicians. Or so said Ralph Waldo Emerson, that ambitious politicians, just like ambitious princes, “hitch their wagon (always) to a star”. And like Angus Grossart, the Scottish banker has said, ambitious politicians would rather “die of exhaustion” aiming to ‘hitch their wagon to a star’ than not aiming to do so, ‘die of boredom’.

    And so having hit wealth beyond measure, what should Atiku do if we say that he should not persist in ‘hitching his political wagon to a star’? What should he do? Stay stupendously rich, bored and die? Every great man is entitled to be implacably ambitious; as every commoner is entitled to be an un-stirring bum! And it is to that extent that I think Atiku is more sinned against by those who accused him of being ‘ambitious’, than he has sinned himself because, like Buhari, he has ‘serially’ hitched his political wagon to a star. The British poet Robert Browning said that “a man’s reach should (always) exceed his grasp.” And the American poet, James Whitcomb Riley has provided a logical basis for that: “The ripest peach is highest on the tree.” And if we have no reason to reproach bums who settle for the lower, hanging unripe ‘greens’, we should have no justification to reprimand those who climb high up to reach the ‘ripest’ fruit.

    Nor is Atiku any more sinning than other politicians because he has been ‘serially’ unsteady in choosing a platform from which to ‘hitch his wagon’ to his chosen star. PDP, AC, APC are merely the names of the vessels. But as Shakespeare would ask, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose will smell as good if we call it by another name”. Unless the law expressly forbids change of module by which to ‘hitch one’s political wagon to a chosen star’, every politician is entitled to a choice of party platform as often as the need arises for them to do so. 

    It is sufficient to me that Atiku –from day one- has never made any pretence about his ‘motive’ for joining politics (after a rewarding career in Customs.) His goal has always been to climb up on the tree to ‘the ripest peach’. And that is even in a country where it’s been made some kind of virtue to always aim low even when you can reach higher. Atiku’s political motive has always been to ‘hitch his wagon’ right to our polity’s farthest star, to be president; -even in a society that makes a fetish of ennobling ‘high hopes’ always for ‘low heavens’.

    They say that no sooner had Atiku ‘schemed’ to become governor than he ‘connived’ to become vice president. And that no sooner was he number two than he set out ‘influencing’ the legislature to dethrone his principal. And that when that failed, he had still angled to throw his hat in the ring to contest his boss’ ‘right of first refusal’ for a second term. And especially for these they said Atiku was –or still is- a conniving son-of-a-bitch. But I say no! Atiku is not the ‘son’ of a ‘five letter word’. He is only a scheming and counter-scheming true son of his mother –with an ‘ambition’ –you should know- that is made of the sternest stuff. And a reach to grab the ripest peach.

  • Revisiting the Needs Assessment report

    Nineteen years ago (1999), Nobel laureate Professor Wole Soyinka clamoured for Nigerian universities to be closed down for a year or two in order to fix the rot in the system. A thorough bred scholar and academic, he had seen the level the system had degenerated thus the call for a shutdown.

    We should bear in mind that even the most casual observer know that things are even worse today than it was back then. Many – scholars, parents, employers and concerned stakeholders – have also called for a state of emergency to be declared in the country’s education sector. Given the decay in Nigeria’s university system, it is not surprising that not until recently, no Nigerian university ranks among the best 1,000 in the world. Only the University of Ibadan is now ranked in the top 1,000.

    Concerned about the state of our varsities following a groundswell of public outcry, the Federal Ministry of Education on November 1 2012 set up the Prof. Mahmood Yakubu-led Committee on Needs Assessment of Nigerian Public Universities. The committee submitted its report to then Minister of Education, Prof. Ruqayyatu Ahmed Rufa’I in March 2013. The committee’s report revealed that public universities are grossly mismanaged; engage in activities at variance with the National Policy on Education and are lacking in human and material resources. The varsities were accused of being incapable of supplying the nation’s manpower needs and are said to be bogged down by corruption of various kinds while offering education of poor quality, among others.

    For the benefit of readers who may not know, a Needs assessment is a systematic process for determining and addressing needs, or lacuna between status quo and desired conditions or “wants”. The discrepancy between the status quo and desired condition must be measured to appropriately identify what the needs are. The need can be a desire to improve current academic performance or to correct infrastructural deficiency.

    A Needs assessment therefore is a part of planning processes, often used for improvement in individuals, education/training, organizations, or communities. It can refine and improve a product such as training or service a client receives. It can be an effective tool to clarify problems and identify appropriate interventions or solutions. By clearly identifying and isolating the problem, resources can then be channeled towards developing and implementing a feasible and applicable solution. Needs assessments are only effective when they are ends-focused and provide concrete evidence that can be used to determine which of the possible means-to-the-ends are most effective and efficient for achieving the desired results.

    Prior to the setting up of the committee, which was part of the 2009 agreement between the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the Federal Government, a ‘vote of no confidence’ was been passed on our varsities resulting in the country losing billions of naira through education tourism. Recall that ASUU had in 2009 embarked on a four-month strike, and subsequently strikes upward of seven months, that paralysed the entire public universities sector. On October 21, 2009, ASUU and the Federal Government reached a truce by signing an agreement. The fallout of the signed agreement include the approval of about 50 per cent salary increase for the university lecturers, administrative autonomy for the universities, 70 years retirement age for university professors and enhanced funding of the universities.

    To state that there are crises in Nigeria’s education sector; from primary to tertiary would be an understatement as the evidences are there for all to see. What with lack of adequate infrastructure, high rate of school dropout and out-of-school children, mass failures in external secondary school examinations, brain drain of lecturers and now students, perennial industrial actions by various unions in the education sector, etc.

    The 2013 Needs assessment report showed that majority of the universities are grossly understaffed, rely heavily on part-time and visiting lecturers, have under-qualified academics and have no effective staff development programme outside the Tertiary Education Trust Fund intervention and the Presidential First Class Scholarship programme. The report also affirmed that there are 37,504 academics (83 per cent of which are male) in the country’s public universities. This shows that only 17 per cent of academic staffers in public universities are female. That’s food for thought.

    Also revealed in the report is that only about 43 per cent of Nigerian universities teaching staffs have doctorate degrees; instead of 75 per cent of the academics being between senior lecturers and professors, only about 44 per cent are within the bracket. Only seven universities have up to 60 per cent of their teaching staff with PhD qualification. Also, the ratio of teaching staff to students in many universities is 1:100. For instance, it is 1: 363 at the National Open University of Nigeria; 1:122 at the University of Abuja; and 1:144 at the Lagos State University.

    How does the statistics measured in other climes? In Harvard University, it is 1: 4; Massachusetts Institute of Technology- 1:9; and Cambridge-1:3. The report also stated that there is numerically more support than teaching staff in the universities, instead of the other way round. In some universities, it was discovered that the non-teaching staff double, triple or quadruple the teaching staff. With regard to infrastructure, the committee found that physical facilities for teaching and learning in the public universities are inadequate, dilapidated, over-stretched and improvised.

    As we daily clamour for the resuscitation of our comatose industries which we know is critical for sustained job creation, do we have the manpower if this happens? It doesn’t appear so as the report also indicted our varsities in that regard. It says laboratories and workshops equipment as well as consumables are either absent, inadequate or outdated. Kerosene stoves are being used as Bunsen burners in some! Some engineering workshops operate under zinc sheds and trees, and many science-based faculties are running what is referred to as “Dry Lab,” due to lack of reagents and tools to conduct real experiments. The committee also documented that 163 of the 701 physical uncompleted projects it found had been abandoned.

    That is definitely not all as there are still more to come in a nation that wants to be counted among the top 20 economies by 2020 (two years’ time). Take the issue of students’ enrolment; the report revealed that there are a total of 1,252,913 students in the public universities: 85 per cent undergraduates; five per cent sub-degree; three per cent postgraduate diploma; five per cent Master’s and two per cent Ph.D. As against the National Policy on Education that stipulates 60:40 enrolments in favour of science-based programmes, 66.1 per cent of them are studying arts, social sciences, and management and education courses.

    Only 16 per cent of students are studying science and science-education courses; 6.3 per cent, engineering; five per cent, Medicine, while 6.6 are studying Agriculture, Pharmacy and Law. It beats my imagination how the ratio 60:40 science bias enrolment could be achieved given the deplorable state of science laboratories and workshops. It is noteworthy that enrolment continues to be a big issue in our universities.

    There is little doubt that this report makes a very depressing reading and calls our sanity as a nation to question. As I reflected on it again I discovered that mediocrity has dealt us a massive blow than we previously thought. How do we expect to develop when our citadels of higher learning are nothing short of glorified secondary schools? How and when did we descend this low and how do we expect to hold our heads high in the comity of 2st century nations when our graduates are half baked? How in God’s name do we hope to compete in a technologically driven world? Most of our policy makers travel to other countries and institutions to “understudy” their systems, what have they been “understudying” over the years?

    Commentaries and editorials have been written about the ugly state of infrastructure in the public universities; political positions have been taken and general condemnations made; but this is the time to right the wrongs. Let’s revisit the report once again.

  • Poverty: Revisiting Theresa May’s concern

    Sir: Ahead of her August 29, visit to Nigeria, British Prime Minister, Theresa May, remarked that 87 million Nigerians live on less than $1.90 a day, making Nigeria “home to more very poor people than any other nation in the world.” It is interesting how the statement attracted public attention almost as if it is a new discovery. The truth is that Ms. May could have made the statement to justify why her visit to Nigeria was a priority for UK government. Whether such a justification is validated with reference to details of bilateral relations between UK and Nigeria is a different matter entirely.

    Somehow, the temptation to interpret Ms. May’s statement based on political assessment of performance of Nigerian government tends to be the dominant consideration. Be that as it may, it is however important that we remind ourselves that since 1999, national poverty headcount has never gone below 54%. The most recent was the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) report of findings of 2010 Harmonised National Living Standard Survey (HNLSS) released on February 13, 2012, which indicated that poverty in Nigeria increased from 54.4% in 2004 to 69% or 112,518,507 in 2010. With estimated population of about 200 million now, poverty headcount of 87 million as highlighted by Ms. May would mean significant reduction in the number of people living below the poverty line in Nigeria to 43.5% from 69%. This would represent estimated decrease of 25.5% or using the 2012 numeric value of 112.5 million, a reference that more than 25 million Nigerians escape from poverty between 2012 and now. This could as well be the revelation.

    How true would such a revelation be?

    Somehow, May’s remarks have been politicised completely out of context and the dominant interpretation is suggestive of the failure of the current government.

    It is important to acknowledge that notwithstanding whatever political assessment we may want to pass, there is today some structured responsive anti-poverty programme under the office of the Vice President. Designated as National Social Investment Programme, it ensures credible method of targeting the poor and vulnerable for the reduction of poverty, effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, among others. Predicated on the need for a more sustained and inclusive economic growth, reduced poverty rates and closing the wide inequality gap between the rich and the poor, it is anchored on four pillars, namely, N-Power, Cash Transfer, Home Grown School Feeding and Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme (GEEP).

    Removing the toga of politics out of the discussion of poverty in Nigeria would reveal that the National Social Investment initiative of the current government is one of its landmark successes. It is partly a recognition of this that facilitated the return of Abacha loot with the condition that they are invested in the poor through conditional cash transfers. This is besides the considerable budgetary provisions of N500 billion for the four pillars of social investment, N40 billion for SDGs, N65 billion for reintegration of transformed ex-militants under the Presidential Amnesty Programme and N45 billion for Federal Initiative for North-East under the 2018 Federal Government budget, among others.

    Depending also on our political dispositions, we are likely to emphasise or dismiss all these. No doubt, there would be limitations, just as there are good scorecards. A lot more would be required to improve it. However, it is to the credit of current administration that the management of the Federal Government Social Investment Programme is insulted from partisan considerations, unlike in the past. Citizens’ engagement would be needed to boost capacity of delivery to achieve reduced poverty.

     

    • Salihu Moh. Lukman,

    smlukman@gmail.com.

  • Revisiting ‘June 12’s enemy judges’

    Like one writhing in the pangs of judicial guilt, in a valedictory about a decade ago marking his retirement from service, Justice Abdullahi Mustapha –one of the infamous federal judges who presided over the treason trial of the late MKO, said that the winner of Nigeria’s freest and fairest election would not have died in detention if he had not spurned the conditional bail he (Mustapha) had granted him. Besides being proverbially an ‘after-death-the-doctor’ kind of self-praise, this unsolicited piece of irrelevant orbiter merely reversed the saying that ‘the witch cried at night and the baby died at dawn’. Justice Mustapha should have dedicated his retirement quietly to seeking God’s forgiveness for the despicable role he played not only in that deceptive bail offer, but more despicably so in siding with the Abacha junta to give Abiola a tough trial. But he chose to attempt to re-write history, casting his odious role in the epic of a ‘benevolent judge-hero’ who had gratuitously offered the gift of life –but that Abiola rejected it.

    This judge, like the late Justice Bassey Ikpeme –the ill-foretoken female judge who granted the dead-at-night judgment leading to the annulment of June 12- was one of those ‘hand-in-glove’ with the Abacha junta in its desperate efforts to bury the ghost of June 12 by keeping its acclaimed winner under judicial lock and key. After toppling Shonekan, not a few unconscionable politicians, lawyers and judges were prostrate at the foothill of Abacha’s jackboots offering all manner of advice on how to tame the genie of June 12 to create an imperial presidency for Abacha. The late ‘Comrade’ Uche Chukwumerije, a member of that interregnal contraption called ‘Interim Government’, even toyed with the idea of a decree outlawing the mention of ‘June 12’ in public places.

    In retrospect, an untrustworthy General Babangida, to reassure Nigerians about the sincerity of his unending transition programme, had promulgated a decree ousting the jurisdiction of courts in any suit seeking to stop the 1993 presidential election. In fact Babangida’s second in command, the late Admiral Augustus Aikhomu had made a habit of bragging about the regime’s fidelity to its promise, citing this ouster decree as proof. But behind the scenes, the regime was working with the notorious Arthur Nzeribe under a dubious ‘Association for Better Nigeria’ ABN, first to de-campaign the forthcoming election and eventually, as planned, to use the courts to abort the entire process. Ironically when the suit seeking to stop the election was filed, the same Judiciary which had laboured under the yoke of military decrees and ouster clauses, was only too glad to provide the services of a newly appointed Justice Bassey Ikpeme who ignobly disregarded the subsisting ouster decree, and granted an order that would set the chain of judicial events leading to the annulment of June 12.

     

    The bail circus

    After the arrest and arraignment of MKO for declaring himself President, Justice Abdullahi Mustapha must have been deliberately selected too for the case and who, in the course of a long, tortuous trial neither hid his aversion for June 12 nor his readiness to compromise the judicial process in the service of the military junta. Else why would a judge claiming to act independently be flown by government in a presidential jet from his Benin base then, to Abuja on a Saturday to grant bail -on a treason charge- to an accused person who previously was not even allowed a leave of court granted to him to have regular access to his lawyers and personal physician? This ‘Saturday’ bail which could not wait just two more days to the next Monday and which had to be given so surreptitiously in a court without clerks or bailiffs, many said, had more to it than met the eye.

    Because, what manner of bail was that at the grant of which not even Abiola’s lead Counsel GOK Ajayi was in court, but some curious-looking Abacha foot soldiers claiming to ‘represent Abiola’s interest’? Many had wondered if Justice Mustapha, -claiming to have acted independently- had thought it necessary to convene his court on a Saturday in order to grant a bail that could not wait till Monday, why was it not equally expedient that the accused should be served the bail papers as expeditiously as the bail itself was surreptitiously arranged? We would later discover that the Mustapha bail was a ruse -a carefully choreographed offer never intended to be executed. Abacha’s pariah junta needed some breather from the harangues especially of an international community pushing for the release of MKO and the resolution of June 12. And so creating a make-belief bail grant and then alleging that Abiola had spurned the offer would kill two birds with one stone: it would revitalize the worsted image of the junta abroad and most importantly shift the onus of resolving the June 12 impasse off a now ‘benevolent’ Abacha.

    When it was expedient for Abacha to prove the ‘Diya coup’ attempt, he merely gave a video tape to NTA showing a contrite Diya begging for clemency. If the bail offer was real and Abiola had truly rejected it, Nigerians would have been treated to another epic footage revealing a belligerent Abiola or his lawyers refusing the offer. In actual fact, it was not until six days after the bail grant that Abiola’s lawyer, G.O.K Ajayi was allowed to see his client and during which Abiola was to know about the Greek gift called ‘Abiola bail’ for the first time. And the proof of this came after the late FRA Williams took over the case from G.O.K and his attempt to perfect the same bail was now vehemently opposed by the same prosecution on the flimsy grounds that the bail documents were ‘forged’. And you wondered ‘by who?’ And to what end?

    If memory serves right, it was at this point in the absurdly frivolous debate over the quality of the bail documents that a certain Justice Senlong -newly appointed to the Abiola case- went a little out of judicial decorum to even accuse the government of ‘executive rascality’. Justice Mustapha lied about Abiola refusing bail; because there was in fact no bail.

     

    In the hall of Saleh’s infamy

    And now long after the ignoble post-retirement orbiter of Justice Abdullahi Mustapha, came another despicable icing on the cake of a familiar judicial infamy: the post-dismissal bombast of another June 12 enemy, Justice Dahiru Saleh, claiming in a recent interview that it was he -and not Babangida- who annulled June 12. And now ‘with the rusty curb of old father antic the law’, our judicial system has degenerated so much that a judge would proudly stake claim to the ignoble anti-democratic deed of a military dictator!

    In disregard of an ouster decree, Justice Ikpeme granted a dead-in-the-night order stopping the conduct of the June 12 election. The electoral chief, Humphrey Nwosu rightly disregarded this order and conducted the election. Then Justice Saleh –also in breach of the ouster decree- granted another order- stopping further announcement of the election results, followed by another declaring the election ‘null and void’. This order was in disregard of the electoral commission’s pending appeal against Justice Ikpeme’s obnoxious injunction which started it all. And then Babangida, -relying on or in disregard of -Justice Saleh’s last declaration, announced, on behalf of the ruling military council that the election stood annulled! And so, it was not so much about who deserved the trophy for annulling the election, as it was that the election was annulled.

    The horde of hunters by which the lonesome rabbit of June 12 was environed, and the multiple bangs from their anxious guns obviated the search for who killed the poor rabbit. And so what does it matter if we prove that Babangida, Ikpeme or Saleh annulled June 12? Isn’t it sufficient that a confederacy of all of them did it?

  • Revisiting Sexual Harassment Bill

    Let me be very clear on our position on this bill. This is a bill that must be passed into law. It is either we enact this law to send sexual predator lecturers to prison for correction according to law under the fine democratic tenets of the rule of law or we provoke helpless parents, husbands, or guardians to, some day, pick a loaded gun and deal with this problem in a barbaric manner. Therefore, we passionately urge the Senate to ensure that it does not by inaction impose the Hobbesian state of nature of a banana republic on victims of sexual harassment in our tertiary institutions and their relatives by provoking them to fight for themselves by all means possible, including outside the law!”

    – Comrade Idongesit Micah

    Apart from the Constitution Amendment Bill, the yearly Appropriation Bill and Petroleum Industry Bill, I do not immediately recall any other bill that is fundamental to the future of this country as the Sexual Harassment in Tertiary Educational Institutions (Prohibition) Bill, sponsored by Sen. Ovie Omo-Agege and 46 others. The proposed law has since been passed by the Senate and is now awaiting the concurrence of the House of Representatives.

    The Bill prohibits any form of sexual relationship between lecturers and their students and prescribes jail term of up to five years but not less than two years with no option of fine for lecturers who engage in sexual relationship with students.

    According to Omo-Agege, the Bill, among others, “makes it a criminal offence for any educator in a university, polytechnic or any other tertiary educational institution to violate or exploit the student-lecturer fiduciary relationship for sexual pleasures;  vice chancellors of universities, rectors of polytechnics and other chief executives of institutions of higher learning will go to jail for two years if they fail to act within a week on complaints of sexual harassment made by students; the Bill expressly allows sexually harassed students, their parents or guardians to seek civil remedies in damages against sexual predator lecturers before or after their successful criminal prosecution by the State.”

    In every chance discussion since the current Bill became public knowledge, almost everyone has one sorry story to tell, either about themselves, their friends, family members or acquaintances across the nation’s campuses. We are here not talking about some bad eggs, the usual escapist argument. All the eggs are bad except a few! And it is our responsibility to encourage those few dons that are nurturing a great future for Nigeria. This Bill, in a way, should boost the morale of such conscientious teachers.

    Lecturers in Nigeria have turned our campuses into individual fiefdoms where they reign and rule; they have become gods that must be appeased by our youths. Lecturers enjoy near absolute freedom which you don’t find in other workplaces.

    I have a friend at the University of Ibadan (UI). She’s chaste, hardworking and cerebrally endowed. She’s been on her Master’s programme for over three years now. The supervisor is always on the road or in the air and always too busy.

    “What does the professor supervisor want? Money, gift or what?” I asked.

    “Friendship!”

    “But she knows you’re married?”

    “Marriage! If you’re a spinster, they say that’s good, if you’re married, they say that’s better, and if you’re pregnant, then you are in the best condition!”

    “So the situation has sunk such deep?”

    “Some of them even tell female students to meet them in hotels, which the students must pay for… but it happens on all campuses.”

    “But why don’t you report or get another supervisor?”

    “You can’t be sure my brother, these people have a clique… And if you report, who are the people to sit in judgement? Their colleagues! So, I’m not bothered again because my hands are engaged anyway…”

    I have heard ASUU members argue, again and again, that no good student can be successfully victimized. It’s the most infantile argument I’ve ever heard (in the same mould as the current argument by ASUU that the Sexual Harassment Bill violates university autonomy – as if the police require any sanction of a varsity to investigate a crime or arrest a criminal within that university system!); in fact, scandalous because this is coming from university dons. Students are not equally endowed. There are A students as well as B, C and D. While it may, theoretically, be difficult to successfully victimize an A or B candidate, it is pretty easier to victimize a C or D student. Are the average students therefore not at the mercy of prurient lecturers? And what percentage of our varsity’s students are in A or B category? Certainly, a tiny percentage. But the reality on our campuses is that no student is immune from victimization. We’ve had cases where sadistic lecturers removed some pages of answer booklets and later blamed the candidates for the offence. Even an A student may be weak in a particular course and hence could only get a D. Can such a student not be victimized easily in the said course? The dissolute teachers have however become wiser; they fail you through their proxies so you may not lay any blame at their doorsteps. The conditions on campuses are clearly weighed against the (female) students.

    The argument by ASUU that the Bill is discriminatory because sexual harassment is not peculiar to tertiary institutions is equally not sustainable. In those other instances or places where you have this crime committed, they are generally among adults and fiduciary relationship is virtually non-existent. But on our campuses, our children are ranged against marauding fathers who hold the power to determine who or who does not graduate and when. The government puts these students in your care and pays you to teach them to become great asset to the country but you abuse them and turn them into liabilities to the society.

    Of course, I am very much aware of provocative dressing by some students. But if students lose their common sense, must their lecturers also lose their sense of value? Indecent dressing or not, once these randy dons set their eyes on certain students, they do not take ‘No’ for an answer and if you dare them, they or their licentious colleagues fire you with Ds, Es and Fs. That is the cult system higher education has been reduced to in the country. Having hit a stone wall, the students succumb and go in with their fathers’ mates in order to graduate at the right time.

    I recall the authorities of the University of Lagos approved a dress code for their students over a decade ago… I was once told of a disciplinarian lecturer at UI who would not condone indecent dressing.  Students (male and female) dressed well for his classes. Such a code could be revived in all tertiary institutions of learning because we are concerned with “learning” and “character”. Students must dress responsibly. They should conduct themselves as the pride of the nation, the reason for our hope in the future.

    I have no doubt the Bill will be passed by the National Assembly and President Muhammadu Buhari, the change agent, will sign it into law.

     

    • Soyombo, a public affairs commentator, sent this piece via densityshow@yahoo.com

  • Revisiting: AAA, 10 years after

    How might the late Senator Abraham Aderibigbe Adesanya (AAA) have assessed the May 2 Lagos gathering in his honour?

    Beam with his familiar smile of utmost satisfaction?

    Or throw in a wry smile, mocking the Nigerian penchant for willy-nilly consensus — even on a regnant buzz like “restructuring”?

    A nation does not yoke together and develop on the easy diet of self-serving consensus — just a heartbeat from cant.

    It rather achieves both on rigorous ethos, tough principles and lasting values, universal, shared and beneficial, to every age.

    That would appear absent from that Lagos pot-pouri; and that would jar on AAA’s fealty to principle.

    Which was why a mocking irony, like an apparition, hung over the gathering, but was hardly noticed: MKO.

    MKO Abiola was the martyr of the June 12, 1993 presidential election.  The MKO/NADECO resistance to that annulment re-calibrated the ethnic given in the Nigerian political power calculus; and roused others’ dream to the Nigerian presidency.

    It also vaulted AAA to the summit of influence, in Yoruba progressive politics; and drove the supremacy of Afenifere, at the turn of 1999.

    So, without MKO, not a few would have legitimately argued, AAA wouldn’t have unfurled, in his purest and most glorious form, in principled and trusted leadership.

    Yet, all through the ceremony, no one seemed to remember MKO — not even his widow Dr. Doyinsola Abiola, one of the symposium speakers, who nevertheless made a passing reference to her husband’s attempt at the presidency — enough to warrant a minute’s silence in his memory!

    Still, that gathering teemed with those that sustained the June 12 annulment crime, which led to the death, after four years of detention, of a man whose “crime” was winning a free election.

    On MKO, even while celebrating AAA, Nigeria had moved on!

    Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar was chairman of the occasion.  After MKO’s sudden death, he worked closely with AAA to midwife the return of civil rule in 1999.

    But Gen. Abubakar has an epochal query to answer: how did MKO suddenly expire  under his care?  For all of Sani Abacha’s villainy, that never happened under his charge.

    But you can’t really strafe Gen. Abubakar, for he carries himself with exceedingly good grace; flaunting neither virtue nor villainy.

    That cannot be said of Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, who was also there; as boss of AAA’s only daughter, Dupe Adelaja, one of his first-term ministers.

    So far, there is no proof Obasanjo was part of the Babangida annulment.  But he would appear part of its criminal sustenance, from the Interim National Government (ING) early days.

    Obasanjo’s prime contribution was eternal intrigue, if not outright perfidy.  He never, even for a second, acknowledged MKO — not before, not after his presidency.  Yet, he was chief beneficiary of MKO’s martyrdom.

    Even appointing Mrs Adelaja, as minister, was to undermine her father, who saw the treachery and instantly balked.  That would signal the opening salvo, aside from the Bola Ige entrapment, to subvert the AD.  It climaxed with the 2003 vile double-cross of the party’s South West governors, despite AAA’s strident warning.

    When the smoke cleared, Ige had lost his life; AD had become comatose; and Obasanjo’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), by stealth, had taken over the South West, with disastrous consequences.

    Why PDP, Obasanjo’s former battering ram, the old fox is now busy buffeting, in favour of new toy, African Democratic Congress (ADC), in his latest racket!  Whoever haggles with the Ebora Owu and heads home with a bargain?

    Also at the AAA symposium was John Nwodo, president of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, who launched a rather wild attack on Chief Bisi Akande, for “not telling President Buhari the truth”!

    Suffice to say: that attack was completely indecorous.  You don’t attack a man who couldn’t — or wouldn’t, because of his breeding — respond in kind, more so when that person is a respected elder.  Besides, what is Nwodo’s definition of “truth”; and what is his proof of Akande’s “guilt”?

    Yet, Chief Nwodo made a forceful pitch, as a passionate “restructuring” neophyte.  Even then, his regale, as a youth national executive of the Second Republic National Party of Nigeria (NPN), teemed with self-indictment.  If the bid for Nigeria’s re-federalization is not new, what was the young Nwodo’s take, as an NPN rising star, back then?

    Perhaps his Saul, over the years, turned Paul?  That’s not to be decried.  A fairer federal Nigeria is, after all, a win-win for all.

    Still, by Nwodo’s rather impassioned take on the security appointment imbalance and the IPOB “terrorist” status question, you could tell he was pushing a specific agenda — no crime, though — from the prism of newfound “restructuring”.

    Security appointments, with no Igbo input, may well be skewed.  But whoever heard Nwodo’s voice when, under President Goodluck Jonathan, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, made the Federal Ministry of Finance and its parastatals an impregnable Igbo fort, and when confronted, declared the Igbo could “rather compete”?

    Perhaps, Nwodo wasn’t Ohanaeze leader then.  But he was all through the Nnamdi Kanu IPOB lunacy; and no one heard him raise his voice until Kanu’s madness attracted counter-madness from ”Northern youths”: their ultimatum for the Igbo to leave the North.

    Even, back to the MKO annulment saga.  Wasn’t it Nwodo’s brother, Okwesilieze, as then sitting Enugu governor, who swore to sentence himself to self-exile, should MKO’s mandate be revalidated?

    The moral from all these?  Simple.  Genuine fighters for justice don’t make it just about themselves.  They rally for everyone, every time.  So long for Nwodo’s “restructuring” high horse!

    Surprisingly, even Prof. Banji Akintoye, famed historian of the best cut, made an uncharacteristically rash attack on those who claimed “Allah” had given them divine rule over Nigeria.  Seated in that hall were invited friends that could rile to no end.

    Besides, who doesn’t know such claims belong to the lunatic fringe — and which ethnic group lacks its own lunatic fringe?  So, how fair is using the fringe to tar the whole?

    Though Afenifere lugs little record of selective crusade for justice, that such incongruous voices resonated at an AAA show, appear proof of Afenifere’s plummet from its pristine high ideals, to base irredentism, while hectoring “restructuring”.

    True, restructuring is a win-win for all, but not as an all-comers’ cant that means different things to different people.  Besides, pushing it without fixing the current oozing national moral rot could be counter-productive.

    What does it benefit restructuring, and its resultant re-regionalization, if the central parasites of today become the regional parasites of the future?

    That is the danger of willy-nilly consensus on “restructuring”.  Nigeria’s future must be anchored on a more rigorous base.