IT is worrisome that Nigeria’s former capital and still its current economic capital, Lagos, is ranked the fourth most difficult city to live in the world.
A survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit, EIU, a subsidiary of The Economist, ranked Lagos as 137th out of 140 cities polled.
Among cities in the bottom 10were Dhaka (Bangladesh), Tripoli (Libya) Harare (Zimbabwe) and Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea), the worst of the lot. Canadian cities Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary, and Australia’s Adelaide, Sydney, Perth and Melbourne were in the top 10 most liveable cities on earth.
Indices taken into account included stability, healthcare, culture, environment, education and infrastructure. Lagos is the flagship metropolis in Nigeria, setting the pace in most critical development areas due to its history, geographical location and residual federal infrastructure and institutions from its days as the political capital of Nigeria.
The survey draws attention to Nigeria as a country, not just Lagos State. What standards do we apply in developing our cities?
How do we want our people to live? The indices used in the cities’ survey are largely covered in the 15-year Millennium Development Goals, MDGs, which the United Nations launched in 2000. Nigeria largely ignored the initiative and is at the verge of not achieving any of the goals by 2015.
Best indications that Nigeria participated in the MDGs are many abandoned construction projects round the country that bear the MDGs sign boards.
The failure of the MDGs pulls more people into Lagos. People seeking opportunities they think exist in the city – the skilled, the unskilled, and criminals – come in their numbers. Everyone thinks there is something in Lagos for him. In such situations, developing infrastructure to meet the elastic needs of the city is more challenging.
The MDGs offered opportunities for Nigeria to wholesomely develop her peoples and places. The neglect of the MDGs meant that poverty kept growing without any effective initiatives to tackle it. With fewer cities offering the seeming opportunities in Lagos, it became more attractive and its infrastructure further suffered.
Again, since the relocation of the capital to Abuja in December 1992, maintenance of federal infrastructure in the city has been neglected. The impact on the city shows.
If Lagos is to be redeemed from this parlous situation, the state government must work at better partnerships, principally with the Federal Government, and the private sector to re-develop the city.
It is important too that other States adopt similar initiatives to develop their principal cities, such that the choices available to Nigerians increase.
There are better reasons to develop Lagos, and other Nigerian cities, than global rankings – Nigerians deserve to live in healthy and sustainable environments.
Showing posts with label Editorial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Editorial. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Punishing Political Rascals
OVER the past few months, governments across the country have been giving out cheques to victims of the political riots that followed the results of the 2011 presidential election.
It is instructive that nobody has been punished for the riots that swept many States, where political leaders had openly said they would cause trouble if certain candidates did not win.
Governor Babangida Aliyu of Niger State at an event where victims received cheques said, “Let me take this opportunity to call on the political class in this country to exercise utmost caution and high sense of responsibility in all our actions and utterances before, during and after elections. Democracy goes beyond periodic elections and survival of our nation should be paramount in all that we do.”
The governor should have mentioned that mobs that caused the mayhem acted on some people’s behalf. They were equipped, they were fed, they were paid and most importantly, they were assured the law would not inconvenience them.
Have we not witnessed mayhem that descended on Nigeria after the 2011 election? Have we not seen how the crisis has continued with extensive bombing and daily killings in the North?
In the South, victims of political violence were also compensated. Their sponsors are strutting, boasting of future mayhem; they have no reason to re-think their destructive approach to politics. The high level of impunity we are seeing is related to not punishing the perpetrators of the 2011 post-election violence. Why is government paying for destruction they caused without punishing them? Is it acceptable to destroy Nigeria if one does not win an election? The duplicity in treating issues creates precedents that make sanctions unjust and unjustifiable.
Nigeria must protect itself. The responsibility lies with leaders, aspiring leaders and all who have risen to such prominence that the public take them serious. Their utterances mislead their followers and cause more troubles.
Every Nigerian has a right to contend for power within the law. Every Nigerian has rights to enter into legitimate alliances to access power; the constitutional provisions on freedom of association permit it. What we must avoid is being so consumed about leading Nigeria that we threaten to set the country on fire, if we cannot actualise the ambition.
Laws guide our country. Those who aspire to lead – and their supporters – must eschew threats in their ambitions. They should be telling Nigerians what qualifies them to lead the country and how their leadership would improve the lives of Nigerians.
They are better options to threatening more crises on a country that has been soaked in blood since 2010. Nigerians can also punish those who threaten their peace by not electing them.
It is instructive that nobody has been punished for the riots that swept many States, where political leaders had openly said they would cause trouble if certain candidates did not win.
Governor Babangida Aliyu of Niger State at an event where victims received cheques said, “Let me take this opportunity to call on the political class in this country to exercise utmost caution and high sense of responsibility in all our actions and utterances before, during and after elections. Democracy goes beyond periodic elections and survival of our nation should be paramount in all that we do.”
The governor should have mentioned that mobs that caused the mayhem acted on some people’s behalf. They were equipped, they were fed, they were paid and most importantly, they were assured the law would not inconvenience them.
Have we not witnessed mayhem that descended on Nigeria after the 2011 election? Have we not seen how the crisis has continued with extensive bombing and daily killings in the North?
In the South, victims of political violence were also compensated. Their sponsors are strutting, boasting of future mayhem; they have no reason to re-think their destructive approach to politics. The high level of impunity we are seeing is related to not punishing the perpetrators of the 2011 post-election violence. Why is government paying for destruction they caused without punishing them? Is it acceptable to destroy Nigeria if one does not win an election? The duplicity in treating issues creates precedents that make sanctions unjust and unjustifiable.
Nigeria must protect itself. The responsibility lies with leaders, aspiring leaders and all who have risen to such prominence that the public take them serious. Their utterances mislead their followers and cause more troubles.
Every Nigerian has a right to contend for power within the law. Every Nigerian has rights to enter into legitimate alliances to access power; the constitutional provisions on freedom of association permit it. What we must avoid is being so consumed about leading Nigeria that we threaten to set the country on fire, if we cannot actualise the ambition.
Laws guide our country. Those who aspire to lead – and their supporters – must eschew threats in their ambitions. They should be telling Nigerians what qualifies them to lead the country and how their leadership would improve the lives of Nigerians.
They are better options to threatening more crises on a country that has been soaked in blood since 2010. Nigerians can also punish those who threaten their peace by not electing them.
Monday, 2 September 2013
Zimbabwe Decides Its Destiny
Everyman has the right to decide his own destiny, and in this judgement there is no partiality. – Bob Marley, from lyrics of Zimbabwe, a song, and an album dedicated to Zimbabwe at independence in April 1980
THE crowd of over 100,000 that packed the Rufaro Stadium, Harare, on 18 April 1980, was full of expectations for the new country. When Bob Marley hit the song, Zimbabwe, tears rolled, the drums pelted to new rhythms, the guitars strummed, and the crowd went into frenzy. The lyrics could have been lost on everyone.
President Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari donated $15 million to Zimbabwe. Part of the money was used in training Zimbabwean students in Nigerian universities, their government workers in the Administrative Staff College Of Nigeria in Badagry, and their soldiers in the Nigerian Defence Academy in Kaduna.
The expectations evaporated quickly. Edgar Zivanai ‘Two Boy’ Tekere, the ZANU-PF Secretary General, largely seen as a major challenger to President Robert Mugabe, invited Bob Marley to that performance. Marley’s music inspired the guerrilla fighters during the battles to liberate Zimbabwe. Tekere, a founding member of ZANU PF, was a colleague of Mugabe’s in the guerrilla war that they organised from Mozambique.
His disagreement with Mugabe was early and he lost his position as Minister. Another Mugabe ally Lt-Gen Lookout Masuku, commander of the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army, died mysteriously in 1986, four years after he was accused of planning to overthrow Mugabe.
“Who is Mugabe to declare Tekere a hero? No-one in the current party’s (ruling) politburo qualifies to deliberate on the heroism of the late, great nationalist Tekere,” Enos Nkala, a co-ZANU founder, asked at Tekere’s funeral which Mugabe did not attend.
Other modern fathers of Zimbabwe like Joshua Nkomo, Bishop Abel Tendekayi Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole, Canaan Banana have long fallen out with Mugabe.
Zimbabwe’s 13 million people wallow in the scourge of Mugabe, who at 89 has won a seventh tenure. Age may be the only thing that would stop him from beating the 42-year record of Gabon’s Albert Omar Bongo, who only death, at 71, separated from power.
About 85 per cent of its population, 11.05 million, is under 64 years old. Mugabe is the only president that more than 90 per cent of the population knows.
Zimbabweans would be under worse pressure to find leaders when Mugabe expires. Cote d’Ivoire is still in turmoil, 21 years after Felix Houphouët-Boigny, its first president who ruled for 33 years. Mugabe is running Zimbabwe into a futile future that would unveil when he is gone.
It is up to Zimbabweans to decide their destiny, just as Bob Marley sang 33 years ago, and everyone danced in exhilaration.
THE crowd of over 100,000 that packed the Rufaro Stadium, Harare, on 18 April 1980, was full of expectations for the new country. When Bob Marley hit the song, Zimbabwe, tears rolled, the drums pelted to new rhythms, the guitars strummed, and the crowd went into frenzy. The lyrics could have been lost on everyone.
President Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari donated $15 million to Zimbabwe. Part of the money was used in training Zimbabwean students in Nigerian universities, their government workers in the Administrative Staff College Of Nigeria in Badagry, and their soldiers in the Nigerian Defence Academy in Kaduna.
The expectations evaporated quickly. Edgar Zivanai ‘Two Boy’ Tekere, the ZANU-PF Secretary General, largely seen as a major challenger to President Robert Mugabe, invited Bob Marley to that performance. Marley’s music inspired the guerrilla fighters during the battles to liberate Zimbabwe. Tekere, a founding member of ZANU PF, was a colleague of Mugabe’s in the guerrilla war that they organised from Mozambique.
His disagreement with Mugabe was early and he lost his position as Minister. Another Mugabe ally Lt-Gen Lookout Masuku, commander of the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army, died mysteriously in 1986, four years after he was accused of planning to overthrow Mugabe.
“Who is Mugabe to declare Tekere a hero? No-one in the current party’s (ruling) politburo qualifies to deliberate on the heroism of the late, great nationalist Tekere,” Enos Nkala, a co-ZANU founder, asked at Tekere’s funeral which Mugabe did not attend.
Other modern fathers of Zimbabwe like Joshua Nkomo, Bishop Abel Tendekayi Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole, Canaan Banana have long fallen out with Mugabe.
Zimbabwe’s 13 million people wallow in the scourge of Mugabe, who at 89 has won a seventh tenure. Age may be the only thing that would stop him from beating the 42-year record of Gabon’s Albert Omar Bongo, who only death, at 71, separated from power.
About 85 per cent of its population, 11.05 million, is under 64 years old. Mugabe is the only president that more than 90 per cent of the population knows.
Zimbabweans would be under worse pressure to find leaders when Mugabe expires. Cote d’Ivoire is still in turmoil, 21 years after Felix Houphouët-Boigny, its first president who ruled for 33 years. Mugabe is running Zimbabwe into a futile future that would unveil when he is gone.
It is up to Zimbabweans to decide their destiny, just as Bob Marley sang 33 years ago, and everyone danced in exhilaration.
Tuesday, 30 July 2013
"Civilian JTF” should not fight
Following the declaration of state of emergency in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States in May 2013, a section of patriotic youth in the Maiduguri metropolis organised themselves into a vigilante known as “Civilian JTF”.
It was a resounding endorsement of the gallant efforts of the Joint Task Force of the Nigerian military and security services implementing the emergency rule aimed at flushing out the Boko Haram and other terrorist groups scourging the North East and other parts of northern Nigeria.
[caption id="attachment_406693" align="alignright" width="300"]
A sign near a checkpoint of a vigilante group reads Civilian J.T.F or Civilian Joint Task Force in Maiduguri,. Young men and women have in recent weeks formed vigilante groups, hunting down Boko Haram Islamists who have sneaked back into the city following a military offensive on their camps on the Nigerian border with Niger, Chad and Cameroon with remarkable success. AFP PHOTO[/caption]
Their emergence was particularly heartwarming, being a bold departure from the tendency of misguided elements who have sought to portray the terrorists as fighters for a particular religion and region. The “Civilian JTF” recognised the danger and damage to the economic and social livelihood of the people wrought by the al Qaeda-inspired terrorists and decided to assist our men and women under arms to bring the insurgency to an early end.
The situation, however, started taking a different turn when the much wounded and paralysed terror networks started targeting the “Civilian JTF” and their relations for elimination, thus forcing some members of the patriotic vigilantes to take up arms and fight back. Media accounts had it that a contingent of the “Civilian JTF” attacked Boko Haram members at Dawashi village in Kukawa Local Government Area of Borno State, a venture that ended in the death of not less than 25 civilians.
We make haste to caution that law abiding civilians should not be allowed to take arms and join the fight against terrorists. That aspect must be left to the JTF soldiers to handle because they are professionally trained, equipped and mandated to do so. There are clear evidences that they have carried out their mandate effectively and are moving towards breaking the backbone of the terrorists.
The civilians must not join in the military fray. They must stay away from harm’s way. The job of a vigilante in such high-risk security operation is to provide information and extend total cooperation to the military people.
Apart from risking their lives unnecessarily, a greater danger of exposing civilians to battle situations includes the possibility of some of these civilians turning into warlords. In the North, such warlords inevitably put on the religious garb. Before we know it, civilians helping to fight terrorists may fall under the influence of politicians and other foreign sponsors to float their own terror outfits.
We must avoid this at all costs. We call on the “Civilian JTF” not to lose heart but to intensify their efforts to assist the military to victory. As youth, helping to win the war means they will claim a place of pride when the rebuilding process begins.
It was a resounding endorsement of the gallant efforts of the Joint Task Force of the Nigerian military and security services implementing the emergency rule aimed at flushing out the Boko Haram and other terrorist groups scourging the North East and other parts of northern Nigeria.
[caption id="attachment_406693" align="alignright" width="300"]
A sign near a checkpoint of a vigilante group reads Civilian J.T.F or Civilian Joint Task Force in Maiduguri,. Young men and women have in recent weeks formed vigilante groups, hunting down Boko Haram Islamists who have sneaked back into the city following a military offensive on their camps on the Nigerian border with Niger, Chad and Cameroon with remarkable success. AFP PHOTO[/caption]Their emergence was particularly heartwarming, being a bold departure from the tendency of misguided elements who have sought to portray the terrorists as fighters for a particular religion and region. The “Civilian JTF” recognised the danger and damage to the economic and social livelihood of the people wrought by the al Qaeda-inspired terrorists and decided to assist our men and women under arms to bring the insurgency to an early end.
The situation, however, started taking a different turn when the much wounded and paralysed terror networks started targeting the “Civilian JTF” and their relations for elimination, thus forcing some members of the patriotic vigilantes to take up arms and fight back. Media accounts had it that a contingent of the “Civilian JTF” attacked Boko Haram members at Dawashi village in Kukawa Local Government Area of Borno State, a venture that ended in the death of not less than 25 civilians.
We make haste to caution that law abiding civilians should not be allowed to take arms and join the fight against terrorists. That aspect must be left to the JTF soldiers to handle because they are professionally trained, equipped and mandated to do so. There are clear evidences that they have carried out their mandate effectively and are moving towards breaking the backbone of the terrorists.
The civilians must not join in the military fray. They must stay away from harm’s way. The job of a vigilante in such high-risk security operation is to provide information and extend total cooperation to the military people.
Apart from risking their lives unnecessarily, a greater danger of exposing civilians to battle situations includes the possibility of some of these civilians turning into warlords. In the North, such warlords inevitably put on the religious garb. Before we know it, civilians helping to fight terrorists may fall under the influence of politicians and other foreign sponsors to float their own terror outfits.
We must avoid this at all costs. We call on the “Civilian JTF” not to lose heart but to intensify their efforts to assist the military to victory. As youth, helping to win the war means they will claim a place of pride when the rebuilding process begins.
Monday, 29 July 2013
No To Gay Diplomats
THE federal government has responded with near adequate conviction, the pressure by Western countries to impose the perverted culture of legalising homosexual lifestyles in Nigeria.
The two arms of the National Assembly have taken uncompromising stands, making a law prescribing a fourteen-year jail term for people caught, tried and sentenced for practising homosexual acts in Nigeria. Our President, Dr Goodluck Jonathan, has also made it clear that he would align with the feelings of the Nigerian people and its supreme legislature in ensuring that the law is implemented.
We are, however, worried at the half-heartedness with which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is handling the matter. The Minister, Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru, while recently re-iterating Nigeria’s decision not to succumb to pressures from the West on this vexatious issue, however opened some windows of possibility and prospects for homosexuality in Nigeria.
First, he begged the West to be patient with Nigeria and allow this lifestyle to take root here and be accepted by the Nigerian people before it would be given a free rein. Second, he conceded that Nigeria would accept gay diplomats to serve in this country.
Our rejection of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) nonsense is total and unequivocal. It is rooted in our cultural, religious and social values as a people. It is taboo, abominable and repulsive. Therefore, we cannot afford to allow the moral fabric of our society to be so degraded by foreign cultures and pressures as to allow these evil acts to become acceptable here some time in the future.
We must also not allow countries that have accepted them to export their gay citizens to Nigeria and use their diplomatic cover to practise it here.
Since our people have chosen to shun gay lifestyle here, we must be uncompromising about it because the reasons adduced are cogent. Homosexualism is a virus that degrades the family and its values, corrupts human cohabitation and offends God. It eventually leads to social decline.
We are a country on the rise to our manifest destiny as Africa’s example to the world. We must get there with our values intact as every great society attempts to do.
The West will never allow a person who is a confirmed paedophile, for example, to work in their country even as a diplomat. If the West cannot be allowed to send such perverts to Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, why should they be allowed here?
We say no to gay diplomats in Nigeria. Part of the screening we must conduct before accrediting diplomats to represent their countries here should include checking their sexuality record. We say no, and we mean no!
The two arms of the National Assembly have taken uncompromising stands, making a law prescribing a fourteen-year jail term for people caught, tried and sentenced for practising homosexual acts in Nigeria. Our President, Dr Goodluck Jonathan, has also made it clear that he would align with the feelings of the Nigerian people and its supreme legislature in ensuring that the law is implemented.
We are, however, worried at the half-heartedness with which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is handling the matter. The Minister, Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru, while recently re-iterating Nigeria’s decision not to succumb to pressures from the West on this vexatious issue, however opened some windows of possibility and prospects for homosexuality in Nigeria.
First, he begged the West to be patient with Nigeria and allow this lifestyle to take root here and be accepted by the Nigerian people before it would be given a free rein. Second, he conceded that Nigeria would accept gay diplomats to serve in this country.
Our rejection of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) nonsense is total and unequivocal. It is rooted in our cultural, religious and social values as a people. It is taboo, abominable and repulsive. Therefore, we cannot afford to allow the moral fabric of our society to be so degraded by foreign cultures and pressures as to allow these evil acts to become acceptable here some time in the future.
We must also not allow countries that have accepted them to export their gay citizens to Nigeria and use their diplomatic cover to practise it here.
Since our people have chosen to shun gay lifestyle here, we must be uncompromising about it because the reasons adduced are cogent. Homosexualism is a virus that degrades the family and its values, corrupts human cohabitation and offends God. It eventually leads to social decline.
We are a country on the rise to our manifest destiny as Africa’s example to the world. We must get there with our values intact as every great society attempts to do.
The West will never allow a person who is a confirmed paedophile, for example, to work in their country even as a diplomat. If the West cannot be allowed to send such perverts to Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, why should they be allowed here?
We say no to gay diplomats in Nigeria. Part of the screening we must conduct before accrediting diplomats to represent their countries here should include checking their sexuality record. We say no, and we mean no!
Sunday, 28 July 2013
29 July 1966 – 47 Years Of Fallacies
FORTY-SIX years ago, the counter coup to the first coup of that January claimed the lives of Gen Thomas Johnson Umunnakwe Aguiyi-Ironsi and his host Lt-Col Francis Adekunle Fajuyi. Ironsi was in Ibadan as part of his reconciliation tour, after the first coup that killed mostly prominent Northern politicians and army officers.
Both Ironsi and Fajuyi fought in the United Nations operations in the Congo. Ironsi led the contingent. Ironsi was the target of the coup plotters, but Fajuyi, then military Governor of Western Region, died protecting his leader and guest.
They remain the most unsung military officers of their era. Accusations against Ironsi were that he made laws to facilitate Igbos leadership of the country and he failed to punish the first coup plotters. These were at most speculations.
Six months in power, Ironsi was murdered. He has been demonised, blamed for every Nigerian challenge, and accorded no respect, though he was medalled for his leadership in the UN Congo operations. Fajuyi is tarred with the same brush over his refusal to turn in Ironsi. Ordinarily, it should have counted for him as an act commensurate with his status as an “officer and gentleman”.
Lt-Col Yakubu Gowon announced himself Head of State on 1 August, without accounting for Ironsi. The military Governor of the Eastern Region, Col Ojukwu rejected Gowon’s leadership and, wanted to know where Ironsi was and insisted that Brigadier Babafemi Ogundipe, the highest ranking officer after Ironsi, should assume command.
Killing of Igbos in the North continued with an intensity and bestiality that made earlier killings child’s play. By October 1966, over 50,000 Easterners were killed in a week. More than two million Easterners fled the North.
These events cascaded to a crisis that tore the country apart. Negotiations finally collapsed in January 1967, in Ghana, The Aburi Accords, which each side gave a different interpretation.
When Lt-Col Gowon created 12 states in May 1967 to replace the four regions, Lt-Col Ojukwu declared Eastern Nigeria the Republic of Biafra. A brutal three-year war claimed more than two million lives.
These summarise the dark side of Nigeria after independence. A rash of publications on the war has failed to address the causes of the war. The books have mainly served to document bravery of some officers who had commands in the war. Their accounts are hardly different in substance.
If the January 1966 coup was an Igbo coup, does that explain riots across the North that targeted unarmed and defenceless civilians – children, women, among them pregnant ones whose bowls were ripped?
Nigeria is only months to its centenary, it would benefit from dismantling the falsehood that justify military rule and the war.
Both Ironsi and Fajuyi fought in the United Nations operations in the Congo. Ironsi led the contingent. Ironsi was the target of the coup plotters, but Fajuyi, then military Governor of Western Region, died protecting his leader and guest.
They remain the most unsung military officers of their era. Accusations against Ironsi were that he made laws to facilitate Igbos leadership of the country and he failed to punish the first coup plotters. These were at most speculations.
Six months in power, Ironsi was murdered. He has been demonised, blamed for every Nigerian challenge, and accorded no respect, though he was medalled for his leadership in the UN Congo operations. Fajuyi is tarred with the same brush over his refusal to turn in Ironsi. Ordinarily, it should have counted for him as an act commensurate with his status as an “officer and gentleman”.
Lt-Col Yakubu Gowon announced himself Head of State on 1 August, without accounting for Ironsi. The military Governor of the Eastern Region, Col Ojukwu rejected Gowon’s leadership and, wanted to know where Ironsi was and insisted that Brigadier Babafemi Ogundipe, the highest ranking officer after Ironsi, should assume command.
Killing of Igbos in the North continued with an intensity and bestiality that made earlier killings child’s play. By October 1966, over 50,000 Easterners were killed in a week. More than two million Easterners fled the North.
These events cascaded to a crisis that tore the country apart. Negotiations finally collapsed in January 1967, in Ghana, The Aburi Accords, which each side gave a different interpretation.
When Lt-Col Gowon created 12 states in May 1967 to replace the four regions, Lt-Col Ojukwu declared Eastern Nigeria the Republic of Biafra. A brutal three-year war claimed more than two million lives.
These summarise the dark side of Nigeria after independence. A rash of publications on the war has failed to address the causes of the war. The books have mainly served to document bravery of some officers who had commands in the war. Their accounts are hardly different in substance.
If the January 1966 coup was an Igbo coup, does that explain riots across the North that targeted unarmed and defenceless civilians – children, women, among them pregnant ones whose bowls were ripped?
Nigeria is only months to its centenary, it would benefit from dismantling the falsehood that justify military rule and the war.
Thursday, 25 July 2013
Nigeria After Oil Theft
IT is obvious the Nigerian economy is in a precarious situation. It is really nothing new. The only thing that could be new is the momentum of oil theft, which combining with corruption, is drying up resources available to governments.
Nigerians do not need a warning from the World Bank to know that an economy founded on only one product is doomed. Years of contemplating what to do with the economy has not thrown up solutions that governments are willing to implement. Every government is interested in getting resources it immediately needs for its projects, most of which are short term programmes.
A World Bank’s Nigeria Economic Report for May 2013, noted that, “Despite the recovery in oil prices, Nigeria expanded its fiscal stimulus significantly, increasing consolidated spending by an estimated 2.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, GDP, and drawing down the remaining balance of the Excess Crude Account at the same time that many other oil exporters were building back their reserves.”
What the World Bank is looking at is different from the needs of Nigerians. While the bank is concerned with the ability of Nigeria to meet its international obligations, Nigerians are worried that the country has no plans to create an economy away from oil. All the talks about diversifying the economy, some dating more than 40 years, have remained mere talks.
The saddest aspect of the patch Nigeria is passing through is that once oil revenues climb to levels that can fund the 2013 budget, all those responsible for the economy would happily return to their spending sprees.
Oil accounting for 95 per cent of exports and 75 per cent of consolidated budgetary revenues in Nigeria, is a bigger danger than the volatility of oil prices and thieves who are exploiting weaknesses in the oil production chain.
Those celebrating the assistance Europe is promising to end oil theft are missing the point again. The West’s interests are served by stable oil prices. A stable Nigerian economy, with a broad manufacturing base to serve Nigerians would not benefit from the West’s help which wants Nigeria to be a net importer.
Nigerian authorities should be planning an economy above oil thefts. The only way that would be possible is by diversifying the economy. Oil would still be useful by providing the resources to redirect the economy.
The current practice of consuming all the money the country makes each budget season is another version of oil theft. Indifference to the future is new slavery awaiting Nigerians. Our governments owe us a responsibility to rescue Nigerians from that blight instead of rejoicing that Europe would help it maintain the endless dependence on oil.
Nigerians do not need a warning from the World Bank to know that an economy founded on only one product is doomed. Years of contemplating what to do with the economy has not thrown up solutions that governments are willing to implement. Every government is interested in getting resources it immediately needs for its projects, most of which are short term programmes.
A World Bank’s Nigeria Economic Report for May 2013, noted that, “Despite the recovery in oil prices, Nigeria expanded its fiscal stimulus significantly, increasing consolidated spending by an estimated 2.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, GDP, and drawing down the remaining balance of the Excess Crude Account at the same time that many other oil exporters were building back their reserves.”
What the World Bank is looking at is different from the needs of Nigerians. While the bank is concerned with the ability of Nigeria to meet its international obligations, Nigerians are worried that the country has no plans to create an economy away from oil. All the talks about diversifying the economy, some dating more than 40 years, have remained mere talks.
The saddest aspect of the patch Nigeria is passing through is that once oil revenues climb to levels that can fund the 2013 budget, all those responsible for the economy would happily return to their spending sprees.
Oil accounting for 95 per cent of exports and 75 per cent of consolidated budgetary revenues in Nigeria, is a bigger danger than the volatility of oil prices and thieves who are exploiting weaknesses in the oil production chain.
Those celebrating the assistance Europe is promising to end oil theft are missing the point again. The West’s interests are served by stable oil prices. A stable Nigerian economy, with a broad manufacturing base to serve Nigerians would not benefit from the West’s help which wants Nigeria to be a net importer.
Nigerian authorities should be planning an economy above oil thefts. The only way that would be possible is by diversifying the economy. Oil would still be useful by providing the resources to redirect the economy.
The current practice of consuming all the money the country makes each budget season is another version of oil theft. Indifference to the future is new slavery awaiting Nigerians. Our governments owe us a responsibility to rescue Nigerians from that blight instead of rejoicing that Europe would help it maintain the endless dependence on oil.
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
If FoIA Will Work
AFTER all the efforts to get the Freedom of Information Act, FoIA, it is frustrating to most parties that the media are not using the Act to improve public access to information. It is easy to blame the media journalists for not being enterprising. Many have taken that curious position, without recognising defects in the FoIA.
The FoIA is not for journalists alone. The misconception it would grant journalists excessive powers, for the benefit of the media, to the detriment of the larger society, was mostly responsible for the 12 years the bill was tossed round the National Assembly.
It is the same misunderstanding that totally excluded the most critical aspects of our national life, the economy and environment, from the purview of the FoIA. They are seen as “national interests” to be protected from the media’s scrutiny.
FoIA gives every Nigerian the right to hold our governments accountable. Most of the accountability focus is on the government in Abuja though transparency is on vacation at all levels of government.
The media have constitutionally stated roles that the FoIA whittled down. Section 22 of the Constitution states, “The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people.”
Section 22 is in Chapter II, which captures the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. Among its most famous and most ignored portions are Section 14 (2) (a) sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority; (b) the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government: and (c) the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
The same system that excluded its important sectors from scrutiny finds pleasure in criticising journalists for not using the FoIA. The same system that recognises only sections of the Constitution that favour it criticises non-implementation of FoIA.
Professor Chidi Odinkalu, Chairman of Nigeria’s Human Rights Commission, in recent remarks said a combination of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the Fiscal Responsibility Act and FoIA creates rights with respect to information on fiscal and environmental management. He is partially rights.
Rights these Acts provide are token. The economy and environment are protected from the powers of the FoIA. Moreover, attitudes that guide implementation of the FoIA tend to see the media as enemies of society.
To fulfil its constitutional roles, the media should work harder to rein governments into obeying the Constitution. FoIA is insufficient arsenal for that battle.
The FoIA is not for journalists alone. The misconception it would grant journalists excessive powers, for the benefit of the media, to the detriment of the larger society, was mostly responsible for the 12 years the bill was tossed round the National Assembly.
It is the same misunderstanding that totally excluded the most critical aspects of our national life, the economy and environment, from the purview of the FoIA. They are seen as “national interests” to be protected from the media’s scrutiny.
FoIA gives every Nigerian the right to hold our governments accountable. Most of the accountability focus is on the government in Abuja though transparency is on vacation at all levels of government.
The media have constitutionally stated roles that the FoIA whittled down. Section 22 of the Constitution states, “The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people.”
Section 22 is in Chapter II, which captures the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. Among its most famous and most ignored portions are Section 14 (2) (a) sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority; (b) the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government: and (c) the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
The same system that excluded its important sectors from scrutiny finds pleasure in criticising journalists for not using the FoIA. The same system that recognises only sections of the Constitution that favour it criticises non-implementation of FoIA.
Professor Chidi Odinkalu, Chairman of Nigeria’s Human Rights Commission, in recent remarks said a combination of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the Fiscal Responsibility Act and FoIA creates rights with respect to information on fiscal and environmental management. He is partially rights.
Rights these Acts provide are token. The economy and environment are protected from the powers of the FoIA. Moreover, attitudes that guide implementation of the FoIA tend to see the media as enemies of society.
To fulfil its constitutional roles, the media should work harder to rein governments into obeying the Constitution. FoIA is insufficient arsenal for that battle.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Quick Fixing Of Football Scandal
NIGERIAN football made the headlines worldwide for all the wrong reasons in the few weeks – a 146-goal score from two matches shattered all known records.
The four clubs involved, from obscurity, have grabbed global and an unfavourable FIFA interest in Nigerian football.
Two of the teams, Police Machine FC of Adamawa and Plateau United Feeders were contesting a decisive amateur division four league tie; the winner would have been promoted. They were tied on points going into the game, but United had a goal advantage. The story was that at half time Police were leading 1-0. A few phone calls began the race for goals.
Both teams knew their fate revolved on who scored more goals. The phone calls monitored efforts of each team until the games were stopped at Plateau United Feeders 70, Akurba FC of Nasarawa 0; Police Machine 67, Babayaro FC of Gombe 0.
Calls for the punishment of the teams involved and their officials were instant. The Nigeria Football Association, NFA, seems to have acted fast in banning the clubs, their officials, and the players for life. Really it is a 10-year ban, which making room for age and interests would effectively keep those involved in this bizarre affair away from football.
The ban should serve as a deterrent to others who are planning to fix matches. It should also be an eye opener to those managing the game about its wrong growth.
Would there have been suspicions of match-fixing if the goal margins were lean? How would NFA deter clubs from using technology to fix games in other matches that hold premium interests, especially promotions and possible cash rewards? Would the NFA be content with resolving this scandal or commence measures to deal with match fixing before it becomes endemic?
Fears abound that the NFA would be unable to implement the ban on the players and their officials. Does the ban “from sporting activities” extend to other sports? The silence on the match officials – referees and match commissioner is ominous.
They too should be punished. The sanction for the NFA co-ordinator of the Bauchi the centre should be transparently decided; referring him to the amateur league board is inadequate.
The responsibility for enforcing the punishments lies with the NFA. It has to secure the records of the offenders, including their biometrics (photographs are not enough) and store them in a secured facility. NFA cannot shift the responsibility to security agencies that have more spanning concerns than the fidelity of football results.
Bauchi should alert the NFA about match fixing and the urgent demands of fixing it, quickly and quietly to avoid extinction of our remaining football assets.
The four clubs involved, from obscurity, have grabbed global and an unfavourable FIFA interest in Nigerian football.
Two of the teams, Police Machine FC of Adamawa and Plateau United Feeders were contesting a decisive amateur division four league tie; the winner would have been promoted. They were tied on points going into the game, but United had a goal advantage. The story was that at half time Police were leading 1-0. A few phone calls began the race for goals.
Both teams knew their fate revolved on who scored more goals. The phone calls monitored efforts of each team until the games were stopped at Plateau United Feeders 70, Akurba FC of Nasarawa 0; Police Machine 67, Babayaro FC of Gombe 0.
Calls for the punishment of the teams involved and their officials were instant. The Nigeria Football Association, NFA, seems to have acted fast in banning the clubs, their officials, and the players for life. Really it is a 10-year ban, which making room for age and interests would effectively keep those involved in this bizarre affair away from football.
The ban should serve as a deterrent to others who are planning to fix matches. It should also be an eye opener to those managing the game about its wrong growth.
Would there have been suspicions of match-fixing if the goal margins were lean? How would NFA deter clubs from using technology to fix games in other matches that hold premium interests, especially promotions and possible cash rewards? Would the NFA be content with resolving this scandal or commence measures to deal with match fixing before it becomes endemic?
Fears abound that the NFA would be unable to implement the ban on the players and their officials. Does the ban “from sporting activities” extend to other sports? The silence on the match officials – referees and match commissioner is ominous.
They too should be punished. The sanction for the NFA co-ordinator of the Bauchi the centre should be transparently decided; referring him to the amateur league board is inadequate.
The responsibility for enforcing the punishments lies with the NFA. It has to secure the records of the offenders, including their biometrics (photographs are not enough) and store them in a secured facility. NFA cannot shift the responsibility to security agencies that have more spanning concerns than the fidelity of football results.
Bauchi should alert the NFA about match fixing and the urgent demands of fixing it, quickly and quietly to avoid extinction of our remaining football assets.
Monday, 22 July 2013
Al Bashir in Nigeria
ON Sunday 14 August 2013, President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan braved all odds and arrived in Abuja for the African Union Summit on HIV/AIDS, an important event to assess the ten-year initiative of the AU to tackle the epidemic. Nigeria, as a signatory to the International Court of Justice, ICC, was expected to arrest Al Bashir.
All signatories to the ICC were meant to arrest him whenever he sets foot in their jurisdiction for his alleged crimes against humanity during the Darfur crises.
Al Bashir allegedly armed Arab militias to kill, maim and chase indigenous African populations of the Darfur Region away from their villages. The crisis that gave Sudan and its leaders pariah status before the international community was the reason for the decision. He is the first sitting president on which the ICC has issued an arrest order.
Nigeria decided to align with the resolution of the AU not to comply with the arrest warrant. AU, the organiser of the event, invited Al Bashir, Nigeria hosted him. Some African countries have threatened to arrest Al Bashir, the choice would be theirs, just as Kenya, Chad, and Djibouti had received him. In addition to the AU, the League of Arab States, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the governments of Russia and China oppose the ICC decision.
Al Bashir left after meeting with President Goodluck Jonathan and other African leaders. Speculations that he would be arrested were fuelled with the Nigerian civil society groups’ threats to get Nigerian courts orders to arrest Al Bashir. The threats fell flat for the hypocrisy they represented. The same groups are barely audible on national issues, until promptings from their foreign collaborators.
We agree with the Federal Government’s handling of Al Bashir’s visit. Nigeria provided leadership in ensuring the AU’s position. This matter goes beyond the person of Al Bashir and the alleged crimes he perpetrated in his country. Since the AU has undertaken to tackle the issue, we must encourage it to put its words into action.
Africa must look inwards for solutions to its internal problems, rather than continue to be dictated to by foreign powers who have never surrendered any of their incumbent leaders to the international organisations for punishment or sanctions. The ICC appears to be pursuing neo-colonial agenda against African interests.
It is against African culture to maltreat our visitors, let alone get them arrested and handed over to their accusers. As continental leader, Nigeria must draw the line and say no when the West forces itself on Africa, in the most discriminatory manner.
What is left is for Nigeria to ensure AU concludes its investigations into Al Bashir’s role in Darfur.
All signatories to the ICC were meant to arrest him whenever he sets foot in their jurisdiction for his alleged crimes against humanity during the Darfur crises.
Al Bashir allegedly armed Arab militias to kill, maim and chase indigenous African populations of the Darfur Region away from their villages. The crisis that gave Sudan and its leaders pariah status before the international community was the reason for the decision. He is the first sitting president on which the ICC has issued an arrest order.
Nigeria decided to align with the resolution of the AU not to comply with the arrest warrant. AU, the organiser of the event, invited Al Bashir, Nigeria hosted him. Some African countries have threatened to arrest Al Bashir, the choice would be theirs, just as Kenya, Chad, and Djibouti had received him. In addition to the AU, the League of Arab States, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the governments of Russia and China oppose the ICC decision.
Al Bashir left after meeting with President Goodluck Jonathan and other African leaders. Speculations that he would be arrested were fuelled with the Nigerian civil society groups’ threats to get Nigerian courts orders to arrest Al Bashir. The threats fell flat for the hypocrisy they represented. The same groups are barely audible on national issues, until promptings from their foreign collaborators.
We agree with the Federal Government’s handling of Al Bashir’s visit. Nigeria provided leadership in ensuring the AU’s position. This matter goes beyond the person of Al Bashir and the alleged crimes he perpetrated in his country. Since the AU has undertaken to tackle the issue, we must encourage it to put its words into action.
Africa must look inwards for solutions to its internal problems, rather than continue to be dictated to by foreign powers who have never surrendered any of their incumbent leaders to the international organisations for punishment or sanctions. The ICC appears to be pursuing neo-colonial agenda against African interests.
It is against African culture to maltreat our visitors, let alone get them arrested and handed over to their accusers. As continental leader, Nigeria must draw the line and say no when the West forces itself on Africa, in the most discriminatory manner.
What is left is for Nigeria to ensure AU concludes its investigations into Al Bashir’s role in Darfur.
Sunday, 21 July 2013
Shameless Senate
OUR Senate is in the caves. We have a duty to save it, from itself, and for Nigerians. How can the Senate in the 21st century be proposing that Nigerian girls can be married at an indeterminate age? The Senate is shamelessly broadcasting its determination to insert the profane provision into the Constitution.
Those limiting impacts of the Senate’s decision that girls are ready for marriage at any age they are married to abuse of the girl child massively miss the point about its implications for the future of our society.
What would a society be where children are meant to raise their own children? How can a girl by law attain womanhood once someone marries her? Is the Senate banning childhood for girls?
Our laws recognise adulthood at 18 – for rights of litigation, voting, and the definition of “minor”. A woman married at less than 18, according to the Senate, would be an “adult” by an act that has telling effects on the health of the girl child.
At what age would the “senate adult” have any legal rights? Is a definite age for adulthood unimportant? Is it not discrimination, contrary to Section 42 of the Constitution, to have different adulthood age for female and male Nigerians?
Under Section 29 (4a and 4b) of the Constitution, a woman shall not be qualified for marriage until she is 18 years of age. The Senate, on Wednesday, proposed to change that provision to ‘a woman is deemed to be of full age once she is married’, irrespective of the age she did so. What importance does this provision have for the welfare of the society? Is the provision for pleasures of some gentlemen, who delight in marrying children under guises of religion, culture and personal preferences?
A senator is facing charges for allegedly marrying an under-aged girl. Would the Constitution also be retroactive to protect him? Is the provision for those who harbour similar ambition?
Granted, most of the proposed changes in the Constitution are self-serving, it would be stretching things to shattering for Nigerians to permit this provision.
Further protections for the girl child are in Articles 21 (2) of the African Charter on Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 6 (b) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Section 21 of the Child’s Rights Act of Nigeria (2003), Article 18 (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Nigeria will be in perpetual danger if provisions like these are in the Constitution. It would damage our demographics beyond immediate contemplation. Nigerians have to stop this provision and other obscenities the National Assembly can insert into the Constitution.
Those limiting impacts of the Senate’s decision that girls are ready for marriage at any age they are married to abuse of the girl child massively miss the point about its implications for the future of our society.
What would a society be where children are meant to raise their own children? How can a girl by law attain womanhood once someone marries her? Is the Senate banning childhood for girls?
Our laws recognise adulthood at 18 – for rights of litigation, voting, and the definition of “minor”. A woman married at less than 18, according to the Senate, would be an “adult” by an act that has telling effects on the health of the girl child.
At what age would the “senate adult” have any legal rights? Is a definite age for adulthood unimportant? Is it not discrimination, contrary to Section 42 of the Constitution, to have different adulthood age for female and male Nigerians?
Under Section 29 (4a and 4b) of the Constitution, a woman shall not be qualified for marriage until she is 18 years of age. The Senate, on Wednesday, proposed to change that provision to ‘a woman is deemed to be of full age once she is married’, irrespective of the age she did so. What importance does this provision have for the welfare of the society? Is the provision for pleasures of some gentlemen, who delight in marrying children under guises of religion, culture and personal preferences?
A senator is facing charges for allegedly marrying an under-aged girl. Would the Constitution also be retroactive to protect him? Is the provision for those who harbour similar ambition?
Granted, most of the proposed changes in the Constitution are self-serving, it would be stretching things to shattering for Nigerians to permit this provision.
Further protections for the girl child are in Articles 21 (2) of the African Charter on Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 6 (b) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Section 21 of the Child’s Rights Act of Nigeria (2003), Article 18 (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Nigeria will be in perpetual danger if provisions like these are in the Constitution. It would damage our demographics beyond immediate contemplation. Nigerians have to stop this provision and other obscenities the National Assembly can insert into the Constitution.
Thursday, 18 July 2013
BPP Bars 10 Firms
THE Bureau of Public Procurement has announced the debarment of 10 contractors. It may be the first in moves to sanitise the procurement process which is bedevilled by complications that negate transparency. The main objective of the cleansing is to curb alleged corrupt practices.
Some date back to year 2000. The affected companies are:
· Scientific Energy and Environmental Management System, Lagos, June 17, 2013 - June 17, 2015
· SNC Lavalin Lagos, May 7, 2013 - April 17, 2023
·Sego Ventures, Lagos, June 3, 2011 - August 1, 2013
· Gurpreet Singh Malik, Lagos
· Kamal Sharda, Lagos
· Sharda Impex (U.K), Lagos
· Shereena Agriculture Ltd, Kano
· Vikram Deepak Gursahaney, Lagos, all permanently debarred since February 11, 2000
· Karitex..Ltd permanently debarred since February 24, 2000
· Contransimex Nigeria Ltd barred May 30, 2012 - May 29, 2014
Emeka Ezeh, Director-General of BPP, said, “The proposed debarment procedure is one of the mechanisms developed by the bureau, to punish procurement related corrupt activities and inculcate the required discipline in Nigeria’s public procurement system.”
We support the BPP moves, but there is need for more transparency, including stating the specific offences the companies committed. BPP has to develop its capacities to be in charge of its decisions on debarment.
BPP’s dependence on foreign organisations like the World Bank denies it the independence the process requires. Reports from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank Group prompted the ban. Nigeria’s interests are not necessarily the same with those organisations. BPP does not have the details of those decisions most of which were made three years before its establishment in 2007.
“If you violate any provisions of the Public Procurement Act 2007, if one offers bribe and generally misrepresents facts and lies about its capability, with a view to changing the outcome of the procurement process, one is liable to sanctions,” Ezeh advised.
More importantly, BPP cannot succeed if it does not punish officials who contractors compromise. The procurement process, to improve compliance, should not punish contractors and leave out government officials and politicians who ingeniously aid the abuses.
Until this vital aspect of the procurement process is tackled, when companies are debarred, they would re-group under new names, new directors, and still link up with their BPP contacts who have the insider information compromising companies depend on for success in procurements. We consider it apposite that both givers and takers of bribes are punished. Determent could be more effective than debarment.
BPP has more work to do if it is to contain the dynamism of abuses in the procurement process. It has the additional important task of being thorough without creating more delays in the execution of projects.
Some date back to year 2000. The affected companies are:
· Scientific Energy and Environmental Management System, Lagos, June 17, 2013 - June 17, 2015
· SNC Lavalin Lagos, May 7, 2013 - April 17, 2023
·Sego Ventures, Lagos, June 3, 2011 - August 1, 2013
· Gurpreet Singh Malik, Lagos
· Kamal Sharda, Lagos
· Sharda Impex (U.K), Lagos
· Shereena Agriculture Ltd, Kano
· Vikram Deepak Gursahaney, Lagos, all permanently debarred since February 11, 2000
· Karitex..Ltd permanently debarred since February 24, 2000
· Contransimex Nigeria Ltd barred May 30, 2012 - May 29, 2014
Emeka Ezeh, Director-General of BPP, said, “The proposed debarment procedure is one of the mechanisms developed by the bureau, to punish procurement related corrupt activities and inculcate the required discipline in Nigeria’s public procurement system.”
We support the BPP moves, but there is need for more transparency, including stating the specific offences the companies committed. BPP has to develop its capacities to be in charge of its decisions on debarment.
BPP’s dependence on foreign organisations like the World Bank denies it the independence the process requires. Reports from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank Group prompted the ban. Nigeria’s interests are not necessarily the same with those organisations. BPP does not have the details of those decisions most of which were made three years before its establishment in 2007.
“If you violate any provisions of the Public Procurement Act 2007, if one offers bribe and generally misrepresents facts and lies about its capability, with a view to changing the outcome of the procurement process, one is liable to sanctions,” Ezeh advised.
More importantly, BPP cannot succeed if it does not punish officials who contractors compromise. The procurement process, to improve compliance, should not punish contractors and leave out government officials and politicians who ingeniously aid the abuses.
Until this vital aspect of the procurement process is tackled, when companies are debarred, they would re-group under new names, new directors, and still link up with their BPP contacts who have the insider information compromising companies depend on for success in procurements. We consider it apposite that both givers and takers of bribes are punished. Determent could be more effective than debarment.
BPP has more work to do if it is to contain the dynamism of abuses in the procurement process. It has the additional important task of being thorough without creating more delays in the execution of projects.
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
Happy Mandela Day, Madiba
THE United Nations declaration of 18 July – birthday of the global icon Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela – as Mandela Day will be marked with sobriety as the 95-year-old former South African president spends his sixth straight week in hospital.
Activities lined up to celebrate the man whose resolve was central to ending apartheid, include school children all over South Africa singing “happy birthday” to him this morning, a United Nations special session, and a legacy bridge to be opened in Mveso, Transkei, near his home town of Qunu. The UN declared Mandela Day in 2010 as a special day to remind people to do good for humanity which is what Mandela epitomises.
“This year’s commemoration comes at a sensitive time for President Mandela and his family,” said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon . “He is an extraordinary man who continues to inspire the world through his example of courage, compassion and commitment to justice for all.”
Born on 18 July 1918, Mandela became actively involved in the anti-apartheid movement in his 20s, joining the African National Congress in 1942. He attended the University College of Fort Hare and later enrolled at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg to study law.
In 1963, he was brought to trial with 10 other ANC leaders and sentenced to life imprisonment. Mandela was incarcerated for 27 years. While in prison, he earned a Bachelor of Law degree through a University of London correspondence programme.
On February 11, 1990 Frederick De Klerk released Mandela and unbanned the ANC. In 1993, Mandela and de Klerk were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. On April 27, 1994, South Africa held its first democratic elections. Mandela was inaugurated as the country’s first black president on May 10, 1994, at the age of 77, with de Klerk as his first deputy.
By the 1999 general election, Mandela had retired from active politics. His published works include the biography, No Easy Walk to Freedom.
Mandela made his last public appearance to date in 2010, at the final match of the World Cup in South Africa. In December 2012, Mandela was hospitalised for a lung infection. He was re-admitted in March 2013 for a lung infection. On June 8, 2013, Mandela was rushed to a hospital in Pretoria, he is still there.
He married thrice - to Evelyn Ntoko Mase (1944 to 1957), they had four children; Winnie Madikizela-Mandela (1958 to 1996), they had two daughters and in 1998 to Graca Machel.
“Never before in history was one human being so universally acknowledged in his lifetime as the embodiment of magnanimity and reconciliation,” Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu, once said of Mandela.
We wish Madiba happy birthday and quick recovery.
Activities lined up to celebrate the man whose resolve was central to ending apartheid, include school children all over South Africa singing “happy birthday” to him this morning, a United Nations special session, and a legacy bridge to be opened in Mveso, Transkei, near his home town of Qunu. The UN declared Mandela Day in 2010 as a special day to remind people to do good for humanity which is what Mandela epitomises.
“This year’s commemoration comes at a sensitive time for President Mandela and his family,” said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon . “He is an extraordinary man who continues to inspire the world through his example of courage, compassion and commitment to justice for all.”
Born on 18 July 1918, Mandela became actively involved in the anti-apartheid movement in his 20s, joining the African National Congress in 1942. He attended the University College of Fort Hare and later enrolled at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg to study law.
In 1963, he was brought to trial with 10 other ANC leaders and sentenced to life imprisonment. Mandela was incarcerated for 27 years. While in prison, he earned a Bachelor of Law degree through a University of London correspondence programme.
On February 11, 1990 Frederick De Klerk released Mandela and unbanned the ANC. In 1993, Mandela and de Klerk were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. On April 27, 1994, South Africa held its first democratic elections. Mandela was inaugurated as the country’s first black president on May 10, 1994, at the age of 77, with de Klerk as his first deputy.
By the 1999 general election, Mandela had retired from active politics. His published works include the biography, No Easy Walk to Freedom.
Mandela made his last public appearance to date in 2010, at the final match of the World Cup in South Africa. In December 2012, Mandela was hospitalised for a lung infection. He was re-admitted in March 2013 for a lung infection. On June 8, 2013, Mandela was rushed to a hospital in Pretoria, he is still there.
He married thrice - to Evelyn Ntoko Mase (1944 to 1957), they had four children; Winnie Madikizela-Mandela (1958 to 1996), they had two daughters and in 1998 to Graca Machel.
“Never before in history was one human being so universally acknowledged in his lifetime as the embodiment of magnanimity and reconciliation,” Archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu, once said of Mandela.
We wish Madiba happy birthday and quick recovery.
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
One Year Of Mukhtar’s Reforms
JUSTICE Aloma Mukhtar’s inauguration as the first female Chief Justice of Nigeria a year ago, passed without much fanfare because of her character, a quality she has brought to judicial reforms, particularly the sanctioning of judges.
Her appointment left her with the challenge of reforming an arm of government that bears its inadequacies with stoic embarrassment.
Corruption in the judiciary is barely punished. Justice Mukhtar has confronted corruption in the judiciary. She has led the National Judicial Council to punish it. The flood of 198 petitions that got to the NJC in one year, though Mukhtar said 150 of them were frivolous, could be an indication of peoples’ disappointments with the judiciary, as well as their expectation that Mukhtar would address the complaints.
Notable among the cases the NJC decided were those of Justice Charles Archibong of the Federal High Court and Justice T. D. Naron of High Court of Plateau State, who were retired for alleged unprofessional conduct.
The NJC on 26 April 2013, also suspended Justice Abubakar Talba from office for a year without pay over findings that he did not exercise discretion in sentencing Mr. John Yakubu Yusuf, who he convicted for stealing N1.3 billion from the police pension fund.
The N750, 000 fine, which Yakubu paid on the spot and gained his freedom, outraged the public.
Last week, six court workers were dismissed by the Federal Judicial Service Commission which Justice Mukhtar chairs, for leaking undelivered judgments for cash. Cases of 69 judges are awaiting the attention of the NJC.
Many applaud Mukhtar’s performance in just a year. However, more challenges lie ahead. She has to tackle them more expeditiously before her retirement in November 2014.
The most pressing of them is making the punishments for judges stiffer. Retirement of corrupt judges, with full benefits, and without recovery of their loot, is not adequate punishment that would deter others from embracing corruption.
In addition, corrupt judges and other judicial workers should be prosecuted. The odium of prosecution, with their offences made public, would be a bigger deterrent than retiring them. The current practice of the NJC, peopled with judges, trying their colleagues, does not provide adequate comfort to the public.
The other level of corruption, the exposure of undelivered judgement to litigants, deserves heavy punishment. The exposure of judgement is the precursory to bribing judges to reverse judgements. It is not enough to sack the judicial workers involved. What about those who paid for the judgement? They pose a greater danger to the judiciary. Do they not deserve punishment?
Justice Mukhtar has done well, but her performance has raised public expectation for more cleansing of the judiciary.
Her appointment left her with the challenge of reforming an arm of government that bears its inadequacies with stoic embarrassment.
Corruption in the judiciary is barely punished. Justice Mukhtar has confronted corruption in the judiciary. She has led the National Judicial Council to punish it. The flood of 198 petitions that got to the NJC in one year, though Mukhtar said 150 of them were frivolous, could be an indication of peoples’ disappointments with the judiciary, as well as their expectation that Mukhtar would address the complaints.
Notable among the cases the NJC decided were those of Justice Charles Archibong of the Federal High Court and Justice T. D. Naron of High Court of Plateau State, who were retired for alleged unprofessional conduct.
The NJC on 26 April 2013, also suspended Justice Abubakar Talba from office for a year without pay over findings that he did not exercise discretion in sentencing Mr. John Yakubu Yusuf, who he convicted for stealing N1.3 billion from the police pension fund.
The N750, 000 fine, which Yakubu paid on the spot and gained his freedom, outraged the public.
Last week, six court workers were dismissed by the Federal Judicial Service Commission which Justice Mukhtar chairs, for leaking undelivered judgments for cash. Cases of 69 judges are awaiting the attention of the NJC.
Many applaud Mukhtar’s performance in just a year. However, more challenges lie ahead. She has to tackle them more expeditiously before her retirement in November 2014.
The most pressing of them is making the punishments for judges stiffer. Retirement of corrupt judges, with full benefits, and without recovery of their loot, is not adequate punishment that would deter others from embracing corruption.
In addition, corrupt judges and other judicial workers should be prosecuted. The odium of prosecution, with their offences made public, would be a bigger deterrent than retiring them. The current practice of the NJC, peopled with judges, trying their colleagues, does not provide adequate comfort to the public.
The other level of corruption, the exposure of undelivered judgement to litigants, deserves heavy punishment. The exposure of judgement is the precursory to bribing judges to reverse judgements. It is not enough to sack the judicial workers involved. What about those who paid for the judgement? They pose a greater danger to the judiciary. Do they not deserve punishment?
Justice Mukhtar has done well, but her performance has raised public expectation for more cleansing of the judiciary.
Monday, 15 July 2013
More Disturbing Education Matters
HOWEVER the strikes of university, and polytechnic teachers are resolved, they would fail to address the damages from imbalance in the attention the authorities give different sides of higher education.
The Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU and the Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics, ASUP, are demanding more funding for teaching facilities and research, better welfare for teachers and improvements in the administrative structures of their institutions.
There may be extract additional promises on these issues, yet the authorities are neglecting dangerous shifts in our education.
Discrimination that governments and other employers exhibit in their treatment of graduates of universities and polytechnics is central to the issue. They promote the discrimination.
It took almost two months of the ASUP nationwide strike before the authorities negotiated with ASUP. Days into the ASUU strike, all efforts were mustered to return the teachers to the classrooms.
Obviously, the children of the high and mighty attend universities – the ASUU strike affected them.
Only the children of the poor, those who do not have the contacts that pull in admission, after the jigsaw with cut off marks and post-JAMB screening, attend polytechnics.
The ASUP strike benefitted from the attention ASUU received; the major reason the authorities remembered ASUP. Official discriminatory practices in education are dangerous for development.
Nigeria is already paying dearly for the indifference to polytechnic education. Fewer candidates are applying to polytechnics and colleges of education.
We would be producing fewer graduates with the practical background that polytechnic education provides and less teachers at the critical levels graduates of colleges of education fill.
Statistics from the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination indicated that in 2013, 1,670,833 candidates applied to universities, 28,977 candidates to polytechnics, and 28,445 to colleges of education.
They are jostling for 520,000 places in over 128 federal, state and private universities; 76 federal, state and private polytechnics; and the over 63 colleges of education.
It is instructive that the 52,608 students that applied to the University of Ibadan, which is the 10th in candidates’ choice, is slightly less than the 57,422 students that applied to all the polytechnics and colleges of education. Applications to these institutions are 3.4 per cent of applications to universities.
Nigeria should worry about this development. The appropriate response would be to pay adequate attention to education and halt the discrimination.
Of the 520,000 places that are available for students in 2013/2014, many of them are in polytechnics and colleges of education – they will not be filled.
Students are making their choices based on the premium Nigeria places on university education. It is time the education authorities realised the damage they are doing, more damage than ASUU and ASUP strikes.
The Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU and the Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics, ASUP, are demanding more funding for teaching facilities and research, better welfare for teachers and improvements in the administrative structures of their institutions.
There may be extract additional promises on these issues, yet the authorities are neglecting dangerous shifts in our education.
Discrimination that governments and other employers exhibit in their treatment of graduates of universities and polytechnics is central to the issue. They promote the discrimination.
It took almost two months of the ASUP nationwide strike before the authorities negotiated with ASUP. Days into the ASUU strike, all efforts were mustered to return the teachers to the classrooms.
Obviously, the children of the high and mighty attend universities – the ASUU strike affected them.
Only the children of the poor, those who do not have the contacts that pull in admission, after the jigsaw with cut off marks and post-JAMB screening, attend polytechnics.
The ASUP strike benefitted from the attention ASUU received; the major reason the authorities remembered ASUP. Official discriminatory practices in education are dangerous for development.
Nigeria is already paying dearly for the indifference to polytechnic education. Fewer candidates are applying to polytechnics and colleges of education.
We would be producing fewer graduates with the practical background that polytechnic education provides and less teachers at the critical levels graduates of colleges of education fill.
Statistics from the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination indicated that in 2013, 1,670,833 candidates applied to universities, 28,977 candidates to polytechnics, and 28,445 to colleges of education.
They are jostling for 520,000 places in over 128 federal, state and private universities; 76 federal, state and private polytechnics; and the over 63 colleges of education.
It is instructive that the 52,608 students that applied to the University of Ibadan, which is the 10th in candidates’ choice, is slightly less than the 57,422 students that applied to all the polytechnics and colleges of education. Applications to these institutions are 3.4 per cent of applications to universities.
Nigeria should worry about this development. The appropriate response would be to pay adequate attention to education and halt the discrimination.
Of the 520,000 places that are available for students in 2013/2014, many of them are in polytechnics and colleges of education – they will not be filled.
Students are making their choices based on the premium Nigeria places on university education. It is time the education authorities realised the damage they are doing, more damage than ASUU and ASUP strikes.
Sunday, 14 July 2013
The Chaos In Rivers State Must Stop
The nation and the world at large got a shocker on Tuesday, 9th July 2013 when the simmering crisis in the state’s chapter of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the Rivers State House of Assembly resulted in a free-for-all in the House chamber.
Members of the Assembly were seen attacking one another with dangerous objects which left some of them seriously injured and hospitalised.
The faction of five members of the House opposed to Governor Chibuike Amaechi, threw caution to the winds and assembled early that day and announced they had impeached the Speaker, Hon Otelemabala Amachree. In his place, Hon Evans Bipi presented himself as the new Speaker.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 stipulates that for the impeachment of any elected official to be valid, not less than two-thirds of the members of the House must vote in its favour. This clearly did not happen.
The most regrettable part of it was that the Police, having been intimated of the possibility of trouble, drafted scores of their men to the Assembly.
And yet, it did not stop the grievous assault on members from taking place. The Police simply watched while the law was being broken with impunity. In fact, some uniformed officers were seen helping to perpetrate evil as reminiscent of the horrific scenes seen on NTA in 2003 following the Governor Chris Ngige kidnap saga in Anambra State.
We are at a loss how people described in many media reports as “thugs” were able to find their ways into the Assembly grounds and even the public gallery when security men reportedly screened people getting into the arena.
One would have thought that with crisis forewarned, strict steps would be taken by the law enforcement agencies to keep out non-members and to arrest anyone who abandoned their legitimate duties as legislators and opted to foment trouble.
We condemn what happened in Rivers State last Tuesday in the strongest terms. This was a day that decorum was thrown to the winds, while the monster of lawlessness reigned supreme. It smacks of political madness for a handful of five legislators to purport to impeach a Speaker in total contravention of the constitution.
We must find a way to severely sanction politicians and public office holders who perpetrate such constitutional iniquities. Otherwise, our democracy will continue to be mired in political backwardness. Perhaps, it is time for us to consider the long suggested establishment of constitution courts to deal with matters such as these.
We commend the House of Representatives for quickly intervening and taking over the legislative functions of the House until tempers cool and members come back to their senses.
The House and the Senate should conduct a joint inquiry into the roles played by the law enforcement agents, particularly the Police, on that day. Those who failed in their assigned duties to enforce the law must be made to face the music.
The crisis in Rivers State is beginning to acquire a more dangerous turn, with the supporters of both sides now confronting each other in the streets.
We are living witnesses to the horrors the nation went through as a result of the activities of political thugs and cult groups who later became militants and went into the creeks to disrupt the peace and economic wellbeing of the country.
The nation has paid dearly to pacify and stabilise the Niger Delta. We must not allow ugly recent history to repeat itself. The political combatants must sheathe their swords and allow the people of the state to live peacefully with one another.
There is no substitute to politics without bitterness.
Members of the Assembly were seen attacking one another with dangerous objects which left some of them seriously injured and hospitalised.
The faction of five members of the House opposed to Governor Chibuike Amaechi, threw caution to the winds and assembled early that day and announced they had impeached the Speaker, Hon Otelemabala Amachree. In his place, Hon Evans Bipi presented himself as the new Speaker.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 stipulates that for the impeachment of any elected official to be valid, not less than two-thirds of the members of the House must vote in its favour. This clearly did not happen.
The most regrettable part of it was that the Police, having been intimated of the possibility of trouble, drafted scores of their men to the Assembly.
And yet, it did not stop the grievous assault on members from taking place. The Police simply watched while the law was being broken with impunity. In fact, some uniformed officers were seen helping to perpetrate evil as reminiscent of the horrific scenes seen on NTA in 2003 following the Governor Chris Ngige kidnap saga in Anambra State.
We are at a loss how people described in many media reports as “thugs” were able to find their ways into the Assembly grounds and even the public gallery when security men reportedly screened people getting into the arena.
One would have thought that with crisis forewarned, strict steps would be taken by the law enforcement agencies to keep out non-members and to arrest anyone who abandoned their legitimate duties as legislators and opted to foment trouble.
We condemn what happened in Rivers State last Tuesday in the strongest terms. This was a day that decorum was thrown to the winds, while the monster of lawlessness reigned supreme. It smacks of political madness for a handful of five legislators to purport to impeach a Speaker in total contravention of the constitution.
We must find a way to severely sanction politicians and public office holders who perpetrate such constitutional iniquities. Otherwise, our democracy will continue to be mired in political backwardness. Perhaps, it is time for us to consider the long suggested establishment of constitution courts to deal with matters such as these.
We commend the House of Representatives for quickly intervening and taking over the legislative functions of the House until tempers cool and members come back to their senses.
The House and the Senate should conduct a joint inquiry into the roles played by the law enforcement agents, particularly the Police, on that day. Those who failed in their assigned duties to enforce the law must be made to face the music.
The crisis in Rivers State is beginning to acquire a more dangerous turn, with the supporters of both sides now confronting each other in the streets.
We are living witnesses to the horrors the nation went through as a result of the activities of political thugs and cult groups who later became militants and went into the creeks to disrupt the peace and economic wellbeing of the country.
The nation has paid dearly to pacify and stabilise the Niger Delta. We must not allow ugly recent history to repeat itself. The political combatants must sheathe their swords and allow the people of the state to live peacefully with one another.
There is no substitute to politics without bitterness.
Thursday, 11 July 2013
Taraba People Stand Up
PEOPLE in Taraba State are making the point about speaking out for their rights. They are getting succour even if that would not completely change their circumstances.
Almost a year after the floods that devastated some States, the people of Taraba complained that they had not got the promised relief from the Federal Government.
Officials who managed the funds promptly defended the exercise. The money, they said, was used in buying seedlings for affected farmers. The people protested louder. Some said they were given only N200.
Taraba State acting Governor Garba Umar has intervened by sacking five Commissioners, the Secretary to the State Government, Director of the State Emergency Management Agency, and two Special Advisers. They were accused of embezzling N400 million the Federal Government allocated to the State for its flood victims.
Earlier, a report of a committee of the Taraba State House of Assembly indicted the officials in their handling of the funds. Another committee the Governor set up turned in the same verdict. Governor Umar promptly sacked the officials.
The Governor’s action is commendable. He however needs to complete it. The affected officials should be prosecuted and made to refund the money. These would set higher standards of probity in managing public funds.
Other Nigerians should imitate the tenacity of the people of Taraba. If they had kept quiet nobody would have known how the funds were managed. There are other States in similar situations with the management of the flood funds. Their silence has denied them justice.
A lesson from Taraba is that the people have a major role to play in their fate. From those they elect and their responses to the activities of governments, Nigerians need to stand up more. Someone could listen and act, as Governor Umar did. Silence when we disagree with actions of governments almost forecloses any chance of redress.
The Federal Government should also lead the charge to compel Nigerians who voluntarily pledged huge sums of money to the Aliko Dangote Committee on the flood disaster of 2012, to pay. The committee had threatened to publish their names by the end of June. We think it should.
Like the “Taraba Eight”, they too deserve to be prosecuted, not only for failing to redeem their pledges, but for fraudulently accessing the incentives meant to encourage the private sector to contribute to the flood funds.
We should maintain a policy of zero tolerance to fraud, no matter the shape or form it takes. It is abhorrent to segment the law such that when the high and mighty run against the law they are given special treatment to shield them from the consequences of their crime.
Almost a year after the floods that devastated some States, the people of Taraba complained that they had not got the promised relief from the Federal Government.
Officials who managed the funds promptly defended the exercise. The money, they said, was used in buying seedlings for affected farmers. The people protested louder. Some said they were given only N200.
Taraba State acting Governor Garba Umar has intervened by sacking five Commissioners, the Secretary to the State Government, Director of the State Emergency Management Agency, and two Special Advisers. They were accused of embezzling N400 million the Federal Government allocated to the State for its flood victims.
Earlier, a report of a committee of the Taraba State House of Assembly indicted the officials in their handling of the funds. Another committee the Governor set up turned in the same verdict. Governor Umar promptly sacked the officials.
The Governor’s action is commendable. He however needs to complete it. The affected officials should be prosecuted and made to refund the money. These would set higher standards of probity in managing public funds.
Other Nigerians should imitate the tenacity of the people of Taraba. If they had kept quiet nobody would have known how the funds were managed. There are other States in similar situations with the management of the flood funds. Their silence has denied them justice.
A lesson from Taraba is that the people have a major role to play in their fate. From those they elect and their responses to the activities of governments, Nigerians need to stand up more. Someone could listen and act, as Governor Umar did. Silence when we disagree with actions of governments almost forecloses any chance of redress.
The Federal Government should also lead the charge to compel Nigerians who voluntarily pledged huge sums of money to the Aliko Dangote Committee on the flood disaster of 2012, to pay. The committee had threatened to publish their names by the end of June. We think it should.
Like the “Taraba Eight”, they too deserve to be prosecuted, not only for failing to redeem their pledges, but for fraudulently accessing the incentives meant to encourage the private sector to contribute to the flood funds.
We should maintain a policy of zero tolerance to fraud, no matter the shape or form it takes. It is abhorrent to segment the law such that when the high and mighty run against the law they are given special treatment to shield them from the consequences of their crime.
Monday, 8 July 2013
Choosing People Over Politics
SPEAKER of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, has been preaching this message for a while – service to the people should be above partisan leanings. He has won few converts in his class.
The emphasis on party loyalty over service to the people who elected them is at the centre of the growing contests among the peoples of Nigeria and their representatives. Politicians think they are divined to be over Nigerians. They consider Nigerians irritants to be reluctantly faced during elections.
In the House of Representatives, there have been glimpses of possibilities of using politics to serve our peoples who have suffered neglects over the years. Politicians see politics as the veritable platform to place themselves above the people.
Our servant-leaders serve themselves; they disregard the dictates of democratic governments. The hang over of military governments remains.
Tambuwal at the birthday celebration of Edo State Deputy Governor, Dr Pius Odubu, said that concerns for the people were central to decisions of the House of Representatives. Tambuwal appears at events of opposition politicians.
On June 1, Tambuwal incurred new anger in his Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, when he praised Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola during the launching of the IT-based educational aid for secondary school pupils. PDP thought he had no business eulogising the performance of an opposition party member.
His response then was that he was Speaker of the House of Representatives of Nigeria, and not just PDP.
Party politics for all its importance to growth of democracy, has been a growing challenge, essentially as party officials hold self-serving positions on issues. The parties are less democratic than some authoritarian regimes. Nigerians’ interests are distant considerations for most of them.
“What concerns us as a House is the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The moment you are elected a member, you are expected to serve and represent that particular constituency irrespective of which platform of the party you have contested the election and won.
Whatever we do in the House, we consider the federation of Nigeria as a basis of our decision,” Tambuwal told the gathering which personalities across political party lines attended.
Tambuwal’s antecedents make him a supporter of broader platforms for attaining national objectives. In June 2011, drawing from alliances in the House, he upturned PDP’s decision on the House.
The singular act has made him an anti-party man. He is often seen in the company of more politicians from other parties, and his absence at major party events casts him in opposition garbs.
It is convenient to see the messenger as a drowning politician seeking relevance. The point remains that service to the people is the essence of governance, our Constitution says so.
The emphasis on party loyalty over service to the people who elected them is at the centre of the growing contests among the peoples of Nigeria and their representatives. Politicians think they are divined to be over Nigerians. They consider Nigerians irritants to be reluctantly faced during elections.
In the House of Representatives, there have been glimpses of possibilities of using politics to serve our peoples who have suffered neglects over the years. Politicians see politics as the veritable platform to place themselves above the people.
Our servant-leaders serve themselves; they disregard the dictates of democratic governments. The hang over of military governments remains.
Tambuwal at the birthday celebration of Edo State Deputy Governor, Dr Pius Odubu, said that concerns for the people were central to decisions of the House of Representatives. Tambuwal appears at events of opposition politicians.
On June 1, Tambuwal incurred new anger in his Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, when he praised Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola during the launching of the IT-based educational aid for secondary school pupils. PDP thought he had no business eulogising the performance of an opposition party member.
His response then was that he was Speaker of the House of Representatives of Nigeria, and not just PDP.
Party politics for all its importance to growth of democracy, has been a growing challenge, essentially as party officials hold self-serving positions on issues. The parties are less democratic than some authoritarian regimes. Nigerians’ interests are distant considerations for most of them.
“What concerns us as a House is the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The moment you are elected a member, you are expected to serve and represent that particular constituency irrespective of which platform of the party you have contested the election and won.
Whatever we do in the House, we consider the federation of Nigeria as a basis of our decision,” Tambuwal told the gathering which personalities across political party lines attended.
Tambuwal’s antecedents make him a supporter of broader platforms for attaining national objectives. In June 2011, drawing from alliances in the House, he upturned PDP’s decision on the House.
The singular act has made him an anti-party man. He is often seen in the company of more politicians from other parties, and his absence at major party events casts him in opposition garbs.
It is convenient to see the messenger as a drowning politician seeking relevance. The point remains that service to the people is the essence of governance, our Constitution says so.
Friday, 5 July 2013
Fighting For Nigeria
WE cannot remember the Senate breaking into a fight over anything, not even when there were threats to their juicy allowances. The House of Representatives is more famous for fights, including the 2007 one that claimed the life of Dr. Aminu Safana from Katsina State who died as opponents and proponents of Mrs Patricia Etteh, former Speaker of the House of Representatives battled over her tenuous tenure.
Two senators almost engaged in blows during a debate on the proposed State of the Nation Address. The bill is for the President to make an annual presentation on the state of the country to the National Assembly.
Whatever the motives for the law, it holds high hopes that it could afford Nigerians and the President opportunities to focus on certain actions in the cause of a year. During the next address, the President would be expected to review performances from the previous year.
The State of the Nation Address, borrowed from the practice in the United States of America, could be another platform for accountability. The President has refused to assent to it. Some senators support him. Others think he should sign. Where does a fight come into it?
President Jonathan in a letter to the Senate stated, “I am inclined to accede to the Bill subject to the incorporation of some fundamental amendments proposed to bring the bill in conformity with the dictates of the Constitution”.
Senator Ita Solomon Enang’s observation that considering amendments the President proposed amounted to breaching its own rules, hardly finished when the rowdy session that resulted in suspension of proceedings began.
“The question before us is the question of jurisdiction,” Enang said. “It is whether we have power to determine what the President asked; it is when we answer this that we can proceed. He cannot make amendment or propose amendment to any bill. The procedure for making law is this- our Standing Order requires that when a law is to be made, first, you publish that bill in the gazette.
From 2003 (when the bill was proposed), there was Secretary to the Government of the Federation, there have always been Attorneys-General, there have always been Special Advisers to the President on National Assembly Affairs. Did any of them when this bill was being considered either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, come to the public hearing or the committee handling the bill for the amendment they have proposed?”
Valid questions he might have asked. Options open to the Senate include a veto or a trip to the Supreme Court. Either way, senators should raise their passions for more important issues, yet without aiming punches at each other.
Two senators almost engaged in blows during a debate on the proposed State of the Nation Address. The bill is for the President to make an annual presentation on the state of the country to the National Assembly.
Whatever the motives for the law, it holds high hopes that it could afford Nigerians and the President opportunities to focus on certain actions in the cause of a year. During the next address, the President would be expected to review performances from the previous year.
The State of the Nation Address, borrowed from the practice in the United States of America, could be another platform for accountability. The President has refused to assent to it. Some senators support him. Others think he should sign. Where does a fight come into it?
President Jonathan in a letter to the Senate stated, “I am inclined to accede to the Bill subject to the incorporation of some fundamental amendments proposed to bring the bill in conformity with the dictates of the Constitution”.
Senator Ita Solomon Enang’s observation that considering amendments the President proposed amounted to breaching its own rules, hardly finished when the rowdy session that resulted in suspension of proceedings began.
“The question before us is the question of jurisdiction,” Enang said. “It is whether we have power to determine what the President asked; it is when we answer this that we can proceed. He cannot make amendment or propose amendment to any bill. The procedure for making law is this- our Standing Order requires that when a law is to be made, first, you publish that bill in the gazette.
From 2003 (when the bill was proposed), there was Secretary to the Government of the Federation, there have always been Attorneys-General, there have always been Special Advisers to the President on National Assembly Affairs. Did any of them when this bill was being considered either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, come to the public hearing or the committee handling the bill for the amendment they have proposed?”
Valid questions he might have asked. Options open to the Senate include a veto or a trip to the Supreme Court. Either way, senators should raise their passions for more important issues, yet without aiming punches at each other.
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
Another Jail Break, Same Reaction
HOW many prison breaks would it take to secure our prisons? What will happen after the rash of media reactions to the break in Akure, in which 175 criminals were let loose?
Before Akure there have been jail breaks in Ibadan, Warri, Bauchi, Kano, Abuja (at the anti-robbery detention centre), and Port Harcourt. The reactions have always been the same – media talks, promises to address the situation, and forgetfulness until the next criminals free themselves.
A jail break is one of the highest points of criminality. Its consequences depend on the criminals involved and their motives. What all these point at is that the authorities have failed to realise the importance of securing convicts while they serve their sentences. There is still a high tendency of dismissing the schemes criminals can plot even while in jail. More importantly, the reactions after jail breaks had been to descend on the prison authorities. We are well aware that the prisons are at the lowest rungs for budgetary allocations. The security at prisons reflects that reality.
Security at our prisons is left mostly to warders who are poorly armed and easily over powered. It has happened many times. Furthermore, the extent of the alertness, the number of warders deployed to man these facilities, and the equipment at their disposal make the jail breakers’ job easier.
How could the collaborators of the criminals have succeeded if they did not have insider information, and other possible assistance? How did they know the type of equipment they require to blast the walls? How could they identify the cells where their colleagues were kept? They were obviously aware of the types of arms issued to the warders, and possibly how many of them were on duty.
Armed with such information, the criminals knew what to do. The fact that they could operate for hours without interruption should bother the authorities. Where were the police? What was the reaction of other security agencies that heard the commotion at the prison? If this could happen within the state capital, where all the security agencies have a huge presence that costs billions of Naira to maintain, what could happen to prisons in more remote locations?
When will we improve the security at the prisons? When would modern gadgets that could foil these attacks be installed? When would intelligence be at heights that conniving prison officials can be fished out before they do more harm?
This matter needs to be treated as emergency. Once criminals know they can stroll into any prison and set their colleagues free, Nigeria would be on a free fall into more insecurity. Akure should not be another ignored warning.
Before Akure there have been jail breaks in Ibadan, Warri, Bauchi, Kano, Abuja (at the anti-robbery detention centre), and Port Harcourt. The reactions have always been the same – media talks, promises to address the situation, and forgetfulness until the next criminals free themselves.
A jail break is one of the highest points of criminality. Its consequences depend on the criminals involved and their motives. What all these point at is that the authorities have failed to realise the importance of securing convicts while they serve their sentences. There is still a high tendency of dismissing the schemes criminals can plot even while in jail. More importantly, the reactions after jail breaks had been to descend on the prison authorities. We are well aware that the prisons are at the lowest rungs for budgetary allocations. The security at prisons reflects that reality.
Security at our prisons is left mostly to warders who are poorly armed and easily over powered. It has happened many times. Furthermore, the extent of the alertness, the number of warders deployed to man these facilities, and the equipment at their disposal make the jail breakers’ job easier.
How could the collaborators of the criminals have succeeded if they did not have insider information, and other possible assistance? How did they know the type of equipment they require to blast the walls? How could they identify the cells where their colleagues were kept? They were obviously aware of the types of arms issued to the warders, and possibly how many of them were on duty.
Armed with such information, the criminals knew what to do. The fact that they could operate for hours without interruption should bother the authorities. Where were the police? What was the reaction of other security agencies that heard the commotion at the prison? If this could happen within the state capital, where all the security agencies have a huge presence that costs billions of Naira to maintain, what could happen to prisons in more remote locations?
When will we improve the security at the prisons? When would modern gadgets that could foil these attacks be installed? When would intelligence be at heights that conniving prison officials can be fished out before they do more harm?
This matter needs to be treated as emergency. Once criminals know they can stroll into any prison and set their colleagues free, Nigeria would be on a free fall into more insecurity. Akure should not be another ignored warning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)