The Republican Party candidate in the November 9 Presidential Election of the United States (U.S.) Donald Trump has riled many civilised people with his crude language and vulgarity, a character that many said does not reflect the ideals of his party. WALE AJETUNMOBI, who has just returned from Foreign Press Centre (FPC) reporting tour in the U.S., writes on the anxieties which threw up Trump in the U.S. politics.
The politics of the United States (U.S.) has its peculiarities, but it beats the imagination of many Americans how Donald Trump – the Republican Party candidate – rose to become the Grand Old Party’s (GOP’s) nominee for the November 8 presidential contest.
Apart from his vulgarity, which gradually draws many cultured people away from the party, Trump’s choice of words during the GOP primaries and in the ongoing campaign is deemed offensive and unbecoming of a prospective occupant of the U.S. presidency.
“Trump is careless with words and people are worried if he would not bring the country to another war,” says Elizabeth Sherman, an Assistant Professor at the Department of Government of American University in Washington DC.
With the level of sophistication of the U.S. politics, Sherman wondered how the Republican Party threw up Trump, which she described as “unpredictable illiterate”, to raise its flag in the presidential race. Not even decades of his international business engagements could refine his vulgarity, the assistant professor suggested.
For the millennials (youths born between 1980 and 1995), Trump is feared, not because of his vulgarity but for the unpredictability of his character and state of mind. “America is one of the world’s super power, and occupants of its presidency must be people whose character can be vouched for,” says Carlos Veraza, a second year International Relations student at the American University in Washington DC.
For those wondering about the contradiction which threw up Trump, John Zogby, a renowned public opinion pollster, author and founder of the Zogby Poll, has an answer.
According to the 68-year-old author of Arab America Today: A Demographic Profile of Arab Americans, history of the U.S. is replete with peculiar tension.
“It is usually tension between the “modern” and those “fighting against” the modern,” said Zogby during an interaction with foreign journalists from 23 countries who participated in Foreign Press Centre (FPC) tour organised by the U.S. Department of State.
The renowned American pollster said the contradiction remained a constant theme in the U.S. history, at least every 30 years.
He said Trump was propelled to political limelight by the growing anxieties over the decline of the White middle-class that sees its America falling apart. Among the predominantly white middle-class, the sentiment is mostly financial.
Polls conducted by Zogby showed 37 per cent of American adults, who still working, get jobs that pay less than the previous jobs. Even after wages and salaries have remained static, the polls results showed that many people have not kept up with the cost of living.
“There is a real sense of losing ground of what sociologist would call status anxiety, said Zogby.
He continued: “From 2005 to 2006, three out of four Americans said the American Dream is alive and well. Today, what we are hearing from many people in the White middle-class is that, ‘I am afraid of no longer being middle-class’ and ‘I am very afraid that my children will not be’. This is a real fear. Not only for wages, but because of the transformation of the U.S. economy. America has managed to lose an old manufacturing and information economy, without quickly replacing it with the next economy. So, there is a fear that people are being left behind.”
Zogby said the middle-class being referred to should not be seen in a financial or economic term. “It is a psychological term,” he said, adding: “It is a product of how you feel. And if you feel that you are losing ground, that is how you behave.”
The second source of anxiety among the White middle-class is demography and culture, the pollster said. People, he said, frequently asked: “What happened to my America?”
Zogby said: “There is a report that, by 2042, America would be a nation of the minority of Whites and majority of non-Whites. Many Americans in their communities look out over their windows and see Latinos, Arabs, Muslims and people who are not like them. They ask what happened to America. They gay weddings happening everywhere is another concern. It is hard to come to grips when you are losing ground.”
The third source of the anxiety, Zogby said, is America’s role in the world. He said many people believe the U.S. is supposed to be the unchallenged superpower.
He said: “If you look at how Americans view the proper role of the U.S. in the world, take the age of 50 as your demarcation. Americans of over 50 years of age and older, see everything about the country. Those are the Americans who know the story of the Cold War. They saw good and evil, right and wrong. Those are very easy words to understand.
“Take Americans 50 years of age and less, especially the young people, they see Iraq, Afghanistan, helpless superpower that doesn’t go in to make things better but, can, in fact, make things worse. This is the fundamental battle today. There is no question that the majority is the demographic change in the country and it is those that are 50 years and younger.”
Zogby observed that there is a decline in the number of millennials who turn out to vote in major elections. Demographically, he said there was little the millennials could do to stop the victory of either of the major candidates in the November 8 presidential election – Trump and Senator Hillary Clinton.
The pollster said: “Take a look at the demographics in the last four presidential elections. In 2008, 74 per cent of total votes was from White voters; 9.2 per cent was from Latinos, 12.9 per cent was from African-Americans. And 19.2 per cent of the total voters were between 18-29 years. These figures were almost the same in 2012, where 71 per cent White voted, and Latinos 10.1 per cent, African-American 14.1 per cent, young voter, 19.2 per cent.
“If you look at the congressional elections of 2010 and 2014, you would wonder how the U.S. could have been the same country, because 78-79 per cent of the White voted, six per cent of Latinos, six to 10 per cent of young voters. Republicans won huge majority in both elections. This question is: can young voters turn out to vote? Who will they vote for?”
As pundits predicted, the Republican Party candidate for the November 8 presidential election of the United States (U.S.), Mr. Donald J. Trump, last night, bungled the chance to refine his conduct and uncouth rhetoric at the first debate with his main challenger – Senator Hillary Clinton – held at Hofstra University in New York.
For the whole of the 90 minutes, Clinton put the Grand Old Party (GOP) candidate on the defense, making Trump to speak less on his porgramme, but more on uncharitable comments he had previously made against African-American, Hispanics, Muslims, President Barack Obama’s citizenship and his approval of Russian hackers’ breaking into American computer network.
Trump started the debate with the calm disposition. Some 30 minutes later, the Republican candidate became temperamental, interrupting his rival and Lester Holt, the debate’s anchor. Clad in a black suit, white shirt and blue tie, Trump drank periodically from a glass cup of water placed in his front, while his tie abnormally rested on the lapel as he charged his Clinton.
Trump’s disagreement with Clinton at the debate, watched by over 100 million Americans, stemmed from jobs, taxes, nuclear threat, gun control, and racial expletives. For him, it was the time to debunk spiteful comments he made in the past and set the record straight. But, Clinton had ample opportunity to further woo undecided voters as she explained how she would lead the country if elected.
Trump said America has become a third-world country because of the economy mismanagement. He took an open swipe at Clinton’s husband, saying former President Bill Clinton signed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he described as “one of the worst things that ever happened in the manufacturing industry”.
Clinton did not betray any emotion when Trump criticised her husband. “That is your opinion,” she calmly replied Trump.
Trump’s unpaid tax became prominent as the debate progressed. Clinton insinuated that the GOP candidate may not have paid any federal tax since he started as his business, nothing that Trump only turned in tax to state authorities when he wanted to get the license for his casino business.
“That makes me smart,” Trump said, adding: “I will release my tax returns against my lawyer’s wishes when she (Clinton) releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release my tax returns.”
Clinton admitted fault in her e-mail scandal.“If I had to do it over again, I would obviously do it differently. But I’m not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake and I take responsibility for that,” she said.
But, Trump dismissed Clinton’s admission of the mistake as disgraceful, saying: “That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely….I think it’s disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it is this…really thinks it is disgraceful also.”
On bringing back manufacturers and job creation, Clinton said: “Let’s remember where we were eight years ago; we had the worst financial crisis – the great recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was, in large part, because of tax policies that slash taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street and created a perfect storm…
“Nine million people lost their jobs. Five million people lost their homes. And 1$3 Trillion in family wealth was wiped out. Now, we have come back from that abyss. And it has not been easy. So we are now on the precipice of having a potentially much better economy. But the last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place. Independent experts have looked at what I have proposed and looked at what Donald (Trump) has proposed.
“They have looked at my plans, and they have said okay if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs. It is because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy.”
Trump disagreed, saying: “The first thing is…don’t let the jobs leave. The companies are leaving. I could name thousands of them; they are leaving and they are leaving in bigger numbers than ever…”
In his usual rhetoric, Trump said: “Excuse me, I will bring back jobs. You (Clinton) can’t bring back jobs.”
The GOP candidate insinuated that President Obama and Clinton created ISIS because of the manner America pulled out of Iraq. Trump said Obama should have left about 10,000 soldiers and taken over the Iraqi oil, noting that access to the oil field by Islamist militants led to the creation of ISIS.
Clinton responded: “Our military is assisting in Iraq, and we are hoping that within the year, we will be able to push ISIS out of Iraq. And then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria. But we have to be cognizant of the fact that they’ve had foreign fighters coming to volunteer for them, foreign money, foreign weapons. So we have to make this the top priority, and I would also do everything possible to take out their leadership.”
The Democratic candidate reiterated that she would employ diplomacy to deal with nuclear proliferation, describing Trump as a war-monger who would not have the patience to engage in diplomacy.
Clinton said: “He (Trump) has said repeatedly that he didn’t care if other nations got nuclear weapons – Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia. It has been the policy of the United States, Democrats and Republicans, to do everything we could to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
“So, a man who can be provoked by a tweet shouldn’t have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes as far as I think anyone with any sense about this should be concerned.”
The outcome of the debate may have given a large number of undecided voters the freedom to choose between the two candidates. Post-debate CNN polls showed that 55 per cent of undecided voter believe Trump does not have temperament and capacity to handle the Presidency. This is against 43 per cent who believe Clinton cannot.
Also, 62 per cent of undecided voters believed Clinton won the debate, while 27 per cent thought Trump won. Although opinions are divided over the performance of the two leading candidates at the debate, but voters in Colorado believe Trump did not say much about his plan to lead the country.
While concise post-debate traditional polling results on “who is likely to win the race” are still being awaited, Trump may have slid further in losing the support of millennial voters, because of his “woeful performance” at the debate.
“Trump did not do any better,” says Alexander Price, a millennial voter, who watched the debate at the American Press Club building in Downtown Denver. He said the conduct of the Republican candidate did not change in the debate, saying: “This is a woeful performance for Mr. Trump.”
Despite their aversion to the utterances and campaign tone of Mr. Donald Trump, several college republicans have endorsed the candidature of the Grand Old Party (GOP). But, Trump endorsement by the college republican groups does not have binding effect on the liberty of individual students to vote for their candidates of choice among the four contenders for the Oval Office.
Mr. Trump’s popularity among millennial voters is declining, because the youth feel his conducts and campaign language are not presidential and disrespect the cherished American diversity as preached by the country’s founding fathers.
Before he won his party nomination, the Republican Party candidate riled African-Americans, Hispanics and Muslims with unprintable expletives, threatening to deport Muslims and Latinos and shut American borders against them. Many college Republicans endured taunts from independent millennials over Mr. Trump’s hateful rhetoric, but none of them has found the courage to openly defend the GOP candidate’s hate speeches.
Trump’s endorsement came in the wake of many College Republican chapters in various esteemed universities, including Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University, opting not to endorse the GOP presidential nominee—and even going so far as to endorse Libertarian presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, as was done at Cornell University in New York, Mr. Trump’s homestead.
It was not all smooth sail for Mr. Trump to win the support of college republicans across universities. It was tie votes across colleges when Trump’s endorsement was discussed among young Republicans.
At the University of Virginia (UVA), a motion to endorse Trump almost tore apart the chapter’s young Republicans, majority of whom criticised the GOP candidate’s spiteful remarks against the fallen Muslim-American soldier, Captain Humayun Khan.
The late Capt Khan, a UVA alumnus, was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq while serving in the U.S. Army. The UVA Republican chapter voted 67-63 to endorse Trump. The tie outcome showed deep resentment for Trump’s candidature among the college Republicans.
At the University of Michigan, Trump’s official endorsement was forced on college Republicans, some of whom vowed to cast their ballots for the Libertarian Party’s candidate, Gary Johnson.
President of Young Republicans at the University Michigan, told members: “The College Republicans at the University of Michigan will officially be endorsing the Trump-Pence campaign for this election. I know that some you may not agree with all of Mr. Trump’s statements and policies, but the campaign is not about one person. Mr. Trump in the White House comes with an entire administration of conservatives that, as Republicans, share many of the same ideals that we would not see represented under Clinton’s presidency.
“And any vote not for Trump is a vote for Clinton. But regardless of your views on Mr. Trump, I encourage you all to make the effort to go to the polls and vote down-ballot Republican for your state and congressional candidates.”
The GOP candidate has not extended a hand of fellowship to young Republicans across the college, an action that is drawing many youths away from the Republican campaign train.
During a discussion with Foreign Press Centres Tour participants at the UVA, members of College Republicans declined to comment on Trump campaign. They rather focused on pushing the candidacy of Mr. Tom Garrett, who is vying for the U.S. Congress membership in 2018 mid-term elections.
Next Monday, Senator Hillary Clinton and Mr. Donald Trump – the leading candidates in the November 8 presidential election of the United States (U.S.) will meet eye-to-eye and face the American public in a first presidential debate.
An estimation of 100 million people is expected to watch the event live across the U.S., leaving each candidate with choice on whether to continue verbal assaults on individual personality or steal the show to win the support of the voting public.
According to Elizabeth Sherman, an Assistant Professor at the Department of Government at the American University in Washington DC, debates play key roles in influencing the voters’ decision and voting pattern in the history of the U.S elections.
Any candidate who bungles the chance to articulate his policies and programmes before the large audience in the first presidential debate is likely to suffer sizeable setbacks in pre-election rating and drop in popularity.
John Zogby, an internationally-acclaimed pollster, believes the November 8 election is a contest between candidates battling to win public trust. The founder of Zogby Poll – a credible poll predicting platform – said the manner the two leading contenders present themselves to the electorate at the first debate would most likely sway the public opinion about the readiness of each candidate and may eventually shift the pendulum in November.
Trump, for instance, has made huge gains in pre-election polls, aggregating Clinton in some key battleground states. But the Republican Party candidate may rock the boat for his campaign if he goes to the debate to attack the personality of his rivals. Clinton’s rating may drop if she cannot convince the largest voting population on why she should be trusted.
The youths are setting a template for the debate. If the candidates do not discuss solutions to the immediate challenges facing the country, the outcome may increase the lack of trust in the U.S. political system among the Millennials.
The Millennials (youths born between 18 and 35 years) make up 31 per cent of the American voting population. This group of voters is losing confidence in the political class, because of the high tuition and unstable minimum wage, which makes many graduates unable to re-pay student loans.
The rising youth resentment and their lack of trust in the U.S. two-party system was the subject of discussion at a meeting of foreign journalists on U.S. electioneering tour with members of New Leaders Council (NLC), a non-political leadership organisation established to engage the Millennials in entrepreneurship, leadership and political process.
Investment and expansion of public education are ways to go for the U.S. to tackle its youth unemployment, says Richard Fowler, an NLC panelist and radio personality.
He said: “We believe solving unemployment among the youth is by investing in public education and expanding the schools to accommodate many more Millennials. We cannot solve this problem through demagogy as being pushed by Donald Trump. We want a workable and meaningful solution to the problem.
“We want a leadership that will prioritise the expansion of infrastructure and schools. We believe Mr. Trump may not have the solution to proffer. He has been going round, saying he wants to make America great again. But, he has not explicitly explained how wants to do that.”
Fowler’s views represent the opinion of a large number of millennial voters who are looking for a reason to trust Trump.
Clinton, however, does not enjoy a complete support of the Millennials, because of the role she played in what they called “needless assignment” in Syria which steps up the level terrorist threats against the U.S. But, the great number of the Millennials believes she possesses better political credential to succeed President Barack Obama next year.
At the debate, Clinton needs to explain how she would expand Obama’s youth initiative, which, Fowler said, has reduced poverty drastically among low-income families. The Democratic candidate must convince the millennials how she would make tuition fees affordable, bring up a minimum wage, solve youths job crises and student loan repayment.
Students’ group at the American University believes foreign policies of each candidate should a way to go. Carlos Veraza, a second year International Relations student, said the November 8 presidential election a contest between two sides of a coin. “America has a moral obligation to elect the better one,” he said.
He said: “I believe Clinton would be a clam and strategist, president with good foreign policy. I believe she would not do things as crazy like Donald Trump said he would do. I think Clinton presidency would set a stage for a better united congress and lead a ‘united’ United States at this point in time.”
The African foremost university, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife is set to host the annual African Student for Liberty Conference in Nigeria.
The conference that is an intellectually-engaging student conference will bring together campus leaders and advocates of free society to discuss, and share practical ideas on how to promote the ideas of tolerance, liberty and markets.
The ASFL Programs Director, Olumayo Okediran said that the event will be the third edition that will be held in the institution with two previous editions that had been held at University of Ibadan.
Okediran said that the conference will be in tune with the theme #ShareYourStory with speakers sharing their personal experiences in the liberty movement, and how the ideas of liberty have helped them in their life pursuits.
Speakers at the event include: Japheth Omojuwa, Editor, AfricanLiberty.org; Yael Ossowski, Program Director ESFL; Olumayowa Okediran, Programs Manager, ASFL; Martin VanStaden, Member ASFL Executive Member; Linda Kavuka, Chair ASFL Executive Member; Isack Danford, Founder Uhuru, Tanzania;
Others include Emeka Ezeugo, Program Associate; Wale Ajetunmobi, Campus Life Editor, The Nation Newspaper; Adewale Bankole, Country Director Bastiat Society among others. The speakers will be speaking on range of practical, interesting and diverse topics as it concerns liberty today.
The conference will be at Cooperative Building Hall, behind Zenith Bank of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile–Ife, Nigeria with the free lunch pack and coffee for every participant at the event.
The United States (U.S.) has increased its business relations and investment in Africa in the past few years, bringing up initiatives targeted at promoting economic growth and entrepreneurship. Ms Mipe Okunsehinde, a Harvard-trained Nigerian-American lawyer and senior associate at the Washington DC-based Covington and Burling LLP, speaks to WALE AJETUNMOBI on how the U.S. investment will benefit Nigeria.
Nigeria is a large market that should naturally make the United States investors to invest, but there has been not much investment from American companies, what do think is responsible for this?
This has to do with perception about doing business in Nigeria. I think it is time the U.S companies were better educated about the Nigerian market, opportunities therein and how they can have access to these opportunities and to continue to get support from the U.S. government through programmes, such as Trade Africa Initiative (TAI), Power Africa Initiative and Feed The Future (FTF) etcetera. There is going to be an increase in the number of U.S. companies doing business in Nigeria, but at this point, I would say that the issue is more of certain misunderstanding and lack of understanding on how to access and leverage on these markets.
There has been improved trade by the U.S. government and companies in Africa in the last few years, but the chunk of these investments is not in Nigeria, which is the largest market on the continent. Do you think the U.S. is serious about building strong business relationship with Nigeria?
Yes, I strongly believe the U.S. is interested and committed to strong business relationship with Nigeria. President Barack Obama has shown this commitment several times in the course of his presidency. Although I understand President Obama has not personally visited Nigeria, you have seen the demonstration in the U.S. president’s major programme, such as Young Africa Leaders Initiative (YALI), which is now the Mandela Washington Fellowship. The number of individuals coming from Nigeria are benefitting from the programme. You also see that, Nigeria is one of the beneficiaries of Power Africa Initiative. FTF is very much focus on Nigeria; you also see that TAI is looking at Nigeria as well. So, the fact that Nigeria is featured in all these landmark and signature initiatives of the Obama administration shows that the U.S. is very committed to its relationship with Nigeria. And the U.S. is doing what it can to continue to develop Nigeria and create enabling environment for doing business by U.S. companies and by Nigerian companies as well. Apart from that, the fact that President Buhari was well-received in Washington and spoke to the most senior U.S. officials shows that both the U.S. and Nigeria realised how interconnected their success is. And both of them are committed to realise their potential together.
There have been challenges facing entrepreneurs and start-ups, such as energy crisis and lack of loans to finance entrepreneurial ideas. What are the short and long term measures that the U.S. put in place to help overcome these challenges?
With respect to power, Nigeria is one of focus of Power Africa Initiative and the law to back this electrification programme in Africa had just been passed by the U.S. congress to ensure that the project gets institutionalised. We also see that when President Obama pushed forth his power plan for Africa, he wished that project becomes international institution. You have the U.S. playing a direct role in powering Nigeria and also see them also playing direct role through what Africa Development Bank (AfDB) is going to do for power in Africa, what the World Bank and others are doing for power in Nigeria. In terms of how entrepreneurs can realise their potential, it comes from private sector to continue to work together. And I am seeing willingness and interest on the part of U.S. companies to come do business in Nigeria and face the challenges of realities of doing business here. Look around and see how many successful Nigerians are here. We believe doing business in Nigeria may be challenging. But, you realise that some of these obstacles are surmountable and there is collective action by individuals who agree to work together and serve as mentors and as early investors. That is how you get entrepreneurs to have that protection at early stage; be it in provision of early capital by those who have succeeded here and investing in next generation by providing mentorship, skills and programmes that teach budding entrepreneurs how to develop their businesses and follow their own footsteps. I believe that, a key component of who we are as a people plays a strong role in ensuring that the next generation of entrepreneurs receive the necessary skills, financial and other supports they need to realise their full potential.
In the face of crashing oil prices, how would the U.S. partner Nigeria to boost investment and revenue from non-oil products?
Feed The Future (FTF) initiative is one of the signature programmes that focused on developing the agriculture sector in Nigeria and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The programme sees agriculture as a commercial enterprise that helps people to create market linkages and to engage in sort of aggregation that is necessary for agriculture to be less of sustenance enterprise and more of commercial enterprise. So, agriculture is something that has got a lot of attention from the U.S. companies and government. The consumer market here in Nigeria in terms of population makes you realise how much potential it has for fast-moving consumer goods. That is another area in which we are going to see increasing supports and investment in diversifying the Nigerian economy. By doing this, you are both directly creating consumer goods and developing the economy, such that people have the resources to purchase these goods. There is increasing reason on the need to diversify the economy; there is more pressure to do so when you look at what the price of oil is today. It is inevitable that Nigeria needs to diversify its economy; we can no longer rely on this thing (oil) that we have on the ground.
Policy summersault and weak laws to support commerce and institutions have been seen as hurdles against the nation’s economic growth, do you believe these views?
One thing I think Nigeria needs to do is to socialise its laws. There is need to help Nigerian leaders understand that laws are put in place to check arbitrariness and to serve the people. So, when anyone is not complying with these laws, it will have real impacts on individual’s wellbeing, the community progress and the business. There is need to get the people understand why the law is there and why the law is protective of their own interest. To an extent, Nigeria just needs a strong leader, who is going to step in and say ‘I don’t care how business is used to be done; this is what the law says on the book and we are going to enforce the law’. By saying strong leader, I did not mean an authoritarian. And of course, there would be time it would take people to respond to a new era, but the reality is the law. If you want to do business in this country, you need to comply with the laws. Nigeria is no longer a country that anyone can find shortcut around the law. So, it is having a strong leader who is willing to take the risk of enforcing the law, because there is going to be a lot of pushbacks if he starts doing so. It is good to have conversation with the people and private sector. This is the best way to make laws work for the people. It is part of democracy to have notice and comment period. When it is the issue of regulation, there should be a time for stakeholders to add comment to assess the impact of any regulation. It is important for people to feel that they have played a role in the development of the law. It goes back to the first statement of socialising the law.
Do you see African youths ready to innovate and become entrepreneurs?
I certainly do. One of the things I find interesting in Africa is that, when I speak to young people about what they are doing; I find out that they are accomplishing more in their teenage life than people like us ever accomplished in higher age. So, it is really impressive to see how focus they are, their refusal to be silenced, discouraged and frustrated. They are so innovative, entrepreneurial and resilient that I do believe that, what everybody talks as the youth bubble on the continent is truly a dividend. When you add that with a spirit so young and so committed, that makes significant majority of Africa’s population and that is the engine for growth.
Sad fate of Nigerians suffering human rights abuses in South Africa
Pictures 1-5: Surging crowds of Africans seeking assylum in South Africa
On a chilly Thursday morning in October 2015, Emmanuel Okechukwu Osita, 56, stirred from the warmth of his bed around 4.15 am to brave the cold and fierce security detail at the South African Ministry of Home Affairs Refugee Reception Centre. Located in Johannes Ramokhoase Street in Marabstad, Pretoria, the country’s political capital, the refugee centre represented his only hope and access to his South African dream.
Hence, clad in a black sweater, faded blue jeans and worn-out trainers, Osita, a Nigerian seeking asylum in South Africa, set out of his Johannesburg residence to keep his appointment at the refugee centre.
At precisely 4:30am, Osita joined a host of other Nigerians in chartered buses, leaving for Pretoria for the same purpose. They left in a convoy and 45 minutes later, the motorcade revved to a stop in Marabastad, Pretoria. Osita and fellow asylum seekers arrived into a larger crowd of asylum seekers, who had queued up 30 minutes earlier for the same purpose.
However, because he could not have the patience to queue at the tail end of the crowd, Osita jumped queue and went straight to the entrance seeking preferential treatment. He hoped his graying beard and moustache would attract the sympathy of the guards manning the centre and controlling the crowd.
To his chagrin, Osita was not only embarrassed by his action, he received hot slaps from the South African guards manning the gates of the refugee centre. Afterwards, he was dragged through the crowd by two hefty security guards to the tail end of the queue.
By the time Osita was hurled to the ground by the guards, he was dizzy and weak from their assault. Few minutes after he was assaulted and dumped on the ground, the 56-year-old
rose to a sitting position; he rubbed his cheeks miserably, thereby smearing his face with the tears streaming down from his eyes. When this reporter approached him to speak to him, Osita stared emptily into the distance and sobbed disconsolately. By the time he gathered his wits together, he muttered: “How can Africans treat their fellow Africans in this manner?”
Osita’s fate symbolises a familiar narrative of the abuses suffered by thousands of Africans, including Nigerians, applying for asylum and residence permit at the South African Ministry of Home Affairs Refugee Reception Centre.
Every day, asylum seekers in South Africa are forced to endure the kind of rough treatment meted out to Osita by the South African guards at the Refugee Reception Centre after the expiration of their visas. The asylum seekers, who are usually between 18 and 60 years of age, arrive in South Africa from their native countries, including Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Cameroon.
For the foreigners, it is a weekly exercise meant for the fittest. When The Nation first visited the Refugee Reception Centre, a crowd of Nigerians besieged the building, seeking to gain entrance in order to legitimise their refugee status and obtain residence permit.
As the crowd surged like an ocean tide, a set of stern-looking security officers, employed by the Home Affairs Ministry to guard the Refugee Reception Centre, used electric batons and seven-foot long horsewhips to beat back the crowd. Some of the applicants fell out of the queue in fear of being flogged by the security guards; others determinedly stuck to their positions and braved the lashes in their desperation to legitimise their stay in South Africa.
Visibly clueless on how they could control the chaotic crowd, the security guards ordered the refugees to squat and sit on the bare ground. Some of them, who defied the order to sit on the ground, were slapped and flogged by the security officers before they were thrown out of the line. Others complied without the courage to protest.
Aduro, the war for refugee status
Like Osita, Moses Adeyinka, 24, is an uneducated artisan and had little means of sustenance while he was in Nigeria. He left for South Africa last December in search of the proverbial greener pasture. On arrival in Johannesburg, he found the city to be greener than Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, where he was based before he travelled.
His visitor’s visa was useful for only three months without work permit. Adeyinka however, does not intend to return to Nigeria soon having started to eke out a living as an apprentice at a barber’s shop in Yeoville Municipal.
Adeyinka is paying R1,000 ($69.4, N13,809.57) monthly for a room sublet to him by his friends, who rented a three-bedroom apartment in Yeoville Municipal. Although, he seems to be comfortable living with his friends at the moment, Adeyinka plans to rent a new apartment in order to have his privacy.
However, he needs to change his visa status and become a refugee to achieve his dream of staying in South Africa, which is why he applied for asylum in the country. After his bid to gain access into the office and personally apply for the asylum failed, Adeyinka became desperate. This is because he faces deportation, except he can get the permit in time in order to guarantee his continuous stay in his host country.
Adeyinka was among the crowd of Nigerian youths that besieged the gates of the refugee centre on October 22, 2015 struggling to gain access into the building to obtain the residence permit. Eventually, he managed to enter the building but he suffered bodily harm after he received lashes of horsewhip from the security guards at the gate.
By the time he came out of the asylum office around 4pm, Adeyinka had scars on different parts of his body. Sadly, despite his struggle to get into the building to file his asylum application, Adeyinka left without accomplishing the task. He left the refugee centre heart-broken. He was told to check back on another date for a fresh application because he could not afford the tip (bribe) requested by the officials to fast-track his application.
For him, coming back is not the problem; but, the accessibility to the Refugee Reception Centre remains his greatest challenge. “The struggle continues,” said Adeyinka as he moved westward the refugee centre in company of his friends whose asylum applications were turned down. “We don’t have other options; we have to come back for another round of beating and struggle,” he said.
Aduro, the legal permit
Although it is officially known as S22 Permit in South Africa, Nigerian asylum seekers call it Aduro – in Yoruba parlance, this literally translates to “We will stay.” With the permit, foreigners have legal rights to move freely in South Africa after the expiration of their visas. But, the document does not guarantee them an access to decent employment and other essential social services.
Without the permit, free movement within South Africa becomes difficult for foreigners. Besides, refugees who do not have the document are tagged Mulungu, a Zulu word which simply means “unwelcome foreigners” (although, Mulungu is also an offensive word used to call the white South Africans).
To get the stay permit, asylum seekers pay as high as R2,500 ($155, N30,700) to agents, who are mostly South Africans. Although the permit is given free of charge to asylum seekers who do not engage agents to assist them in getting it, it may take such applicants longer time to see the immigration officials for interview.
The agents pay R500 ($31) or higher as bribe to their contact immigration officers to hasten the process. This will facilitate stress-free interviews and accelerate the issuance of the permit.
Asylum seekers who pay for the permit are granted a three or six-month stay depending on the discretion of each immigration officer. The permit is renewable after its expiration but the immigration officers reserve the rights to grant extension of stay or terminate it.
Reasons for seeking Aduro
For most Nigerians residing in South Africa, socio-economic factors are major reasons why they leave the country. The abundance of basic infrastructure and better living conditions in South Africa are the major reasons why many Nigerian asylum seekers do not want to return after their visit to South Africa.
After exceeding the legitimate period granted them for their visit, most Nigerians in South Africa apply to become refugees. The Nation findings showed that 85 per cent of Nigerians seeking asylum in South Africa gave Boko Haram insurgency as alibi for their refugee status. They cited family problems, economic hardship and religious persecution as reasons for seeking asylum.
But even though the South African government grants asylum seekers temporary permit to reside in the country, the document prohibits the refugees from enjoying any decent employment.
Many of the Nigerians seeking asylum in South Africa engage in menial jobs, including street trading to survive. A few others resort to illicit businesses such as drug peddling and Internet fraud for their livelihood.
Revolt by the refugees
On Thursday, November 5, 2015, hell was let loose at the Refugee Reception Centre following hot arguments between some frustrated Nigerian asylum seekers and South African immigration officers. The confusion was caused by the preferential treatment accorded some applicants, who allegedly bribed the officials.
This reporter, who went undercover into the centre, watched as security guards and immigration officials led different groups of asylum applicants who paid bribe, to quicken their interviews.
Hundreds of applicants who could not afford to bribe the officials to hasten their interviews were ordered to sit on the ground in an open space. They watched helplessly as the guards and immigration officials led those who were able to do so into the interview section.
After sitting in the sun for four hours without doing anything, the asylum seekers rose in protest against the preferential treatment accorded their fellow refugees by officials. Arguments ensued and pandemonium broke out. The asylum seekers engaged the security guards and immigration officials in a free-for-all, leaving scores injured.
The situation was brought under control by dozens of policemen, who moved to the scene with about 100 vans and 10 helicopters. Some of the troublemakers were arrested by the police at the scene and whisked away.
An immigration officer, who identified himself as Japheth, said the riot was started by asylum seekers whose applications were refused based on unbelievable stories. He said many of the rejected asylum seekers cited Boko Haram insurgency as reason to become refugees. The South African government, he said, has a plan to deport more than 50,000 Nigerians who used Boko Haram insurgency as excuse to live in South Africa.
He said: “We don’t need this crowd to come here every week to renew or apply for asylum permit. We know what is going on in Nigeria. The Boko Haram is limited to the Northern part, but majority of Nigerians asylum seekers, who want to become refugees here did not live in the Northern part. We have started to reject people who are using Boko Haram as reason for becoming a refugee here.”
‘Make a plan’ the South African police parlance
“We don’t deserve this bad treatment,” said Caroline, a 26-year-old nursing mother, as she watched security guards whip fellow asylum seekers from Nigeria into line to control the crowd.
Caroline’s permit had just been extended for three months but she sat opposite the building with a baby strapped to her chest. She was waiting for her boyfriend, identified as Dennis, who was still struggling to get into the refugee centre.
Her four-month-old baby boy cried continuously in apparent discomfort after the struggle his mother just put him through. As Caroline made efforts to lull her baby to sleep, she spotted Dennis being whisked to a waiting police van. She screamed as her boyfriend received slaps from two hefty security guards, who held Dennis’ trouser firmly by the waistline. Before Dennis was hurled into the police van, Caroline ran to the scene to intercede but she was snubbed by the policemen, who quickly locked up Dennis in the mini-cell attached to the vehicle.
Dennis’ offence was that he attempted to shunt his way into the long queue of asylum seekers. The security guards picked him up when he was pushed out of the line by others in the queue and whisked him away. Few minutes later, he returned to the scene to force his way into the refugee centre. He was released after he “made a plan” with the police.
“Make a plan” is a simple expression used by the South African police to ask for a bribe from the asylum seekers. The “plan” starts from R300 and can go as high as R500 depending on the gravity of the offence and discretion of the policemen.
Aduro as a goldmine for South African officials
Investigation by The Nation showed that the refugees’ predicament has become a goldmine for some South African police and immigration officers who smile to the bank daily, as they profit from indiscriminate arrest of migrants living without refugee permits.
“There has been increase in street raid of foreigners by the police in recent times,” Jubril Mustapha, a Nigerian migrant living in Randburg, Johannesburg, said. The police, he said, engage in mass arrest of foreigners and ask for their permits. According to Jubril, immigrants whose visas and permits have expired are arrested by corrupt officers of the South African police and taken to quiet destinations to “make a plan.”
He said: “My house has been raided several times by different sets of the policemen, who usually raid foreigners with expired permit. Each time they arrest us, they would take us to quiet locations to negotiate our freedom. On each occasion, we pay money to get ourselves freed. I personally pay R300 to regain my freedom the last time I was arrested, because I did not want them take me to the deportation camp.
Foreigners, who refuse to bribe South African police after their arrest, risk being detained for long hours at the police station. The extreme punishment for failing to “make a plan” is deportation, which many migrants always want to avoid.
But Adeleke Moshood, 25, was not so lucky. He was arrested in Sunnyside area of Pretoria in March by two policemen, who raided the two-bedroom apartment in which he stayed with five other Nigerians. Having over-stayed his visit for four months and without plans to return to Nigeria, Adeleke could not get opportunity to apply for menial work, because he had no legal work permit.
However, he sought a livelihood by selling local herbs and gins, which he ordered from Nigeria. His profit from the business, which ranged between R600 and R800 monthly, was spent on rent and feeding. In a sweep of his residence, Adeleke was arrested and asked to “make a plan” of R1,500 for his release. His inability to make the payment led to his detention for two months at Lindela, South Africa’s deportation camp, before his family in Nigeria eventually sent flight ticket for his return.
The road to Lindela
Lindela is South Africa’s Repatriation Centre, where undocumented migrants of both gender are camped before deportation. It is located in Krugersdorp in Johannesburg and filled with asylum seekers who have lost their bid for asylum. The camp is packed with more than 6,000 detainees in a day, which makes it congested all the time. The bulk of the inmates are Africans from countries such as Nigeria, Zimbabwe, DR Congo, Liberia and Mozambique, among others.
After registration, the inmates are corralled into rooms fitted with iron bunks, with some having tattered mattresses and pillows. The deportees are welcomed by drooling dogs and unfriendly armed security guards, who yell orders as the inmates are marshalled to the admissions desk.
Despite its modern design, inmates say bed space is a privilege in Lindela, especially in the male wing of the camp, which is possibly occupied by about 5,000 inmates at a time. A single room can contain up to 18 inmates but some deportees, who spoke to this reporter, said there could be more than 60 inmates cramped in a single room at a time whenever there was mass arrest.
A former Nigerian detainee, Daniel Oladepo, said: “We were almost 60 in the room I stayed. Nobody had a permanent bed space; the first set of people who returned to the room early would sleep properly. Anyone who returned late would manage the little space left on the floor.”
The Nation gathered that most of toilets in the camp do not have functioning flushing systems that could make the inmates use them with ease. This poses health challenges to the detainees, who prefer to ease themselves indiscriminately. With inadequate health services in the camp, the inmates usually face dire health conditions and unhygienic problems.”
Dining time is irregular in the camp, with the first meal being served late in the morning. For most of the inmates, Lindela is their last location before being deported from South Africa. But, right inside the camp, The Nation gathered that some of the detainees can negotiate their freedom with immigration officials and security guards.
“When I was there, I knew people who were asked to pay R500 for their freedom,” said Adeagbo, who was deported last year.
Abuse of human rights of the refugees and asylum seekers
Article 1(A)(2) of the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 classifies a refugee as any person who, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
The human rights abuse by South African officials is not a recent phenomenon, according to the former chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Diaspora, Hon. Abike Dabiri-Erewa. To the ex-legislator, cases of human rights abuses in South Africa seem to have become norm, which Nigerian officials are afraid to confront.
“If we know how many Nigerians have died in the hands of South African officials in the last three years, you would know that these cases of human rights abuse are not new. As long as Nigeria does not intervene in cases like these on behalf of its citizens, South Africa will continue to have freedom to infringe on our citizens’ rights. Just a week ago, another Nigerian was gruesomely murdered in broad daylight by yet to be identified South Africans. We have heard no word from the Nigerian embassy there and that is how the matter would just die down like that.”
Dabiri-Erewa said Nigerians must respect the law of their host countries, but she described as “pathetic and inhuman” the maltreatment of Nigerians outside the country. She urged the Federal Government to take decisive action and intervene, adding that the “immoral action” would continue if the Nigerian officials do not take up the responsibility.
“We urge non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on human rights issues and African Union (AU) to intervene. I hope this will provoke necessary action from our officials to look into the matter,” she said.
Adetokunbo Mumuni, Executive Director, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), a non-governmental organisation (NGO), told The Nation that South African authorities have failed to comply with international human rights obligations by blatantly refusing to address the refugees’ plight.
“SERAP strongly condemns the continuous unjustified abuse of migrants by South African policemen. SERAP is reminding South African authorities that all persons in South Africa share a certain set of basic human rights under international law, regardless of their immigration status. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights confers the great majority of the rights they enumerate to everyone. The declaration enjoins countries, including South Africa, to respect and ensure the rights they set out to all the individuals within their territory without discrimination,” he said. SERAP urged President Muhammadu Buhari to engage the South African government on human rights violations against Nigerians, while calling on the African Union to reprimand South Africa for maltreating asylum seekers.
South Africa’s silent response
Last month, The Nation contacted the South African government through its embassy in Nigeria for comment on the allegations by the asylum seekers. To this end, a letter dated December 11, 2015 was sent to the South African High Commission in Lagos.
The letter was physically delivered at the embassy by our reporter. It was acknowledged and received on behalf of the High Commissioner by a top officer of the embassy, who declined to give her name.
Two days after, the embassy called our reporter and re-confirmed receipt of the letter. The caller explained that the letter had been dispatched to Abuja for the High Commissioner’s response.
It’s over seven weeks since The Nation requested for the embassy’s response but there has been no comment from the High Commissioner or any official of the South African embassy.
Subsequent efforts by The Nation to reach the Nigerian authorities in South Africa have been unsuccessful. When The Nation called the Nigerian High Commission in Johannesburg last November, an official told our reporter to send the complaint via email to the High Commissioner. The email was sent to the High Commissioner on November 19, 2015, but there has been no response to the message.
The Nation mounted the big stage again last night, with Investigative Desk Head Adekunle Yusuf winning the print category of the prestigious Wole Soyinka Awards for Investigative Journalism.
The colourful ceremony was held at the MUSON Centre, Onikan, Lagos, coming after last weekend’s feat of five awards at the Diamond Awards for Media Excellence (DAME) – the highest in the individuals category by any newspaper. It was the tenth anniversary of the Soyinka Award.
Yusuf’s three-part series on the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) titled “How corruption, leadership hamper NDLEA’s drug war” defeated the work of The Punch’s Motunrayo Joel on ovum selling in Nigeria titled “Ovum trading: Inside Nigeria’s multi-million naira human eggs business”.
Another of Yusuf’s entry titled “Inside the oil deals that caused Nigeria billions” was commended.
After receiving the award, Yusuf said: “I feel specially proud and honored for clinching this prestigious award, being my first Wole Soyinka prize for investigating reporting. Believe me, I see it more as a challenge to do more and work harder in service of my fatherland. And I promise to take up the gauntlet. Having said this, I am sending a big thank-you message to the Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Reporting, the panel of judges, all individuals and organizations that made today’s event a success. Finally, a far bigger gratitude goes to the entire staff and management of The Nation , Nigeria’s widest circulating newspaper, for this award is impossible without them. Thank you!”
Premium Time’s Emmanuel Ogala, who won the online category, was declared the winner of the overall prize. Ogala received his prize from Nobel Laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka.
Other winners are Sumner Sambo of Television Continental (Broadcast), Daily Trust’s Ikechukwu Ibe (Photography) and Business Day’s Asukwo Bassey.
Other finalists, who either were runners up or got commended for their works are: Fisayo Soyombo of The Cable, Chukwuemeka Emenike of The New Telegraph, Adedayo Odusanya of The Punch and Bassey Udo of Premium Times, Ayodele Ojo of The Sun and Kikelomo Abosede Ifekoya of the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN).
Erstwhile Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Professor of Political Science, Attahiru Jega, who played an outstanding role in the success of the 2015 elections and veteran broadcaster Bimbo Oloyede were honoured with the Anti-Corruption Defender Award and the Lifetime Award for Journalistic Excellence, respectively.
The winning stories were selected out of 130 entries by a panel of judges chaired by veteran broadcaster Bimbo Oloyede. Other members of the panel include Abigail Ogwezzy-Ndisika, a lecturer at the Mass Communication Department of the University of Lagos; Umaru Pate, a Professor of Mass Communication at the University of Maiduguri; Boye Ola, a lecturer at the Nigerian Institute of Journalism (NIJ); Editor of Sunday Trust, Theophilus Abbah; Gbile Oshadipe, a lecturer at the NIJ; the Dean of the Lagos State University School of Communications, Lai Oso; and the NIJ Provost, Gbemiga Ogunleye.
Soyinka congratulated the winners and wished them well in their endeavours. He said the minister had not failed the nation.
Fresh graduates trained by VDT Communications Limited, an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) firm, in its free one-year Modular Trainee Engineers programmes have been employed after the exercise. WALE AJETUNMOBI reports.
As part of its corporate social responsibility (CSR) to reduce unemployment, VDT Communications Limited, a broadband communication firm, hase given free training to some graduates in its second Modular Trainee Engineers’ Programme.
At their graduation in Lagos, the firm’s Managing Director, Mr Abiodun Omoniyi, praised the trainees’ willingness to acquire expertise in Information and Communication Technology (ICT). He offered them employment in the company.
The graduates, who underwent the free modular training programme, were paid allowances, during the exercise.
Omoniyi said the programme was necessitated by the need to help the government in reducing youth employment, noting that many job seekers could not be engaged because they lacked competency and adequate expertise to add values to employers.
He said: “Having identified the challenge, VDT decided to take the bull by the horns by initiating modular trainee engineers’ programme for school leavers. The selection process for the annual programme involves an assessment test and interview, which make the successful candidates to be enrolled into the programme for one year. We make the programme free of charge.”
Omoniyi congratulated the trainees on the “successful completion” of the programme, urging the government and policymakers to close the gap between theory and practice. Omoniyi said there was need to initiate curriculum that would give students practical knowledge in their disciplines and make them employable after school.
He said:“A practical experience is critically imperative for students and graduates to be employed in the world of ICT,” he said, adding that the firm possessed facility and resources to train manpower for the nation’s ICT sector.
“We are looking forward to the time we will be in the position to enroll many more candidates into this programme to increase our youths’ potentials for gainful employment. Such opportunity will yield tremendous positive impact on the trainees, our economy and the nation.”
A participant, Musa Haliru praised the management of VDT Communications for creating a platform for the youths to explore their potentials in ICT, saying: “The training has impacted an unquantifiable knowledge on me.”
Another trainee, Justina Ugherughe said the programme was unique because the participants, instead of paying for the training, were paid stipends while they underwent the exercise. She hailed the firm’s belief in the youths, saying she would make efforts to impact knowledge gained on others.
VDT’s Chief Technical Officer urged the trainees not to rest on their oars, urging them to improve on the skill they learned from the training. “Don’t be a jack of all trades, be a master in one and become all-time professional in it,” he advised.
The ceremony was witnessed by top management of the firm and members of staff. VDT Communications is a bulk internet provider that provides digital leased circuit and wireless network to a wide range of companies, including financial and telecommunication firms.
