It is very alarming, shameful or rather painful that Nigeria, a country that claims to have dedicated and enlightened leaders, does not know its problem let alone knowing the cause of it. It is really annoying and embarrassing too that a country of 47 years old still wallows in confusion over the root of its problems. One of which is its youths.
We all know that youth is the life-wire of any society. Whether this country believe it or not, the age bracket of 18 to 55, 60 is the prime bracket of every society. The country, if care is not taken, as we see today, lacks tomorrow. Don’t misunderstand this. Or if there is a tomorrow for this country, it is the tomorrow of a selected few, by a selected family.
Probably the family of the selected few that are on it now. We say God forbid. But a word with our youths, mostly those job-seekers we see in the streets with their files fastened to them, will make us doubt a brighter tomorrow. Some of these youths have lost hope and confidence in themselves just because the frustration and discrimination meted out to them by their leaders.
The question is: where are we going from here, as a country? I know this question is repeatedly asked but the answer remains unsupplied. A good leader of any nation should be a leader that knows how to exploit and tap the strength of its youth to enrich the nation and at the same time, make its youths fulfilled. Mr. President’s first priority should be how to utilize the human resources at his disposal.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Dilemma of the Nigerian Youth
Between Energy Committee and Tariff
Despite the Federal Government’s denial of a plan to increase the electricity tariff for consumers, it would seem that the controversy already generated by the Minister of Energy (power), Hajia Fatimah Balarabe Ibrahim’s original announcement is not about to disappear. On a daily basis, it has been one condemnation or the other from different sectors of the economy particularly from the Labour Unions, the Manufacturers and Commerce Associations. What this clearly shows, is that the Federal Government still needs to do a lot to make Nigerians believe that it means well and that its plan to revamp the nation’s important energy sector is actually on course and devoid of other social conditions.
About ten days ago, during the Nigerian Oil and Gas (NOC) conference, the minister had announced that for the nation to enjoy a stable power supply, the ailing sector needed a minimum of $150 billion. This she claimed would enable the sector to generate a minimum of 100,000 mega watts of electricity by 2015. She said there was no way Nigeria could achieve a 13 percent growth and also attain the world’s top 20 economies by 2020 unless the targeted quantum of power supply was met. She envisaged that by 2020, the nation would need to generate no less than 290,000 megawatts. And since the government does not have that kind of resources now, the need to attract huge private investment into the sector has become more than imperative. Unfortunately, she argued, poor electricity regime which currently stands at N6.00 per Kilowatt hour (km/h) discourages investment and draws back development of the power sub-sector. Therefore for serious investors to be attracted to invest in the energy sector, she said the current price being charged consumers would have to go up.
The outrage the minister’s proposal has since generated is quite justified. The proposal only reminds Nigerians of the old lazy argument used to legitimise the almost annual increase in petroleum products prices since the last 20 years without any improvement or iota of efficiency in the sector. Here we go again with the energy sector! It appears as if Nigerian policy makers have stopped thinking and instead have become accustomed to duplicating solution from one sector to the other. Their understanding of social conditions and reality of Nigerian economy appears illogical and unrealistic. Since 1986, Nigerians have lost confidence in the government’s ability to deliver on promises after calling for sacrifices from all and only to fail woefully thereafter. We had thought the challenge before Yar’adua’s government was first of all to regain that confidence by delivering on such promises as constant electricity supply before calling for more sacrifice.
Even by government’s own admission, it has over the years mismanaged the energy sectors. Compared with South Africa with 40 million people which generates 36,000 megawatts and Iran with a population half of Nigeria’s which generates 45,000 megawatts, Nigeria today can only generate 3000 megawatts. With 14 available generating plants, three hydro and 11 thermal, they run at undercapacity. Most of these plants have become obsolete and in the last 20 years some of them have never had turn-around maintenance. Even the new plants at Geregu, Omotosho and Papalanto could only operate at 50 percent capacity due to shortage of gas supply in a country with excess gas resources.
While we note the presidency’s retraction of the Minister’s proposal when it said “Nigerians can be rest assured that no kobo will be added until they begin to enjoy stable electricity”, we wish to caution on frequent flip-flop on policy matters by government officials. New measures are announced by one official today only to be denounced by another official tomorrow. In this particular case, it is yet to be understood how a minister who was made a chairman of an 11-man presidential committee on energy inaugurated on the 19th of February and mandated to look at ways to deliver 6000 additional megawatts over the next 18 months and add extra 11,000 megawatts by 2011 from various sources and submit report in 30 days, could come out a day after proposing a tariff increase when the committee was yet to even sit. This is like putting the cart before the horse. This is not good enough for a government that claims to have an economic master plan and wants to be taken seriously.
Child-education: A sobering report
The recent report of the United Nations Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF) about the status of Nigerian children is quite frightening. It is revealed that approximately 10 million Nigerian children of school age are not attending any formal education, in other words, they are not in school. It was a report given by UNICEF’s Deputy Country Representative in Nigeria, Robert Limlim, in Abuja.
Limlim said, of that figure, 4.7 million are of primary school age while 5.3 million are those who ought to be in secondary school. Again, he said that of the number of children not attending school, 62 percent are girls and that gender disparity against the girls is worse at the secondary school level with a ratio of 44 percent.
The northern states of the federation have a more sobering picture. For, according to the UNICEF’s representative, only 49 percent of primary school age are boys and 34 percent are girls. Worse is that majority of these drop out of school by the end of primary four, which would mean that transition rate to secondary school is low.
These are indeed frightening revelations and they are facts of our country; a country hoping to compete and be relevant in a world that is knowledge-propelled. It is a scary report also because it puts the nation in danger of having a potential army of socially disoriented and misfits. Today, societies are structured in such a way that the uneducated hardly has any serious relevance both to himself and to the society. It stands to reason, therefore, that any nation that harbours a preponderance of these individuals, is a nation set for a major catastrophe.
It is imperative to state that in present human advancement, education remains the centrepiece for human and national developments. It is the critical element in civilization and therefore cannot and must not be seen as a secondary item in the menu of our national priorities.
It will then mean that government at all levels must re-appraise its policies, especially in the area of education. It is unfortunate that over the years, governments have been glossing over the issue of providing quality education to citizens. Even when it is available, only children of the few well-to-do and better-placed individuals in the society can assess it. This can also explain why our national development index is as pathetic as it is today.
What then should be done? As already said, there must be urgent and holistic re-appraisal of the country’s education policy that will address all the deficits and deficiencies that are working against not only the delivery of quality education, but also making school and learning attractive to those who otherwise would have felt disinterested. People must also be debriefed of the popular notion that education is only a meal ticket.
They should be made to know that that is just half of the truth. Education makes the total person. It is important for them to know that the quality of the human person – of his thoughts, words, actions and, in fact, his appreciation of everything around him – is to a large extent, a function of how well-educated he is.
Perhaps, too, the idea of giving free education to girls should be seriously considered. The report we considered above, if anything, is a show of how the girl-child has been relegated, wittingly or unwittingly. From our experience as a people, we know that the fate of the girl-child, as educating her is concerned, is a result of the callous and jaundiced patriarchal reaches of the Nigerian society. The way tradition views gender issues must change. It is not uncommon to see parents giving more attention and resources to the education of the boy to the disadvantage of the girl. It is beyond doubt that an educated mother is a far better mother and a better human being.
The place of poverty in this sobering report cannot be overemphasized. Unless we want to embark on a journey of self-deceit, the pervading poverty across the land is a major contributory factor to having many of our children out of school. It is uncomfortable to say, but it is time, that there is severe poverty spread across Nigeria.
The fact is that any parent who cannot afford the very basic things of life; anyone who ekes out a living on a daily basis, can ill-afford to put his child in school. And because of poverty and associated afflictions, some of these children have become breadwinners of their families. It goes without saying, therefore, that there must be overhaul of the entire Nigerian system.
Stalling the energy crisis
A few days ago, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua constituted an 11-man committee to give practical effect to his administration’s pledge to end the country’s long-running energy crisis within the shortest possible time. This is perhaps the most serious and direct initiative by the President to lift the sector from its years in prostrate position. Nine months into his administration, the state of the nation’s energy has remained one big embarrassment both to the regime as well as the nation. It has been so over the years.
The President had charged the committee to deliver to the country a total additional 6,000MW generation, transmission and distribution capacity within the next 18 months. Currently, the country’s available capacity hovers between 3,000 and 3,500MW. The committee is also asked to add to the national grid an extra 11,000MW of power generation capacity by 2011.
All of this is to be done, according to the President, through diverse sources while the 6,000 additional megawatts target would be met through the National Integrated Power Project (NIPP). The delivery of this objective is expected to be private sector-driven. Tagged, Presidential Committee for the Accelerated Expansion of Nigeria’s Power Infrastructure, the committee is chaired by the Minister of State for Energy (Power), Mrs. Fatima Balarabe Ibrahim.
There is indeed no doubt that the country’s energy sector is in crisis. The whole of the country is virtually in darkness and its productive capacity has remained stunted, if not degenerative, as a result. The president’s concern in the face of the sorry state of this vital sector is quite understandable and he is only lending his voice and weight to the frustration and the near resignation of the Nigerian people.
In modern societies, power remains the elixir for human development. It is the crucial element for any nation desirous of attending greater height. In the same way, it is central to our economic status and stature.
Rural development definitely cannot take off with our current power profile; nor can small-scale industry, which is the engine of economic growth and sophistication of any nation, thrive. It is instructive as well to remember that the administration’s Vision 2020 cannot be realized on the strength of the power capacity, just as delivering the Millennium Development Goals will remain a mere slogan.
We therefore welcome the President’s practical move to resuscitate the power sector. His plan is ambitious and we want to believe that he has thought about it properly and exhaustively. He really cannot afford to fail, as his predecessors did, especially the immediate past administration.
The country now knows that so much money was pumped into the sector by ex-President Obasanjo without a corresponding return in efficiency and effectiveness. Specifically, President Yar’Adua revealed recently that as much as $10 billion was thrown into the sector and all we see is nothing. Obasanjo even balkanized what was the National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) to form 18 different companies under the process termed “unbundling” of the NEPA institution and the problem of the sector still remains unyielding and intractable.
It is just as bad that the country’s capacity of 3,000MW is available to a population of 140 million people. Experts say, to be comfortable, the country needs between 8,000MW and 10,000MW. Other countries drawing ranks with Nigeria, like Egypt and South Africa, have far more active and robust energy sector. While Egypt has 33,000MW, South Africa has 45,000MW, a far cry from where Nigeria is.
Working from these sorry paradigms, we want the President to put all he has into this new assault on this troubled sector. The truth is that even if giving Nigeria constant and steady power supply is all he can achieve as a President, he would have earned himself the respect and honour perhaps no Nigerian president has ever earned or been accorded.
Energy (electricity) touches every life and everything a people need to live in the contemporary times. It is the hub of development and advancement. We therefore give our support to the President. If he pulls it through, we are confident that Nigeria will be a tremendously changed country.
Ilorin 49: When Enough is Enough
The lingering crisis between the Federal government and Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) over the re-instatement of the 49 sacked lecturers of the University of Ilorin (“Ilorin 49”) has become an open sore which if left untreated today could become a great destabilizing factor in the nation’s tertiary education.
Between Monday, February 18 and Friday February 22, ASUU had embarked on a one-week warning strike to press home its six-year old demand for the re-instatement of the sacked lecturers. The grievances that led to the aforesaid ASUU warning strike are well known to all. 1n 1981, 1982, 1999 and 2001, the government, pursuant to international bargaining principles, entered into four different agreements with ASUU on how to resolve such vexed issues like salaries and conditions of service for academic staff, University autonomy, academic freedom among others.
But the Federal government defaulted in keeping to its own part of the agreements, causing ASUU then to embark on strike to draw government’s attention to the details of the said agreements.
But the strike however became a big problem in the University of Ilorin, as the then Vice Chancellor, Professor Shuaib Oba Abdulraheem chose to sack some 49 ASUU members who participated in the strike. Ever since then, all entreaties from top and influential members of society and even the academia, to re-instate the sacked lecturers have fallen on deaf ears. Even when the ASUU took the matter to court and secured an order to re-instate the sacked lecturers, the order was not, obeyed, until the Unilorin authorities chose to appeal against the order almost a year after, where upon the Appeal court reversed the order of the lower court. ASUU then went to the Supreme court, where the case is, as at today.
Not even the frequent strikes called by ASUU to press home that demand could thaw the ice of obduracy on the part of the Unilorin authorities, as it soon became an ego war.
Consequently, the academic calendar of the nation’s universities has been disrupted many times over.
That was the impasse both ASUU and the Federal Government had got into when the tenure of former president Olusegun Obasanjo who supported the Unilorin position expired.
It thus became a source of refreshing relief when President Umar Musa Yar’Adua promised to deal with the Ilorin 49 issue within six months. In no small measure, the promise doused the tension in the university campuses nationwide. But eight months after, Mr President has not responded to the issue.
It is said that suddenly, the President has chosen to wait for the pending court cases to resolve the issues at stake.
We believe that the President can use his father figure to encourage both parties to settle this issue out of court .If nothing else, for the sake of ensuring smooth academic calendar for the students, the Federal government must seek for expedient ways of breaking the jinx over the Ilorin 49. To attempt to use the courts to forestall the ASUU strike is surely not the way to go. Meaningful and sincere dialogue can help break the logjam. To allow the issue to keep re-occurring does not portray the Federal Government in good light.
We also believe the said lecturers, four of whom have died now, can be re-instated and posted to other universities if they must not remain in Unilorin.
The nation can hardly afford a further disruption of the already distorted academic programmes of the universities. The future of the nation’s leaders cannot be sacrificed on the banal altars of cheap politics. The Federal Government must thus rise above the fray and decisively deal with the Ilorin 49 issue, once and for all.
The scandal in PEF
When the objective of the Presidential Committee on Police Equipment Fund (PCPEF) was sold to the public during the last administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo, it was unreservedly received. It had to be so because Nigeria had come to that point that any measure at all that would lift the status of the Nigeria Police in a way that it will begin to perform efficiently and effectively, will receive maximum support and encouragement from all and sundry.
It was based on this, that donations to the fund came tumbling in from all over. Individuals, organizations and even foreign institutions and embassies enthusiastically made substantial donations. Although no account of receipt has been made public, the money so collected is reported to amount to several billions of naira. At once, that is a reasonable sum, which can make a serious impact on the dishevelled and distraught Nigeria Police force.
However, we are quite disturbed by recent allegations of how the fund has been misapplied in the most irresponsible and callous manner. If there is indeed truth in these swirling allegations, then it is most unfortunate, if not a national scandal of a monumental proportion.
Among other allegations, it is reported that the PCPEF spent over N5 billion of the fund’s collectables for such purposes other than the purpose for which it is meant. It is said that the sum was spent on car gifts to well-placed individuals in the society, including the National Assembly, security agencies and government departments.
Press reports put the beneficiaries to include, Yar’Adua Campaign Organization, the Sultan of Sokoto, Senate Committee on Police Affairs, its counterpart in the House of Representatives, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Federal Ministry of Interior, the Army, Nigerian Intelligence Agency and Directorate of Intelligence. These cars, it is alleged, are no utility but BMW luxury cars.
The original idea for raising the fund is to equip the police and bring the force to such a position that it will perform its roles as prescribed by the Nigerian Constitution. The question then is, in what way does giving luxury cars to individuals and organizations promote that idea and ideal? Again, how were private individuals given such unchecked powers to collect and disburse a fund of this nature?
There are also some other grave allegations against this body, including the one which said that two Ukrainian helicopters, which were earlier purchased by the fund, were later returned to the sellers after payment had been made. It is also alleged that some N250.5 million of the fund was squandered in a pre-launch dinner in August 2006. It is even said that at some point, what had started as Presidential Committee later transformed into a non-governmental organization now known and called Police Equipment Foundation.
It is understood that the Independent Corrupt Practices (and Related Offences) Commission (ICPC) has launched an investigation into all these allegations. That is encouraging, but we think that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) should have been involved in the investigation, in spite of the fact that it is also alleged to be a beneficiary of the car gifts.
To begin with, all these vehicles must be retrieved. It is immoral for those who have been listed as beneficiaries of the gifts to have accepted them. We believe that there are certain gifts our leaders should not accept.
It is embarrassing for these kinds of allegations to be made of the fund. This is a fund that well-meaning individuals and institutions, both local and international, donated into. How would these donors receive news of this nature? Indeed, this does not speak well of this country and its institutions. It is reprehensible. Even the police, for whom the fund was put together, is still reeling in its abject condition, while the moneys realised in its name are being used for debauchery.
We therefore call for a probe of the activities of the managers of this fund.
We also ask that government takes over the fund and reconstitutes its management, to include Nigerians of impeccable integrity. A judicial panel of inquiry should probe the management of this fund so far. This is not to discountenance the efforts of the ICPC. We want to believe that a judicial inquiry will be more effective and appropriate in this case.
Time to Tackle Sea Violence
Late last year, Nigeria regained her membership of the prestigious Governing Council of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in the "C" Category, via a keenly contested election in London. That good news is being rubbished at the moment by the activities of sea pirates who have turned the nation's territorial waters into theatres of violence. If it is not confronted frontally soon, this felony will completely destroy the economic and social essence of maritime in the country and further undermine the nation's international standing.
It is indeed embarrassing and troubling that Nigeria's only companion in the current high level of sea insecurity worldwide is Somalia. The frustration of the global community over this security breakdown culminated in IMO's warning to Nigeria early last month to combat the banditry before April this year or risk blacklisting by foreign ships that lift crude oil from the country. The government must grasp the import of that threat and the scope of damage already done by the criminals.
From Lagos to Calabar, heavily armed sea robbers who are sometimes dressed in military camouflage engage in their criminal acts with impunity and often overpower their targets and even the naval resistance. In two years, at least 50 attacks have been recorded, claiming the lives of close to 60 ship captains and sailors. The Navy has also lost some of its men while challenging the bandits. Consequently, numerous vessels are now idle at jetties across the nation's sea belt as many fishing trawler owners are apprehensive about the fate of their crew members and ships.
This despondent scenario took a dramatic turn the other day when members of the Fishing Trawlers Workers Association staged a protest march to the Government House, Alausa, Lagos, armed with the corpse of one of the victims of sea attacks, Tayo Nana. The letter jointly signed by the body's President, Captain Shehu Kosoko, and Secretary General, Captain Isaac Esiekpe, and presented to Governor Babatunde Fashola for delivery to President Umaru Yar'Adua captures the severity of the situation. It reads in part: "This industry has over 3070 vessels, with more than 10,000 family members and dependents who earn their livelihood from it. This includes market women, who trade on fish, and the public. The loss of revenue, which would have accrued to the government through tax and export levy is monumental with its attendant social implications, should this industry be crippled by the activities of sea pirates, as many workers will be rendered jobless."
Beyond the effects of this criminality on the domestic economy and personal fortunes, Nigeria's external earnings and influence in the 40-member strong decision making organ of IMO - the United Nations agency with sweeping powers in maritime matters - are also threatened. Militancy in the Niger Delta region accounts for the upsurge in the operations of the sea criminals. It, therefore, means that since the causes are known, finding permanent solutions to the problem is achievable, with the determination of stakeholders, especially the government.
The steps taken so far to halt the menace that attempts to defy Nigeria's rising profile in world maritime are noteworthy. Naval personnel have been seconded to the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) for the war against piracy. A 10-man joint committee of the Navy and NIMASA was also set up not long ago with a mandate to establish offshore platforms, facilitate the procurement of patrol boats and communication equipment, engender efficiency in the operational staff, among other preventive and redemptive measures. Ultimately, adequate dominance of the nation's sea space by the navy, rather than by the agents of despair and death, should be sought vigorously by the relevant authorities.
Though Herculean, that aim is realisable. It requires greater attention from the government whose responsibility it is to protect the territorial integrity of the country. Its armed forces should be properly funded, equipped and motivated to withstand the onslaught of the men of the underworld who clearly have the upper hand at present. Words must be matched with immediate, decisive action. Before the IMO team arrives next month for inspection, concrete steps towards normalcy must be taken.
The high child mortality rate
The alarm raised recently by the Paediatrics Association of Nigeria (PAN) that 90 percent of child deaths in the country is preventable is indeed worrisome. The paediatricians had, at a press conference in Lagos to herald their 39th annual scientific conference, said that poor routine immunization, under-nutrition and ignorance are responsible for the unacceptable high child death rate.
PAN’s position has been buttressed by the new United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report on global child health. According to the report, the sub-Saharan Africa is at the bottom of the child survival table. It revealed that poverty and war are harming advances in infant mortality, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
Globally, 62 countries were reported to be making no or insufficient progress towards a key 2015 child mortality target. In all indices, whether global or continental, Nigeria does not fare better.
Recent statistics from the Federal Ministry of Health showed that 194 children per 1,000 live births in the country do not survive and 1,000 pregnant women out of 100,000 die in circumstances surrounding child birth.
The President of PAN, Prof. William Nuhu Ogala, underscored the gravity of the problem when he said that the bulk of the problem was caused by ignorance and poverty. Under-nutrition is said to be the major cause contributing about 60 percent of all child deaths in Nigeria.
About 33 percent of Nigeria’s children are said to be moderately mal- nourished with the rural areas recording a higher figure than urban areas. As a result of malnutrition, this group of children is adjudged short or stunted for their age.
According to Ogala, “almost every death of a child in this country has something to do with nutrition and that underscores the level of poverty in this country,”
We bemoan this unacceptable high rate of child mortality in Nigeria given the abundant human and material resources available for us to confront any of our health problems. It is a matter of regret that many years after the late Health Minister, Prof. Olikoye Ransome-Kuti, launched the nation into the orbit of countries with best practices in Primary Health Care (PHC), the country is caught in this unexplainable rate of child deaths.
Having identified the causes of these deaths, we think that the best way to deal with the problem is to eliminate the causes. And since there is an inseparable link between poverty and malnutrition, we suggest that the government should step up the pace of tackling mass poverty, which drives the health problem. People should differentiate between belief and medicine and seek medical solutions to their health problems before they degenerate to worsening or critical stage. A situation where Nigerian children die of preventable deaths is unacceptable. Vaccines for routine immunization are available in all council areas in the country.
Parents should ensure that their wards access these facilities.
In cases of water borne diseases, we implore the government to provide potable water to all Nigerians. There is need to reduce the number of births a woman can give to reduce this incidence.
The health authorities should go back to the drawing board and resuscitate the PHC as enunciated by Ransome-Kuti. Fortunately, the Health Minister, Prof. Adenike Grange, is no stranger to PHC. She knows what to do to reduce that tally of child and maternal deaths to a bearable level. We urge her to do that fast as time is of essence in the war against child and maternal deaths.
The president and governments at state and local government levels should wade into the problem and reverse the trend.
George Bush’s Africa Tour
If the purpose of the five-nation tour of Africa by the United States President, Mr. George Bush was to strengthen bilateral relations between the US and Africa, it may have only partially achieved that goal. Coming in the waning days of Bush's tenure, the tour might have served the rather unintended purpose of showing the ambivalent nature of America's policy towards the development of democracy in the continent.
True, President Bush's tour was marked by huge donations in financial aids to all the countries he visited--Ghana, Liberia, Tanzania, Benin and Rwanda. But his failure to deprecate in clear terms the sham elections in Kenya was a thunderous indictment of the US leader's commitment to the eradication of electoral fraud in Africa in particular and elsewhere. His so-called intervention in the Kenyan political crisis was at best tepid. As critics have rightly noted, perhaps the US president had acted out of enlightened self-interest. Electoral disputes may, after all, not be a respecter of nations if we are to recall the Florida incident that dogged Bush's own election in 2000. Still, his failure to speak up against the avoidable shortcomings of the Kenyan presidential election took the thunder out of what would have been a win-win situation for the US leader.
Notwithstanding, the Africa tour may well be a reassuring proof that the continent has not disappeared altogether from the US foreign policy radar. At every stop, President Bush announced handsome donations in support of the campaign to eradicate diseases such as malaria or halt the spread of HIV-AIDS. Bush left no one in doubt that his administration was as committed as any other in the world to helping Africa overcome its health and development challenges.
In Tanzania where he announced a donation of more than 600 million dollars in development grant, Bush said it was the desire of the US government to encourage faster economic growth in a continent so richly endowed but so poorly governed. He said almost the same thing in other countries, urging African leaders to pay greater attention to the welfare of their people. Such generosity and timely admonition deserve to be commended. African leaders, for their part, would do well to heed it.
In truth Africa's greatest progress-stopper has been mal-governance and irresponsible leadership. Corruption accounts for more than 75 per cent of the grinding poverty in Africa. African leaders are notorious for mindless pillaging of public treasury. Leaders who corner the commonweal to themselves only make it easy for poverty to flourish.
While the US leader may have said nothing new during his Africa tour, it is noteworthy that he made similar remarks during a previous tour of the continent a couple of years earlier. That he found it necessary to restate it during his latest tour is clearly an indication that the lessons had not been learnt. How regrettable.
On the nurture of democracy in the continent, we think the US ought to adopt a more decisive policy that will seek to isolate African leaders who try to thwart the electoral preferences of their people. The Kenyan episode is particularly painful given that country's profile as a place with relative political stability. The role of President Mwai Kibaki in the entire process leaves much to be desired.
All said, Bush's Africa tour will no doubt enhance bilateral relations between the US and Africa. What is left now is for all the nations that benefited from the tour to proceed to convert the gains of the visit to tangible improvement in the living standards of their people. This will necessarily entail careful and prudent planning. We hope the opportunity will not be lost.
Attacks on LUTH
Recently, the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Idi-Araba, temporarily closed down its Accident and Emergency Unit to protest the increasing attacks on hospital workers by hoodlums. The February 15, 2008 attack which led to the closure was said to have been caused by the death of a patient who was hit by a vehicle, in the hospital.
The hoodlums were reportedly hired by relations of the deceased to retaliate an alleged negligence by workers of the affected unit, which was believed to have led to the death of the accident victim.
As a result of the closure, accident victims and those seeking emergency treatment at the hospital were turned back as health workers in the unit stayed off duty until their safety could be guaranteed.
The Chief Medical Director (CMD) of the hospital, Professor Akin Osibogun, defended the action by saying that the workers justifiably refused to attend to patients in the affected unit for the period the order lasted to avoid a repeat of the incident which led to the death of a senior nursing officer, Mrs. Rachael Akinpetide, who was killed by hoodlums in the hospital in 2001.
Akinpetide’s death in the course of duty was perhaps the most tragic incident in the history of the hospital since its inception in 1962. The late Akinpetide died on Wednesday, August 1, 2001, a week to her 50th birthday as a result of an attack by hoodlums who reportedly invaded the hospital’s Accident and Emergency Unit. The hoodlums vandalized medical equipment and attacked medical staff, including nurses.
These are unfotunate developments. Attacking hospital workers over allegations of negligence is not the best response to such a situation. The matter is even made worse by the use of hoodlums who are psychologically prone to violence and destruction.
It is a known fact that hospital workers are there to care for the sick and save lives that ordinarily might have been lost if there were no medical intervention. The health workers do not take the lives of their patients. But in the course of duty, accidents or mistakes might occur and lead to loss of life.
Under such circumstances, the relatives of the victims should not resort to violence. There are in-built channels of redress available to the public. Victims of shoddy medical treatment or their relations can seek redress with the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) which is eminently and professionally qualified to handle such alleged cases of professional misconduct and discipline the erring medical personnel.
Under no circumstance should hospital patients, their relations or hired hoodlums take the law into their hands or resort to jungle justice. Those who are not satisfied with the outcome of the council’s decision have the right to sue the medical personnel involved in the regular courts to seek for justice.
The recent attack on LUTH workers portrays the country in bad light. It is indeed a mark of under-development that health-care givers in 21st century Nigeria are being attacked in the course of duty over mere allegation of negligence. It is even more pathetic when the killed health worker is not linked with the negligence, if at all there was any, as happened in LUTH some years back.
We deplore this development and call on the authorities of LUTH to investigate this matter with a view to bringing to book those behind the barbaric and dastardly act.
LUTH should find out if there was indeed any case of negligence and if the death of the patient was really as a result of negligence.
Even if negligence is proven, it is still not enough to take another life because two wrongs do not make a right. But that is not to say that we condone negligence in any way.
Negligence on the part of the health worker or even the patient or his relations can cause irreparable damage to the health of a patient. It is regrettable that such damages are, at times, irreversible.
The management of LUTH should do something if the death of the victim was actually caused by negligence on the part of its workers.
We suggest also that hospital staff be re-orientated to change their attitude to work. The attitude of some health workers, these days, is unpleasant and nauseating to patients. There is the need to re-train hospital staff to keep abreast of new care-giving techniques that are patient-friendly. Hospitals should be a place where patients are treated with utmost care, respect and compassion. We suggest that LUTH should consider seriously the issue of security to avert future occurrence of these ugly incidents.
The Danjuma interview
LET me state upfront that I am not a big fan of Obasanjo. In spite of my personal conviction that he's not the worst president that this country has so far witnessed, contrary to what many would have us believe, I still feel he has a lot of shortcomings as a leader. He is unpolished, raw, obnoxious, obstinate, self-indulging and is unapologetically very ignorant of the core principles of democracy if his actions during his tenure were anything to go by. I still recall with certain shame how he embarrassed on public radio a female reporter who had asked him a legitimate question during his public outings while he was at the helms.
Or can I ever forget his conduct when he visited Canada during his first term in office? I was visiting a cousin from the U.S. and he had invited me to join other excited Nigerians, all in very colorful traditional outfits, who went to welcome Obasanjo at the Prayer Palace which arguably was the most popular and multicultural church in the whole of Toronto. The white pastor did a good job of organising an ensemble of entertainers to pour encomiums on the visiting president.
Throughout the whole ceremony, Obasanjo maintained a very cold and unfriendly posture, like he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place...not even when the cute mostly white children rendered our national anthem to please him. It was a very hot day indeed for the confused pastor, the very embarrassed Nigerians and other visibly irritated church members. Yes, the man is certainly not your most ideal leader.
Then I read The Guardian newspaper interview of T.Y. Danjuma, our erstwhile Defence Minister, published on February 17 and 24. I was drawn not necessarily because the former Army general's interview read very well, a fact which I think should not be controversial among readers, but because of the sheer scale of arrogance, vanity and insincerity that jumps at you from his story. The first thing I noticed was how he repeatedly condescends to everyone that he has come across in his life's journey while implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) edifying himself. Name calling came very natural to this retired General too. Or how else could you rationalise calling a sitting president "spineless" without a modicum of respect or self-restraint. Is this the sort of military discipline that is consistent with an officer in the Army, let alone a general? What lesson in the art of deferring to a constituted civilian authority can a younger generation of military officers learn from the self-acclaimed kingmaker? Whatever happened to the responsibilities and civic duties that come with freedom of speech and expression?
Wow! It is quite amazing how many people the General touched their lives in a deep and profound way. He was so impressed by Obasanjo's minutes-taking efficiency that he had to impose him on the Supreme Military Council against his (and others') will. Murtala Muhammed would not make any important state decisions without carrying him along even though his office was in far-away Marina (I guess Murtala can't attest to that now, can he?); the powerful General single-handedly appointed Shehu Yar'Adua (instead of the inflexible Buhari) as the Chief of Staff to the Head of State. He accused Babangida of inefficiency for allowing Dimka to escape arrest.
He accused Ekwueme of incompetence while he was No. 2 to Shagari, hence he could not support his candidacy for PDP presidential nominee. He saved the lives of the civilians on the grounds of Ibadan Government House after the arrest of the governor and the head of state. He saved the life of Ironsi's ADC who felt guilty for not being able to save his boss's life and even gave the ingrate who distorted the version of the murder some money. Bravo! Perhaps someone should give the ex-General some lesson in humility?
In this rather glory-seeking and self-serving interview, I read how Danjuma judges people by their antecedents and therefore was convinced after he met Obasanjo that the latter was "a good soldier" who had a brilliant idea about how to quickly bring the civil war to an end as commander of the 3rd Marine Commando, a command which he admitted was ineffective before the advent of Obasanjo. Elsewhere, he gave kudos to the man who he claimed to be a "first class Chief of Staff" to the late former head of state Murtala Muhammed. That was as far as the encomium for his old friend went. From there on, it was a classic case of mudslinging.
First he portrayed Obasanjo as a coward, especially based on events that followed the assassination of Muhammed. It is no longer news that Obasanjo was reluctant to assume the saddle of leadership of a very unstable country and an unprofessional regionally hegemonic military. While his behaviour was inexcusable and unbecoming of a No. 2 man, some historical watchers may argue that Obasanjo's wanting to bail out was informed by the prevalent situation at that time, the Northern domination of the armed forces in the country. Who was to say that the highly suspicious Northern officers would not rush to silence Obasanjo if he was to assert himself publicly?
Even our esteemed General admitted that there were some junior officers at the Supreme Military Council meeting who openly voiced their displeasure at the prospect of a head of state of Southern extraction after Murtala's demise. Besides, Nigeria has a long history of lack of professionalism in her military institution, some of which played itself out even in the interview. Apart from disrespect for the civilian populace and the knack for seizing political power wily-nilly, the Nigerian military personnel have been known to use every little excuse to disregard the chain of command. Having served as a Captain in the U.S. Army myself, I understand the sanctity of this code of conduct too well to notice its absence elsewhere.
In his story of Ironsi's arrest and subsequent murder by the vigilante-type Northern soldiers, it was pretty clear the extent of lawlessness in the Army. Other examples are in abundance. Abacha's former ADC Al-Mustapha's disrespect and humiliation of superior officers with four or five ranks above him is legendary. I have heard from a close Nigerian friend of mine who served as an officer in ECOMOG force how soldiers flagrantly disobeyed platoon and troop commanders at war time in Liberia because they did not want to put their lives in harm's way. So why then would Obasanjo jump readily at the prospect of presiding over a country which had been seized at the neck by a highly tribalised and disloyal rag-tag military organisation?
The former Defence Minister's account of his role in Aguiyi Ironsi's callous murder was even more laughable, if not downright an insult to the sensibilities of Nigerians. Any smart high school student could easily pick out several inconsistencies in that cock and bull story. How is it possible to travel with the convoy of the Commander in Chief to Ibadan the previous day without knowledge of any malicious game plan and still play a leading role in the botched arrest of your boss? Why did you decide suddenly to arrest your superior officer in Ibadan because some soldier whispered in your ear in the middle of the night that there had been a military insurrection in Abeokuta involving the killing of some South-Eastern soldiers?
Why would Garba Paiko, an Adjutant to the Brigade Commander and a 2nd Lieutenant take control of the operations which hitherto was being run by you? I'm sorry: this story just doesn't add up. From General Danjuma's account, all doubts of his culpability in the late Ironsi's death seem to quickly disappear. Personally, I think he pulled the trigger! But that's just me. It is the General that would need to reconcile his version of the story with his conscience and his Maker at some point. I wonder whether Paiko is still alive to corroborate the General's story or, more importantly, if he would be willing to? It does look like we have a moot point here.
In the haze of venom, condescension, arrogance and the unbridled display of a God complex that jumps right at you in the interview, the question that seems to pop into one's head is why? What's the point? Does the General love this country so much that the only way to prove this was to expose a monster in the polity, the worst do-no-gooder ever born on a Nigeria soil? Or was the General's intention even more sinister and dishonest? Was it all about those oil blocks that were fairly and duly repossessed by the Obasanjo-led government perhaps because they didn't belong to the General in the first place? What moral justification could be conjured for someone all the way from Taraba State to have owned such a natural source of stupendous wealth from Bayelsa State? What business acumen, what foreign connections, what family pedigree could be attributed to the scale of wealth that informed Nigerians know that the aggrieved General has?
Nigerians need not be reminded of the immoral wealth of her past military leaders who should legitimately have been on public servants' wages. If Nigeria ever had a Jerry Rawlings-type government today, how many ex-military Generals would be walking as free men as we speak? I strongly feel that the General is looking at the world (and indeed Obasanjo!) through rose-tinted spectacles. He should go back to his Bible to understand the simple concept of casting the first stone only if you were without blemish.
The Danjuma interview
LET me state upfront that I am not a big fan of Obasanjo. In spite of my personal conviction that he's not the worst president that this country has so far witnessed, contrary to what many would have us believe, I still feel he has a lot of shortcomings as a leader. He is unpolished, raw, obnoxious, obstinate, self-indulging and is unapologetically very ignorant of the core principles of democracy if his actions during his tenure were anything to go by. I still recall with certain shame how he embarrassed on public radio a female reporter who had asked him a legitimate question during his public outings while he was at the helms.
Or can I ever forget his conduct when he visited Canada during his first term in office? I was visiting a cousin from the U.S. and he had invited me to join other excited Nigerians, all in very colorful traditional outfits, who went to welcome Obasanjo at the Prayer Palace which arguably was the most popular and multicultural church in the whole of Toronto. The white pastor did a good job of organising an ensemble of entertainers to pour encomiums on the visiting president.
Throughout the whole ceremony, Obasanjo maintained a very cold and unfriendly posture, like he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place...not even when the cute mostly white children rendered our national anthem to please him. It was a very hot day indeed for the confused pastor, the very embarrassed Nigerians and other visibly irritated church members. Yes, the man is certainly not your most ideal leader.
Then I read The Guardian newspaper interview of T.Y. Danjuma, our erstwhile Defence Minister, published on February 17 and 24. I was drawn not necessarily because the former Army general's interview read very well, a fact which I think should not be controversial among readers, but because of the sheer scale of arrogance, vanity and insincerity that jumps at you from his story. The first thing I noticed was how he repeatedly condescends to everyone that he has come across in his life's journey while implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) edifying himself. Name calling came very natural to this retired General too. Or how else could you rationalise calling a sitting president "spineless" without a modicum of respect or self-restraint. Is this the sort of military discipline that is consistent with an officer in the Army, let alone a general? What lesson in the art of deferring to a constituted civilian authority can a younger generation of military officers learn from the self-acclaimed kingmaker? Whatever happened to the responsibilities and civic duties that come with freedom of speech and expression?
Wow! It is quite amazing how many people the General touched their lives in a deep and profound way. He was so impressed by Obasanjo's minutes-taking efficiency that he had to impose him on the Supreme Military Council against his (and others') will. Murtala Muhammed would not make any important state decisions without carrying him along even though his office was in far-away Marina (I guess Murtala can't attest to that now, can he?); the powerful General single-handedly appointed Shehu Yar'Adua (instead of the inflexible Buhari) as the Chief of Staff to the Head of State. He accused Babangida of inefficiency for allowing Dimka to escape arrest.
He accused Ekwueme of incompetence while he was No. 2 to Shagari, hence he could not support his candidacy for PDP presidential nominee. He saved the lives of the civilians on the grounds of Ibadan Government House after the arrest of the governor and the head of state. He saved the life of Ironsi's ADC who felt guilty for not being able to save his boss's life and even gave the ingrate who distorted the version of the murder some money. Bravo! Perhaps someone should give the ex-General some lesson in humility?
In this rather glory-seeking and self-serving interview, I read how Danjuma judges people by their antecedents and therefore was convinced after he met Obasanjo that the latter was "a good soldier" who had a brilliant idea about how to quickly bring the civil war to an end as commander of the 3rd Marine Commando, a command which he admitted was ineffective before the advent of Obasanjo. Elsewhere, he gave kudos to the man who he claimed to be a "first class Chief of Staff" to the late former head of state Murtala Muhammed. That was as far as the encomium for his old friend went. From there on, it was a classic case of mudslinging.
First he portrayed Obasanjo as a coward, especially based on events that followed the assassination of Muhammed. It is no longer news that Obasanjo was reluctant to assume the saddle of leadership of a very unstable country and an unprofessional regionally hegemonic military. While his behaviour was inexcusable and unbecoming of a No. 2 man, some historical watchers may argue that Obasanjo's wanting to bail out was informed by the prevalent situation at that time, the Northern domination of the armed forces in the country. Who was to say that the highly suspicious Northern officers would not rush to silence Obasanjo if he was to assert himself publicly?
Even our esteemed General admitted that there were some junior officers at the Supreme Military Council meeting who openly voiced their displeasure at the prospect of a head of state of Southern extraction after Murtala's demise. Besides, Nigeria has a long history of lack of professionalism in her military institution, some of which played itself out even in the interview. Apart from disrespect for the civilian populace and the knack for seizing political power wily-nilly, the Nigerian military personnel have been known to use every little excuse to disregard the chain of command. Having served as a Captain in the U.S. Army myself, I understand the sanctity of this code of conduct too well to notice its absence elsewhere.
In his story of Ironsi's arrest and subsequent murder by the vigilante-type Northern soldiers, it was pretty clear the extent of lawlessness in the Army. Other examples are in abundance. Abacha's former ADC Al-Mustapha's disrespect and humiliation of superior officers with four or five ranks above him is legendary. I have heard from a close Nigerian friend of mine who served as an officer in ECOMOG force how soldiers flagrantly disobeyed platoon and troop commanders at war time in Liberia because they did not want to put their lives in harm's way. So why then would Obasanjo jump readily at the prospect of presiding over a country which had been seized at the neck by a highly tribalised and disloyal rag-tag military organisation?
The former Defence Minister's account of his role in Aguiyi Ironsi's callous murder was even more laughable, if not downright an insult to the sensibilities of Nigerians. Any smart high school student could easily pick out several inconsistencies in that cock and bull story. How is it possible to travel with the convoy of the Commander in Chief to Ibadan the previous day without knowledge of any malicious game plan and still play a leading role in the botched arrest of your boss? Why did you decide suddenly to arrest your superior officer in Ibadan because some soldier whispered in your ear in the middle of the night that there had been a military insurrection in Abeokuta involving the killing of some South-Eastern soldiers?
Why would Garba Paiko, an Adjutant to the Brigade Commander and a 2nd Lieutenant take control of the operations which hitherto was being run by you? I'm sorry: this story just doesn't add up. From General Danjuma's account, all doubts of his culpability in the late Ironsi's death seem to quickly disappear. Personally, I think he pulled the trigger! But that's just me. It is the General that would need to reconcile his version of the story with his conscience and his Maker at some point. I wonder whether Paiko is still alive to corroborate the General's story or, more importantly, if he would be willing to? It does look like we have a moot point here.
In the haze of venom, condescension, arrogance and the unbridled display of a God complex that jumps right at you in the interview, the question that seems to pop into one's head is why? What's the point? Does the General love this country so much that the only way to prove this was to expose a monster in the polity, the worst do-no-gooder ever born on a Nigeria soil? Or was the General's intention even more sinister and dishonest? Was it all about those oil blocks that were fairly and duly repossessed by the Obasanjo-led government perhaps because they didn't belong to the General in the first place? What moral justification could be conjured for someone all the way from Taraba State to have owned such a natural source of stupendous wealth from Bayelsa State? What business acumen, what foreign connections, what family pedigree could be attributed to the scale of wealth that informed Nigerians know that the aggrieved General has?
Nigerians need not be reminded of the immoral wealth of her past military leaders who should legitimately have been on public servants' wages. If Nigeria ever had a Jerry Rawlings-type government today, how many ex-military Generals would be walking as free men as we speak? I strongly feel that the General is looking at the world (and indeed Obasanjo!) through rose-tinted spectacles. He should go back to his Bible to understand the simple concept of casting the first stone only if you were without blemish.
Youth empowerment programme
The recent announcement of the commencement of a programme for agricultural empowerment and training of youths in three of the six geo-political zones of the country by the Federal Ministry of Youth Development is welcome news. The programme, according to a statement by the ministry, heralds the implementation of its plans for a speedy attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Thousands of youths who are expected to take part in the youth agricultural cooperatives programme will be empowered to set up fish and snail farms, poultries and other agricultural projects. They will also be trained in citizenship and leadership skills. The objective is to empower the youths to become self employed persons who can create employment for others and wealth for themselves.
The progamme is expected to become a nationally adopted approach to resolving youth unemployment. A nationwide zonal consultation on a draft national youth policy is also to begin soon to obtain the input of stakeholders before presentation of the document to the Federal Executive Council for final ratification. The statement added that six leading academics have also been recruited to research into the status of youths nationwide with emphasis on patterns and levels of unemployment, education, health, and wellbeing, among others, with the objective of fashioning the nation’s first youth development index.
This initiative is commendable. The ministry, through this plan, is at once tackling the twin problems of unemployment and food production in the country.
It is gratifying that the Federal Government is taking a step to address the problems of Nigerian youths who appear to have suffered neglect from past administrations. This effort to engage youths in productive agricultural ventures is a step in the right direction. It should go a long way in engaging our restive youths in productive ventures that will also be of immense benefit to the generality of the people.
We are, however, worried about the implementation of this laudable idea. Our national experience, so far, is that the government hardly thinks through its programmes to ensure effective implementation and attainment of set objectives.
This latest initiative from the Federal Ministry of Youth Development reminds us of the Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) and the Green Revolution programmes of the past years. These were laudable programmes at conception, but which fell short of expected objectives as a result of faulty planning and implementation. There is therefore the need for utmost care in the selection of participants, training and disbursement of funds under this programme. There should be thorough planning that should lead to the establishment of thriving farm settlements.
Agricultural experts, with integrity and proven records of performance, should be involved in the programme so that all possible problems that can arise will be foreseen and tackled at the planning stage. Integrity and sincerity of purpose should be the guiding principles for the programme if funds earmarked for it are not to go the way of the billions of naira allocated to the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) of the immediate past regime.
There is also the need to involve the National Directorate of Employment (NDE) in this project. The ministry should study and learn lessons from the problems the NDE faces in tackling the unemployment challenge in the country.
We advise that this programme should be across board. Let at least one state in each geo-political zone of the country be used as pilots. This should be with the objective of eventually implementing the programme in all other states in the country. The ministry should also widely publicise this programme so that all interested youths can benefit from it. There should be no alienation of any class of Nigerians or any part of the country.
Revisit Daily Times sale too
WITH the recent reversal of the sale of NITEL or is it dilution of the shareholding by the Federal Government due to the glaring inability of Transcorp Plc to ensure a quick turn around of the Telecommunications giant, one is tempted to ask the Government to look into the case of the fraudulent sale of Daily Times of Nigeria Plc to a company known to possess no credible credentials to manage such a national monument.
Since the assumption of control of Daily Times, Nigeria's oldest newspaper conglomerate by Folio Communication, owned by one Fidelis Anosike, the fortune of the media house has gone down the drain. The process leading to the privatisation of the company in the first place was shrouded in huge manipulation which characterised the former eight years of Obasanjo administration as Folio had no financial nor managerial capabilities to run such a big national monument.
The BPE had to bend the rules by equally encouraging Folio to pledge the assets of DTN as collateral for loan from the consortium of banks to pay for the company. Besides this, Folio has embarked on massive disposal of all the assets of DTN to offset a portion of the loans and finance the lifestyle of its owners, yet the company is lying prostrate, while huge unpaid staff salaries and other benefits remain unresolved.
In my thinking, this is the right time the government of President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua should step in to correct all the plundering of our commonwealth by the immediate past administration and ensure that justice is done on this issue of the sale of Daily Times. The case of DTN and many other national monuments sold off to the stooges of the past government should be looked into urgently with a view to reversing them too.
The Daily Times represents a major part of Nigerian history that should not be allowed to die. It is time for the government and all those who have been involved in the shaping of the history of the newspaper group to rise up and demand for justice and due process in the privatisation of the company. As it stands today, Folio Communication is incapable of reinventing the history of the company neither does it possess the proverbial magic wand to ensure the continuity or survival of the company, thereby defeating the purpose of its privatisation in the first place.
Already, the newspapers in the stable of the company have gone off the newsstands across the country, while the entire assets of the company, including its present headquarters at Agidingbi Ikeja, Lagos have been compromised one way or the other. The recent revelations at the House of Representatives Committee on Public Petitions by the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation' s (NDIC) director of legal services/company secretary, Prince Alheri Nyako, that it is improper for Folio to sell any of the newspaper outfit's assets for repayment of N500 million, part of the loan it had secured from a consortium of banks, was an eye opener.
All the agencies of government that are party to the sale of the DTN were compromised in the process leading to the privatisation and the subsequent monitoring of its performance thereafter. What Nigerians need now is justice, and Yar'Adua should endeavour to ensure that fast.
50 years of Things Fall Apart
Things Fall Apart, the locus classicus of Chinua Achebe’s literary works, has entered its 50th year. At the time of its publication in 1958, the novel was a classic. It has remained so 50 years after.
As a timely response to the colonial biases about the African continent as captured by the works of some Europeans, the novel provided a counterpoise that demolished foreign assumptions and presumptions about Africa. As a mirror of the culture conflict that was the order of the day in the early days of Europe’s discovery, invasion and partition of Africa, the novel explored a thematic concern that was at the heart of African Literature of the 20th century.
But what has marked Achebe’s effort out is the universality of his perspective. All over the world, accounts of foreign cultures and attitudes are usually distorted when the story is told from the point of view of an outsider. Under such a situation, it would normally take the penetrating insight of an informed native to present the facts of the matter.
Thus, if the Joyce Carys and Joseph Conrads of Europe who took more than a cursory interest in Africa painted a picture of a primitive African personality or entertained the reader with an outlandish story of a dark continent, it took a systematic deconstruction and reconstruction which Achebe explored in Things Fall Apart to see through the lies and know the truth about Africa.
Going by the fame and popularity that the novel has achieved over the years, it will not be out of place to say that the novel has even grown beyond Achebe’s imagination and expectation.
For instance, the book has come to be recognized as the most widely read novel by an African author and has sold millions of copies. It has been translated into 50 languages of the world, thus making it the most translated work by an African author. It is also remarkable that the book has continued to make every list of the most important books of the last 100 years. It has also been named one of the most remarkable books that have ever been written.
Across the universities of the world, the book is a staple in the study of humanities, which is why theses and dissertations that can form whole libraries have been written on it. In fact, the book is a timeless piece of literature whose appeal and penetration have continued to grow and increase with the passage of time.
Given the profundity of the book as well as the scope and depth of the author’s imagination, the book has remained an all-time classic. The issues it dwelt on 50 years ago have continued to resonate with freshness and greater appeal. They remain relevant today as they were when the novel was first written. In its 50th year therefore, the literary world is standing tall and proud to associate itself, one way or another, with a book that anybody that lays claim to liberal education ought to read.
Consequently, global acclaim and honour are being lavished on a book that is in a class of its own.
In the United States, a world class tribute hosted by a U.S book publisher, Anchor Books and PEN American Centre was held at the historic New York City Town Hall to mark the book’s 50th year publication anniversary. An anniversary edition of the book has also been published by Achor Books in recognition of “one of the first African novels written in English to receive global critical acclaim”. The publishers are also celebrating through the novel, the most illuminating and permanent moment in the pantheon of modern African experience as seen from within.
And in Nigeria, the Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA) has lined up a series of activities in celebration of the 50th year of the book.
Beginning from next month, an international colloquium and symposia will be held and stage adaptation of the novel will be performed, among others. The entire package is a literary harvest which will not only celebrate Achebe’s creativity and imagination but serve as a springboard for the inspiration of younger elements to aspire to be like Achebe.
In fact, the profundity of Things Fall Apart should serve as a challenge to younger writers in Nigeria and the rest of Africa to live up to certain expectations. If Achebe’s seminal work has remained a book for all times, it was because of the author’s originality and creativity. And if modern African novelists have failed to attain this enviable height, it is largely because they have not sufficiently tasked their imagination to produce an original work whose appeal will outlive the fancies and idiosyncrasies of the moment.
Since Achebe has become a model to be aspired to, the time has come for relevant authorities and individuals to institute a Chinua Achebe chair in literature. And as more languages join in the translation binge of the novel, we see it as a significant omission that the novel has not been translated into Igbo, Achebe’s mother tongue. Experts in Igbo language and culture should see this as a challenge that must be tackled, before the world gathers again in the next decade to celebrate this universal text.
Presidential election: Another twelve two-thirds?
ON Nigeria's 'Super Tuesday', February 26, 2008, the presidential election tribunal gave a clean bill of health to the April 21, 2007 presidential election in Nigeria. The tribunal sensed no evil, heard no evil, saw no evil and felt no evil as many of us did with the presidential election. Buhari and Atiku are rumour mongers, the civil society groups who disclaimed the election results are professional agitators, the local and international observers who monitored the election and declared it sub-standard and fraudulent are unruly intruders and liars; INEC did a decent and credible job, so the tribunal declared.
The verdict of the tribunal is akin to that of the 1979 presidential election tribunal. Interestingly, General Olusegun Obasanjo was a major dramatis personae in the two elections. In 1979, it was Uncle Sege (as Obasanjo was then fondly called) who organised the 1979 elections, and handed over power to Shehu Usman Aliu Shagari. In 2007, it was OBJ or Baba (as Obasanjo's new acronyms) who was the chief architect and 'godfather' of Umaru Musa Yar' Adua's nomination and subsequently election into office. Both elections were very controversial, and so were the verdicts of the presidential election tribunals who handled the election litigation cases.
In 1979, five political parties contested the general and presidential elections. These were the NPN, UPN, NPP, PRP, and the GNPP. At the presidential polls, which took place on August 11, 1979, Shehu Shagari of the NPN led with 5,688, 857 votes constituting 33.9 per cent of the total votes cast, while his closest rival was Chief Obafemi Awolowo of the UPN, who had 4, 916, 651 votes constituting 29.2 per cent of the votes cast. Shagari was therefore declared winner of the presidential polls by the electoral commission.
Awolowo filed a petition at the presidential election tribunal claiming that Shagari was not duly elected, as he did not fulfill the electoral provisions for electing a president. The electoral provision which Awolowo anchored his case on was Section 34 (a) (1) (c) (ii), which states that to be duly elected president, apart from having majority votes, a candidate must have "not less than one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two thirds of all the states of the federation". Awolowo argued that Shagari did not have the required one-quarter of the votes cast in two-thirds of the states of the federation. Awolowo therefore requested for the nullification of Shagari's election and a re-run of the polls.
The main puzzle of the election dispute was what constitutes two-third of nineteen states (then Nigeria had 19 states)? Awolowo's legal team insisted it was thirteen, as a state is indivisible as a geographical entity. Shagari's defense team argued it is not 13, but 12 2/3. That is, a state has to be divided into two thirds, and a quarter of that fraction is what Shagari needed, on top of 12 states. What made the case very interesting is that Shagari had a quarter of the votes cast in twelve states, but not in thirteen. The arithmetical permutation was therefore whether Shagari needed a quarter of the votes in 13 states or 12 2/3 states.
Before the tribunal gave its substantive judgment, it upheld the plea of the defence counsel that Awolowo's request for a re-run of the elections could not be entertained as the time stipulated in the electoral law for run-off election had passed and neither the electoral commission nor the returning officer will be competent to order such elections. The case was almost decided. Eventually, the tribunal ruled that two-third of nineteen states, is twelve two-thirds and therefore reconfirmed Shagari's election.
Awolowo was not satisfied with this judgment and headed for the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, there was a split decision. While the majority re-affirmed Shagari's election, Justice Kayode Eso differed. Kayode Eso insisted that states are to be taken as indivisible entities; as such two-thirds of 19 is 13 states not 12 2/3. Shagari carried the day.
The judgment was not necessarily a legal but political one. Shagari had started ruling as president, to nullify his elections would cause some disruption in the political system. For the sake of 'national interest', it was politically expedient that Shagari continues to rule and his election, validated. Sometimes, there is a thin line between the law and politics!
Back to 2007 elections: There were so many election observer groups-local and international, which monitored the April 21, 2007 presidential election in Nigeria. While most of them alluded to the fact the election was slightly better than the first set (April 14, 2007-governorship and state house of assembly elections), it was nonetheless roundly condemned. The Transition Monitoring Group (TMG), which is the largest local observer group, the regional organization group-the ECOWAS Observer Mission, and the EU observer mission, amongst others, unanimously pronounced the elections to be neither free nor fair, characterized by rampant rigging, irregularities and shoddy and questionable preparations by INEC.
The TMG, which had about 50,000 trained election monitors across the country referred to it as, "elections programmed to fail". In its preliminary report, the TMG observed, "Our monitors throughout the country noted and documented numerous lapses, massive irregularities and electoral malpractices that characterized the elections in many states. Based on the widespread and far-reaching nature of these lapses, irregularities and electoral malpractice, we have come to the conclusion that on the whole, the elections were a charade and did not meet the minimum standards required for democratic elections. We therefore reject the elections and call for their cancellation. The Federal Government and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have failed woefully in their responsibility to conduct free, fair and credible elections".
ECOWAS, which is basically an inter-governmental institution, of which Nigeria is a major player, did not have kind words on the elections. The ECOWAS Observer Mission in its preliminary report noted several cases of irregularities and logistical nightmares, which compromised the credibility and transparency of the elections. These include the sitting of polling stations in unsuitable and obscure locations, shortage and uneven distribution of materials, voting by underage, incidences of ballot box stuffing, and serious problems associated with the counting and collation of votes. In conclusion, ECOWAS noted, "In several collation centres observed across the country, the collation of results was delayed considerably, seriously challenging the transparency of the collation and tabulation of election results".
The European Union Election Observer Mission was not constrained by diplomatic niceties in condemning the elections. The caption of the EU preliminary report was, "Elections Fail to Meet the Hopes and Expectations of the Nigerian People and Fall Far Short of Basic International Standards". The report reads, "The 2007 state and federal elections have fallen far short of basic international and regional standards for democratic elections. They were marred by poor organization, lack of essential transparency, widespread procedural irregularities, significant evidence of fraud particularly during the result collation process, voter disenfranchisement at different stages of the process, lack of equal conditions for contestants and numerous incidence of violence. As a result, the elections have not lived up to the hopes and expectations of the Nigerian people and the process cannot be considered to have been credible".
The 'men and women of God' were also on the field; faith based groups-both Christian and Islamic groups deployed observer missions to monitor the elections. None gave the elections a pass mark! Can all these election observers be wrong? I was on the field as a part of a coordinating team of one of the biggest election monitoring groups. What I saw was how not to conduct elections. I was ashamed as a Nigerian with what I saw on the field.
Could it be that like the 1979 presidential election tribunal verdict, there is a convergence between the law and politics, with the latter superseding? The civil society has reacted swiftly to the tribunal's judgment. The Alliance for Credible Elections (ACE) questioned whether it is not a seal on hope for the electorate and the end to judicial activism that has sustained Nigeria's democracy thus far. In a poetic phrase, ACE noted, "the judgment is a castle of ice designed and crafted in the cold icy chambers of the judges rather than in the hallowed chambers of justice and conscience.... The judgment is a blow to the rebuilding of the moral community in our body politics. It shows we are not ready to clear the evil forest of political irresponsibility". More reactions are expected!
On an anecdote, a friend of mine once was told me that there are two professions that can make or mar politics and governance. The first is the legal profession (bar and bench) and the second, accounting. The legal profession can help interpret the law either to check the excesses and illegalities of politicians or to manipulate the political process in their favour; and the accounting profession can help either to check corruption by politicians or assist them in peculating national resources.
Today, the legal profession is on trial; the fate and future of Nigeria should not be sacrificed on the altar of legal technicalities and political expediency. What matters is the will of the people, and the judiciary must not compromise that!
An Elder Called Danjuma
Lt-general Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma, at 70, is an elder, more so in a country with average life expectancy of 43 years. His involvements in governments, whether for good or ill, further cast him in that role.
When he speaks, he is expected to be taken serious, after all, he has been a factor in the affairs of the country in the past 40 years. His recent newspaper interview, where he reproduced the accounts of the 1966, in which he admitted playing an active part, added nothing to sooth the bruised feelings of hundreds of thousands of Nigerians who lost their relations in the riots and the war.
Danjuma likes to be heard. He writes history as if he was the sole witness to those incidents. He absolves himself of imperfections in a manner that makes him super human. If there are blames, they belong to others.
His account of the death of General Thomas Umunakwe Aguiyi-Ironsi, was not only insulting to all that knew the former Head of State, but to the Nigerian Army, and the espirit de corps it once had. How could an officer charged with protecting the Head of State be so dismissive of his role in his death?
There could be reasons for this. Lt-General Danjuma passed the most uncomplimentary remarks on General Ironsi in that interview. His words are too insulting to be repeated here. Whatever he had against Ironsi, the man was killed 42 years ago. He deserves his rest. Why the repeated insults?
How did Ironsi’s six months as supreme commander disturb the development of Nigeria, to have caused the Danjumas of this nation, so much displeasure long after his death? Whatever happened to the respect we traditionally accord the dead?
General Ironsi earned some of his numerous honours for leadership and bravery as commander of the United Nations forces in Katanga, Congo. Even if Nigeria of the Danjuma hue refuses to recognise him, those indelible marks remain.
Lt-General Danjuma in his sagacity made two mistakes that he belatedly admitted. He claimed that he did not know General Olusegun Obasanjo well enough in 1976 when he supported his rise to leadership of Nigeria. However, in 1999, when he swore he would go on exile if Obasanjo was not elected president, he sounded as if he knew Obasanjo as the best person for the job.
General Obasanjo won, Danjuma got his reward as Minister of Defence and all was well until class disagreements saw him out of his plum office. Ever since, he has added Obasanjo to his hate list. Again, such a high-ranking official of the Obasanjo government had no hand in its ills.
We are however astounded that an elder can descend to the divisive end he did in the interview that has recreated the injuries of the civil war, distorted the healings of the past 38 years and positioned his jaundiced views among those to be considered.
Danjuma still has a slim chance to recant whenever he writes his promised memoirs
Forgiving Thieves
NO agreement seems to exist on the appropriate treatment for those who looted the public till. The laws on fraud and economic sabotage appear inadequate in some quarters, hence the multiplicity of suggestions on what to do with the thieves.
The most recent of these contributions came from the Niger State Governor Dr. Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu. “We should give them a moratorium to repatriate the stolen money. If they do, we should forgive them,” Dr. Aliyu, a former federal permanent secretary said.
“We all know how they carried the money out of the country,” he said in apparent reference to some former governors who are on trial for alleged looting of state funds during their tenure.
The crux of Dr. Aliyu’s position is that if the looted funds had been invested in the economy, Nigeria would have been a more advanced country. We totally agree that public officers should have done more with the funds entrusted to them, in the same way that we think that the full weight of the law should be applied in determining their roles in the economic sabotages that went on in their States.
There are enough laws to tackle corruption in Nigeria. What is missing is the proper application of these laws.
In addition, there are poor investigation skills and low resources available to the security agencies to track the changing technologies involved in the movement of stolen funds.
In the case of the States, their Houses of Assembly have done a deplorable job of their oversight functions in the implementation of budgets, and the appropriation of the monthly allocation from the federal purse. Every case of a governor who stole is an indictment of the State House of Assembly that has powers to superintend the affairs of the State, but failed to use them.
Dr. Aliyu missed the mark by lowering the standards for transparency in the conduct of state affairs with his suggested arbitrariness. It would create room for more corruption since all the thief needs to do is repatriate his loot as investment. The quest for investments should not take precedence over our laws. Once lawlessness sets in, neither investments, nor the country would make much progress.
How would what the thief repatriates be checked to ensure that it matches what was stolen? What then happens to laws on fraud, corruption, conspiracy, forgery, which prescribe punishments, even at the level of intention?
The fight against corruption is more serious than Dr. Aliyu realises. Where money laundering is involved, international laws are broken, and several countries may be willing to put the same suspect on trial for infracting their laws.
Nigeria’s membership of international organisations imposes obligations on her to follow best global practices in the fight against money laundering and other trans-border crimes that thrive under weak legislations and punishments like the one Dr. Aliyu has proposed.
Thieves, like other criminals, should be punished for their actions before talks of forgiveness, which hopefully would not include national honours.
Presidential Election Petition Tribunal and the cause of justice
THE ruling on Tuesday February 25, 2008 by the Presidential Election Tribunal to the effect that the polls were free and fair, was not just shocking, but robbed our beloved country of the chance for a fresh start and to show that we can do things better. It also plays up the stereotype that incompetence and electoral fraud is acceptable in Nigeria. The Justice James Ogebe-led presidential election petition tribunal had unanimously held that the former Head of State Muhammadu Buhari, who was the presidential flag bearer of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) in the April 21, 2007 presidential election and his counterpart in the Action Congress (AC) Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, former Vice-President in the Obasanjo Administration, had failed to prove their claim that the election which brought Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar'Adua to power on April 21, 2007 was not conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, 2006.
"In conclusion", the tribunal's judgment, which was read by Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi (JCA), forcefully declared, "this petition has been plagued by want of evidence in proof of virtually all the allegations contained therein", adding that "even if I were to accept all the excluded evidence proffered by the petitioner, which evidence relates only to four states of the federation, the petitioner would still have been unable to establish this petition..."
The April 14 and 21 general elections, which were bungled by the inept and inordinately partisan so-called Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), presided over by Prof. Maurice Iwu, were universally condemned as a plague, a national disgrace and a reproach to the collective aspirations of all Nigerians. Max Van Den Berg, the European Union (EU) Chief Observer of the said elections, had this to say: "The EU observers witnessed many examples of fraud, including ballot box stuffing, multiple voting, intimidation of voters, alteration of official result forms, stealing of sensitive polling materials, vote buying and under-age voting", adding that "INEC's selectivity and inconsistency with regard to the application, and enforcement of electoral laws and court orders were apparent in a number of instances..." Local commentators were just as critical of the farcical exercise called April 2007 general elections. Even the greatest beneficiary of the elections, President Musa Yar'Adua, openly acknowledged the flaws in the elections. But the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal glossed over all this to the utter consternation of the public.
If anything, the ruling of the Tribunal has re-affirmed the notion that the law is indeed an ass. It is common knowledge that every judgment is as good as the quality of submissions made before the judge, who, more often than not, may twist legal gaffes and hiatuses in the law in the interest of some socio-political considerations. Unfortunately, the Tribunal overplayed its hands in this instance. For example, the tribunal claimed that the counsel to the petitioners failed to abide by the provisions of the election tribunal and court practice directions 2007, a failure which proved fatal to their case against the major respondents, President Umaru Yar'Adua and Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan.
Section 83 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 112, laws of the federation of Nigeria, 1990) provides that "an affidavit shall not be admitted which is proved to have been sworn before a person on whose behalf the same is offered, or before his legal practitioner, or before a partner or clerk of his legal practitioner". The court held that the corpus of the affidavit evidence tendered by the petitioner's counsel on behalf of the petitioner was sworn before a notary public who was also counsel to the petitioner. No doubt, the court's decision in this regard as well as in other instances amounts to using narrow technicalities to subvert substantial issues in the case. Besides, Section 146 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2006, offered the tribunal considerable latitude in how to wriggle through the labyrinth of law and facts that may militate against any election candidate, who complains of non-compliance with the provisions of the act. This noxious and footloose section could serve as literal bait on offer to any judge or group of judges to apply some extraneous canons of statutory interpretation to construe the law, with an eye to the main chance.
In all probability, the learned justices of the Court of Appeal may, under the doctrine of consequences, have weighed the cost of fresh elections in both human and financial terms, in addition to a possible upsurge of socio-political disturbances in the body politic, before crafting the judgment that is completely silent on the highly discredited elections and on the cruel theatrics of what was intended to be their unbiased umpire. If indeed their Lordships had chosen to give a ruling on these grounds, it perhaps would have been better if they had said so, expressly.
The kernel of the matter, however, is as follows: Their Lordships may have delivered legal justice relying heavily on technicalities, but substantial justice has not been done. Reading the details of their ruling, they seemed to have been more interested in ridiculing the Counsel to the petitioners. There were urgent issues which their Lordships simply wished away. One, counsel to the petitioners had complained that they were ambushed by their Lordships who had prevented them from presenting oral evidence in support of their pleadings, only to turn around to castigate them for failing to do so. So irritated was the counsel to General Muhammadu Buhari, Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN that he enjoined the Justices to search their "bags of conscience." Many Nigerians, in reacting to the ruling, have expressed more or less the same view.
Secondly, there was the issue of missing serial numbers on the ballot papers for the election. Again, the Justices did not consider this material enough. Thirdly, one of the petitioners had insisted that there was no level playing field in the elections. In this regard also, the ruling gave the impression that the April 21 election was free and fair. Thus, the tribunal sought to confer legitimacy on an election that was universally considered fraudulent. The hands of the tribunal may have been tied and their Lordships may have been interpreting the law, strictly as it is, but the responsibility of a Court of law is to do justice and for it to be seen to have done justice, even if the heavens fall.
The general outcry and public disquiet that have attended the tribunal's ruling are proof enough of how an uninspiring judgement from the Bench can erode confidence in the judicial system. It is the judiciary that has been placed on trial. Perhaps the most galling aspect of the entire episode is its advertisement by INEC as a confirmation of its success in the April 21, 2007 election. We decry this cheap and hollow opportunism on the part of INEC. What is clear from the outcome of the presidential election petition so far, is that law alone cannot enthrone a fraud-free and transparent electoral process in Nigeria. Even so, we are persuaded that all the laws relating to elections in Nigeria including the constitution, the Evidence Act and the Electoral Act 2006 should be reviewed with the minimum delay.
It is hoped that the Electoral Reform Commission set up by the president will look into the Electoral Act 2006 as well as other laws relating to the electoral process. We are also persuaded, above all, that INEC should be drastically overhauled, with efficient speed. In the meantime, the petitioners have vowed to take their case to the Supreme Court on appeal. The entire nation awaits the intervention of the Supreme Court, with the hope that it will help to dispel the confusion, ridicule and danger that the ruling of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal has brought into Nigeria's democratic space.
Whipping The Child
CHILDREN are so important that it trivialises their place if the importance of their future to become subject of arcane debates linked to culture and religion.
Our children are the future of this country, everyone agrees. Why are we reluctant to give them a future? Does anyone see how their blighted future jeopardises the future of Nigeria?
The Child Rights Act, CRA, provides emphatically on the prohibition of exploitative labour, as a violation of a child’s rights. It was meant to be the cure to the maltreatment of the Nigerian child.
Section 28 states, “(1) Subject to this act, no child shall be a. subjected to any forced or exploitative labour; or b. employed to work in any capacity except where he is employed by a member of his family on light work of an agricultural, horticultural or domestic character; or c. required, in any case to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as likely to adversely affect his physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development; or d. employed as a domestic help outside his home or family environment” .
Sub-section (3) and (4), provide a fine of N50,000 or imprisonment for five years or both, while a body corporate and all its members are liable, on conviction, to a fine of N250,000.
Other unsafe practices the Act prohibits include apprenticeship, street trading, market/shop assistant, buka workers, bus conductors, motor park touts, farm work, porter, begging and betrothal.
Betrothal is described as an arrangement between the parents of a girl child and that of a boy (when the children are still infants) for a marriage between them at a future date. In Section 23, there is a fine of N500,000 or five years imprisonment for any who betroths a child.
The CRA, which the National Assembly passed in 2003, has been walking the chambers of various state Houses of Assembly since then. Abuja and 16 States have passed the bill into state laws. The law has had little true effect on child’s rights across Nigeria, due to lack of implementation.
It is one of the few laws that contradicts Section 4 (5) of the 1999 Constitution which states, “If any Law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail, and that other Law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void”.
Some states and local governments have hidden behind a diverse range of cultural and religious excuses for not implementing the law. Some states claim the law would harm their people.
It is time lovers of children stopped the whipping of the Nigerian child. Cases of abuses are on the rise. The Supreme Court can make a definite pronouncement on how the CRA is above Section 4 (5) of the Constitution. It is the option to adopt rather than the despondency over the attitude of the States.
Not Military’s Show
THE enthusiasm of all segments of the Nigerian society to keep democracy on a steady keel is appreciated. However, it is out of place for this enthusiasm to be an excuse to invest the military with more authority than is legal.
General Andrew Azazi, the Chief of Defence Staff, was totally out of ken in his recent political statement. His position was in an official statement after the Court of Appeal upheld election of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.
“The Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Owoye Andrew Azazi wants to seize the opportunity to assure Nigerians that the military is solidly behind the President. We have seen the rule of law in action and we will do our best to ensure maintenance of public peace as enshrined in our nation's constitution.
“Let us all join hands to assist the President, Commander-in-Chief in moving the country forward to the lofty heights where we want Nigeria to be,” read the statement Brig-Gen. M. D. Yusuf, Director of Defence Information, signed.
Public expression of solidarity with the President, in the circumstance, with the attendant campaign for him, is a political statement unexpected of the Chief of Defence State, especially as the litigants have indicated they would contest the ruling at the Supreme Court.
His statement is therefore pre-mature. It was also unnecessary, and could only have been made, if at all, after the legal contentions have been finally exhausted. Is General Azazi saying that the military would not be solidly behind another President if the Supreme Court so rules? The military’s loyalty is really to the nation, not to the individual.
Another disturbing aspect of the statement is the indication that the military is pledging to do its best to maintain public peace. It is an aberration for the military to suggest that it would be in-charge of public peace.
The police have that responsibility. The military under Section 217 (a) of the Constitution is to defend Nigeria “from external aggression”. It could be invited, on the orders of the President, to suppress “insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities to restore order”. This position is too well known for the Chief of Defence Staff make an issue out of it. Maintenance of public order is a police affair, in the same manner that our politics should be conducted away from the expressed interests of the military.
Where troublemakers are identified, the security agencies know what to do without burdening the public with the information.
Everything should be done to strengthen the ability of the police to take care of civil disturbance in line with its constitutional role. The more we are able to demilitarise our politics and conduct, the more the military would realise its role outside politics.
It is in our collective interest for the likes of General Azazi, who “have seen the rule of law in action”, to help to sustain our democracy without making a show of their role in it
.jpg)
