America's diminishing verities

WITH all its flaws, with all the harsh testaments of its historical wrongs, with all the gaudy exuberances of its mores, with all the imperfect articulations of its human structures, with all its comprehensive tarnishments that are forever confronted and rectified in ceaseless debates and animated discourses - America was the greatest illustration of the defining moment of man since the infant Rome stirred in the fullness of democratic glory and martial power.

Since it broke upon the world with its industry and scholarship, with its enterprise and dazzling creativity, with its adventurous individualism, rescuing Europe from the first ferment of the Teutonic fury, America was the agreed aspirational beacon, the far-flung distant possibility that lesser nations quest to imitate in idealised dreams.

In the vigour of its liberty, in the equity of its justice, in its instinctive accommodating truth, giving embrace to everyone without being detained by primordial bigotry, nudging excellence regardless of colour, shattering the outposts of communistic deceit, firmly colliding against the janissaries of roguish Mohammedanism without excuses, without the belittling hand-wringing of thoughtless leadership - America stood tall, rooted in that sturdiness of character and attainments that define a great Republic.

It was then the voice of those who writhed in the severe anonymity of the dungeons of tyranny. It was the resuscitative hope of the despaired dying band from the gulags of Bolshevism to the primitive theatres of despotic Africa. It was a defiant moralistic symbol that was confident of its own truth, restrained by its own value, resolute to grapple with any foe in the pursuit and the defence of liberty.

Hence the Kennedy admonition: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."

That was yesterday. That was when the rallying leadership of a great Republic was truly a representative man who embodied the spirit of the age. That was when power was overborne by a mighty presence who invoked the summative vision of a people, steering the statecraft with iron will, confronting the challenges of the hour with grit and gravitas, etching in everyone the pride of the Republic.

For truly, like Emerson tells us, the greatness of a nation is most observable in the burnishing luster of a symbol, in the nuances and graces of a representative icon who espouses our collective dream, who defines the nation's possibilities. In this idealisation, the leadership is the mirror of the national will, the confronting emblem of the national content.

Today the American national content largely resides in Barack Obama. By the virtue of his position alone, he is the greatest testimony of America's redeeming possibilities. In the loftiness of his height, in the unprecedented eminence of his presidential perch, Obama best illustrates the collective will of a people to vault the ancient barriers of colour, to stamp out the divisive barricades, to embrace everyone by the reckoning of character and excellence. Sprung from the obscurity of the Illinois legislative assembly, vaulted from the freshman anonymity of the American Senate, Obama now presides from the unifying eminence of a national badge.

He is an emblem alright! But where is the gravitas? Where is the eminence? Where is the national will? Where is that defining corpus of national fixity and determination? Everywhere, there is a wobble and unsteady gaze. Certainty is gone. The stern resolve of yesterday is now replaced with moral preachments and stifling ambiguity.

Mr. Obama is a good man, an emblematic symbol of peace who resides in some utopian corpus that believes that every tyrant can be swayed through rhetorics, that insists every murderous mullah can be steered to civility through pandering gestures and aimless speechifying.

And yet Mr. Obama is a good man. Since he is convinced in some muddled rationality that his predecessor was some arrogant fiend who had scourged the world in primitive licence, Mr. Obama in his vestal majesty must now atone for the 'evil' ways of yesterday by kowtowing, genuflecting from Venezuela to the dunes of Araby. America is now warped in diminutive comicality. Obama's presidency is steeped in prostration and appeasement. The revanchist nationalists in Russia, sponsoring proxy wars and fragmentations of former Soviet states are quixotically parried by the dismantlement of the defences of allied states, thus exposing vulnerable democracies to the grasping claws of an angry, resurgent Bear.

The ill-conceived pacific gestures to Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are violently scoffed at and derided as feeble rantings from America. And why does Mr. Obama bow in sheer perpendicular ridiculousness before ancient, effete monarchs from the dunes of Araby to the Nipponese enclave? Bowing and looking down the toes of the Saudi Arabian king and His Imperial Majesty of the Chrysanthemum throne of a non-existing Japanese empire degrades Mr. Obama, degrades the American people, affronts the American Constitution, demeans the spirit of 1776.

Asked if she would bow before any of these feudal potentates, Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska responded: "No, sir." That is the American way. It is in the spirit of the constitution which forbids any American official to accept a title or honour from any potentate. Bowing before any of these feudal lords is even worse. It is an encouragement of feudal latitude. Mr. Obama should know that extending courtesy to a feudal lord does not inhere in the nullification of one's tradition. Excessive accommodation of other people's custom to the detriment of one's own is not a sign of civility but a testimony of weakness.

Indeed, there is an untoward solicitousness about Mr. Obama. He is desperately grasping for acceptability, believing falsely that America must be remoulded in the warped image of the leftist in Europe and in the confused agenda of the Nobel clique who would give a bogus award in the perverted anticipation of presidential attainments! Surely, being president is not about being detained by ancestral chains or being halted by constant droning of one's beginning. Those are not the measures that gave Obama victory over John McCain. Being president is about standing beyond the fray of colour, eclipsing everything in an American identity, confronting the challenges of the hour in the fullness of the American ideal.

Yes, being president is about standing tall, wielding the big stick, aligning with the dispossessed, giving voice to the unheard, colliding with tyranny from Sudan to Venezuela. In a world rivened by brigands and murderous zealots, distorted by chaotic state actors and strutting charlatans, tormented by virulent psychopaths who would blow up the world as well as themselves; all protesting the righteous purity of their visions - there is a need for an arbitrating moral arbiter. There is a need for the moderating majesty of a great power who stands above the fray with firm authoritative bearing, who intervenes on behalf of everyone with the full vigour of a democratic behemon, ultimately restrained by the redeeming values of its own tradition. The behemon is America. But no more!

Last week The Spectator of London put on its cover a ghoulish empty suit leaning across the table of the Oval Office like a cringing haunting spectre with voided substantiation. It is captioned in damning assertiveness: "The worst kind of ally." Alas, this is what the thoughtful democratic league now believes of the presiding power in America.

America's diminishing verities

WITH all its flaws, with all the harsh testaments of its historical wrongs, with all the gaudy exuberances of its mores, with all the imperfect articulations of its human structures, with all its comprehensive tarnishments that are forever confronted and rectified in ceaseless debates and animated discourses - America was the greatest illustration of the defining moment of man since the infant Rome stirred in the fullness of democratic glory and martial power.

Since it broke upon the world with its industry and scholarship, with its enterprise and dazzling creativity, with its adventurous individualism, rescuing Europe from the first ferment of the Teutonic fury, America was the agreed aspirational beacon, the far-flung distant possibility that lesser nations quest to imitate in idealised dreams.

In the vigour of its liberty, in the equity of its justice, in its instinctive accommodating truth, giving embrace to everyone without being detained by primordial bigotry, nudging excellence regardless of colour, shattering the outposts of communistic deceit, firmly colliding against the janissaries of roguish Mohammedanism without excuses, without the belittling hand-wringing of thoughtless leadership - America stood tall, rooted in that sturdiness of character and attainments that define a great Republic.

It was then the voice of those who writhed in the severe anonymity of the dungeons of tyranny. It was the resuscitative hope of the despaired dying band from the gulags of Bolshevism to the primitive theatres of despotic Africa. It was a defiant moralistic symbol that was confident of its own truth, restrained by its own value, resolute to grapple with any foe in the pursuit and the defence of liberty.

Hence the Kennedy admonition: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."

That was yesterday. That was when the rallying leadership of a great Republic was truly a representative man who embodied the spirit of the age. That was when power was overborne by a mighty presence who invoked the summative vision of a people, steering the statecraft with iron will, confronting the challenges of the hour with grit and gravitas, etching in everyone the pride of the Republic.

For truly, like Emerson tells us, the greatness of a nation is most observable in the burnishing luster of a symbol, in the nuances and graces of a representative icon who espouses our collective dream, who defines the nation's possibilities. In this idealisation, the leadership is the mirror of the national will, the confronting emblem of the national content.

Today the American national content largely resides in Barack Obama. By the virtue of his position alone, he is the greatest testimony of America's redeeming possibilities. In the loftiness of his height, in the unprecedented eminence of his presidential perch, Obama best illustrates the collective will of a people to vault the ancient barriers of colour, to stamp out the divisive barricades, to embrace everyone by the reckoning of character and excellence. Sprung from the obscurity of the Illinois legislative assembly, vaulted from the freshman anonymity of the American Senate, Obama now presides from the unifying eminence of a national badge.

He is an emblem alright! But where is the gravitas? Where is the eminence? Where is the national will? Where is that defining corpus of national fixity and determination? Everywhere, there is a wobble and unsteady gaze. Certainty is gone. The stern resolve of yesterday is now replaced with moral preachments and stifling ambiguity.

Mr. Obama is a good man, an emblematic symbol of peace who resides in some utopian corpus that believes that every tyrant can be swayed through rhetorics, that insists every murderous mullah can be steered to civility through pandering gestures and aimless speechifying.

And yet Mr. Obama is a good man. Since he is convinced in some muddled rationality that his predecessor was some arrogant fiend who had scourged the world in primitive licence, Mr. Obama in his vestal majesty must now atone for the 'evil' ways of yesterday by kowtowing, genuflecting from Venezuela to the dunes of Araby. America is now warped in diminutive comicality. Obama's presidency is steeped in prostration and appeasement. The revanchist nationalists in Russia, sponsoring proxy wars and fragmentations of former Soviet states are quixotically parried by the dismantlement of the defences of allied states, thus exposing vulnerable democracies to the grasping claws of an angry, resurgent Bear.

The ill-conceived pacific gestures to Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are violently scoffed at and derided as feeble rantings from America. And why does Mr. Obama bow in sheer perpendicular ridiculousness before ancient, effete monarchs from the dunes of Araby to the Nipponese enclave? Bowing and looking down the toes of the Saudi Arabian king and His Imperial Majesty of the Chrysanthemum throne of a non-existing Japanese empire degrades Mr. Obama, degrades the American people, affronts the American Constitution, demeans the spirit of 1776.

Asked if she would bow before any of these feudal potentates, Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska responded: "No, sir." That is the American way. It is in the spirit of the constitution which forbids any American official to accept a title or honour from any potentate. Bowing before any of these feudal lords is even worse. It is an encouragement of feudal latitude. Mr. Obama should know that extending courtesy to a feudal lord does not inhere in the nullification of one's tradition. Excessive accommodation of other people's custom to the detriment of one's own is not a sign of civility but a testimony of weakness.

Indeed, there is an untoward solicitousness about Mr. Obama. He is desperately grasping for acceptability, believing falsely that America must be remoulded in the warped image of the leftist in Europe and in the confused agenda of the Nobel clique who would give a bogus award in the perverted anticipation of presidential attainments! Surely, being president is not about being detained by ancestral chains or being halted by constant droning of one's beginning. Those are not the measures that gave Obama victory over John McCain. Being president is about standing beyond the fray of colour, eclipsing everything in an American identity, confronting the challenges of the hour in the fullness of the American ideal.

Yes, being president is about standing tall, wielding the big stick, aligning with the dispossessed, giving voice to the unheard, colliding with tyranny from Sudan to Venezuela. In a world rivened by brigands and murderous zealots, distorted by chaotic state actors and strutting charlatans, tormented by virulent psychopaths who would blow up the world as well as themselves; all protesting the righteous purity of their visions - there is a need for an arbitrating moral arbiter. There is a need for the moderating majesty of a great power who stands above the fray with firm authoritative bearing, who intervenes on behalf of everyone with the full vigour of a democratic behemon, ultimately restrained by the redeeming values of its own tradition. The behemon is America. But no more!

Last week The Spectator of London put on its cover a ghoulish empty suit leaning across the table of the Oval Office like a cringing haunting spectre with voided substantiation. It is captioned in damning assertiveness: "The worst kind of ally." Alas, this is what the thoughtful democratic league now believes of the presiding power in America.

Sanusi and the banks: 100 days after

THE most significant development in the Nigerian financial landscape in the last 100 days was neither the expected action of the CBN on August 14, 2009 nor the far-reaching nature/severity of the pronouncements - as the market was expectant and agreed on the need for a change. The management of information and the consistent/sustained 'negative' news cycle have proven to be the most crucial factor in the market downturn. The last 100 days is replete with such gloom and doom that it is a 'miracle' the ASI has stayed above the 21,000 basis points.

But can all the problems be placed on the doorsteps of Regulators? Hector Sants, Chief Executive, FSA while delivering his speech to participants at the 2009 Securities & Investment Institute Conference, on May 7, 2009 said "From evidence available, it has become demonstrably clear that firstly, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, there are some management decisions that have revealed a degree of incompetence, and at times a rather cavalier approach regarding risk management; secondly shareholders and regulators must be careful not to place excessive reliance on senior management judgements; thirdly, the necessary challenge was missing from governance structures, in particular boards, and finally there may well be questions that can reasonably be asked about the openness and thus, arguably, the integrity of firms dealings with regulators, shareholders and their customers."

He could have been talking about the Nigerian operating environment here. This goes to show that what we are experiencing is a global phenomenon and we should quickly move away from the distracting focus on 'criminalising individuals' and embracing the task of market and nation building. Now that we understand that we have a shared problem, can we change the engagement rules? The CBN must rethink its engagement approach if the ultimate goal is to establish a game changer? To have a market, we must have participants. In our desire to get the banks to become virtuous and disengage from being 'facilitators of criminal enterprises' as they have been branded, we have all been made to pay for the changes needed.

Robert Preston, City Editor BBC while commenting on the cost of changes to get banks to become 'virtuous' without admitting the intrinsic cost of the democratic deficit that is being charged stated that "even if the banks are given long enough to reinvent themselves as more cautious, well capitalised, better balanced institutions, it would be very foolish to believe there won't be costs - and most of those costs will probably fall on us, their customers, rather than on the banks themselves and their shareholders".

He added, "If all banks were to increase their holdings of liquid assets, shrink their reliance on fee based income and lend less relative to their capital resources in one fell swoop, well there would be a collapse in lending to the real economy and we'd be in a fair old depression in no time at all - and the banks themselves would soon find themselves bust". Thus, it is obvious that the price we are being called upon to pay must not be indeterminate; for there is a fallacy of composition arising from all banks discovering virtue and prudence at the same time.

While some continue to push the argument that taking such steps will ultimately benefit the economy over the longer term and in the interest of the banks individually and collectively to strengthen their finances; not a few have now recognised that to do so in such a wholesale manner (leading to the freeze in the supply of credit) will do significant harm to the Nigerian economy. Quite frankly, we must find a middle road to balance the arguments for holding 'quality/safe liquid assets' (those low yield - less income assets considered less attractive to a banking industry long on greed and short on reality) on the one hand and riskier loans and engagements in the capital market on the other.

But can one truly blame the banks? Evidence indicates that they have had to provide services and amenities which the state has failed in its responsibility to do and they continue to shoulder and account for the semblance of developments we have seen and experienced in the last decade. The simply got carried away playing 'God'; and at a great cost to us all. We must devote our energies to resolving this debacle; for should we fail to reward the original providers of capital (investors) with relative returns to capital via dividends for the second year in a row by 2010, there would be far worse unintended consequences than imagined.

This market confidence crisis runs deeper than expressed. The impact of the post August 14, 2009 declaration celebrated with a massive media coverage is beginning to look like a circus show parade - the excitement only falters to deceive. Our banks now know, and the CBN should get it; that trust has been a key casualty in this unending story - that is why the newly appointed CEO's are sending back reports to the CBN with tales of unanticipated challenges.

The staff and customers see them more as impostors or usurpers depending on how deep the consequence of the actions taken and those to follow impact their lives. Their customers have been publicly disgraced and humiliated and the basis of trust turned to a negotiated issue depending on which side of the divide the EFCC chooses to swing. Morale is down and the affair between the banker and customer is facing a rocky season. With talks of new bond issues, there is the ever present fear that in forcing the banks to hold more capital, they will make the price we are paying go higher - in the form of higher interest charges and lower deposit rates.

The CBN must find a way out of the on-going intellectual hole it has connived to create, and we believe it is seriously looking at options open to it; starting with the decision to avoid a wholesale sanction on the whole banking system and the slow down in its me-against-them rhetoric. We are all in this together. Now, Investors in the NCM must confront the inevitable - recognise the cost they will and are paying for engaging in the only legitimate market for building wealth in the country - the capital market.

Our assessment of the situation is that there is no cheering news on the horizon, at this date, to encourage a different course of action. Quite frankly, it is pure fantasy to believe otherwise. Yet, the story does not have a sad ending. History has shown us that we cannot leave our cash-cows - the banks to self regulate. If we are going to achieve a turn around of the losses made in the market - we have to transmute from by-standers to active participants in the paradigm shift taking place. Each generation faces its own major crisis. This is ours, and we must rise up to the challenge.

Events in the capital market with a constant news stream of huge losses by the banks play to investors' big fear - the idea that banks have only recognised the losses they can afford to shoulder today, not the defaults that will arrive eventually. We can start here and receive assurances to that effect. We can do more than just sit down and moan. Finally, 2009 appears it could yet end as it began - with the markets staying south. We must thus set our sights and thoughts on 2010 and make the best of the opportunity to begin again, better informed and wiser. It is a heavy price to pay but one that we can intelligently use to rebuild.

Sanusi and the banks: 100 days after

THE most significant development in the Nigerian financial landscape in the last 100 days was neither the expected action of the CBN on August 14, 2009 nor the far-reaching nature/severity of the pronouncements - as the market was expectant and agreed on the need for a change. The management of information and the consistent/sustained 'negative' news cycle have proven to be the most crucial factor in the market downturn. The last 100 days is replete with such gloom and doom that it is a 'miracle' the ASI has stayed above the 21,000 basis points.

But can all the problems be placed on the doorsteps of Regulators? Hector Sants, Chief Executive, FSA while delivering his speech to participants at the 2009 Securities & Investment Institute Conference, on May 7, 2009 said "From evidence available, it has become demonstrably clear that firstly, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, there are some management decisions that have revealed a degree of incompetence, and at times a rather cavalier approach regarding risk management; secondly shareholders and regulators must be careful not to place excessive reliance on senior management judgements; thirdly, the necessary challenge was missing from governance structures, in particular boards, and finally there may well be questions that can reasonably be asked about the openness and thus, arguably, the integrity of firms dealings with regulators, shareholders and their customers."

He could have been talking about the Nigerian operating environment here. This goes to show that what we are experiencing is a global phenomenon and we should quickly move away from the distracting focus on 'criminalising individuals' and embracing the task of market and nation building. Now that we understand that we have a shared problem, can we change the engagement rules? The CBN must rethink its engagement approach if the ultimate goal is to establish a game changer? To have a market, we must have participants. In our desire to get the banks to become virtuous and disengage from being 'facilitators of criminal enterprises' as they have been branded, we have all been made to pay for the changes needed.

Robert Preston, City Editor BBC while commenting on the cost of changes to get banks to become 'virtuous' without admitting the intrinsic cost of the democratic deficit that is being charged stated that "even if the banks are given long enough to reinvent themselves as more cautious, well capitalised, better balanced institutions, it would be very foolish to believe there won't be costs - and most of those costs will probably fall on us, their customers, rather than on the banks themselves and their shareholders".

He added, "If all banks were to increase their holdings of liquid assets, shrink their reliance on fee based income and lend less relative to their capital resources in one fell swoop, well there would be a collapse in lending to the real economy and we'd be in a fair old depression in no time at all - and the banks themselves would soon find themselves bust". Thus, it is obvious that the price we are being called upon to pay must not be indeterminate; for there is a fallacy of composition arising from all banks discovering virtue and prudence at the same time.

While some continue to push the argument that taking such steps will ultimately benefit the economy over the longer term and in the interest of the banks individually and collectively to strengthen their finances; not a few have now recognised that to do so in such a wholesale manner (leading to the freeze in the supply of credit) will do significant harm to the Nigerian economy. Quite frankly, we must find a middle road to balance the arguments for holding 'quality/safe liquid assets' (those low yield - less income assets considered less attractive to a banking industry long on greed and short on reality) on the one hand and riskier loans and engagements in the capital market on the other.

But can one truly blame the banks? Evidence indicates that they have had to provide services and amenities which the state has failed in its responsibility to do and they continue to shoulder and account for the semblance of developments we have seen and experienced in the last decade. The simply got carried away playing 'God'; and at a great cost to us all. We must devote our energies to resolving this debacle; for should we fail to reward the original providers of capital (investors) with relative returns to capital via dividends for the second year in a row by 2010, there would be far worse unintended consequences than imagined.

This market confidence crisis runs deeper than expressed. The impact of the post August 14, 2009 declaration celebrated with a massive media coverage is beginning to look like a circus show parade - the excitement only falters to deceive. Our banks now know, and the CBN should get it; that trust has been a key casualty in this unending story - that is why the newly appointed CEO's are sending back reports to the CBN with tales of unanticipated challenges.

The staff and customers see them more as impostors or usurpers depending on how deep the consequence of the actions taken and those to follow impact their lives. Their customers have been publicly disgraced and humiliated and the basis of trust turned to a negotiated issue depending on which side of the divide the EFCC chooses to swing. Morale is down and the affair between the banker and customer is facing a rocky season. With talks of new bond issues, there is the ever present fear that in forcing the banks to hold more capital, they will make the price we are paying go higher - in the form of higher interest charges and lower deposit rates.

The CBN must find a way out of the on-going intellectual hole it has connived to create, and we believe it is seriously looking at options open to it; starting with the decision to avoid a wholesale sanction on the whole banking system and the slow down in its me-against-them rhetoric. We are all in this together. Now, Investors in the NCM must confront the inevitable - recognise the cost they will and are paying for engaging in the only legitimate market for building wealth in the country - the capital market.

Our assessment of the situation is that there is no cheering news on the horizon, at this date, to encourage a different course of action. Quite frankly, it is pure fantasy to believe otherwise. Yet, the story does not have a sad ending. History has shown us that we cannot leave our cash-cows - the banks to self regulate. If we are going to achieve a turn around of the losses made in the market - we have to transmute from by-standers to active participants in the paradigm shift taking place. Each generation faces its own major crisis. This is ours, and we must rise up to the challenge.

Events in the capital market with a constant news stream of huge losses by the banks play to investors' big fear - the idea that banks have only recognised the losses they can afford to shoulder today, not the defaults that will arrive eventually. We can start here and receive assurances to that effect. We can do more than just sit down and moan. Finally, 2009 appears it could yet end as it began - with the markets staying south. We must thus set our sights and thoughts on 2010 and make the best of the opportunity to begin again, better informed and wiser. It is a heavy price to pay but one that we can intelligently use to rebuild.

Sanusi and the banks: 100 days after

THE most significant development in the Nigerian financial landscape in the last 100 days was neither the expected action of the CBN on August 14, 2009 nor the far-reaching nature/severity of the pronouncements - as the market was expectant and agreed on the need for a change. The management of information and the consistent/sustained 'negative' news cycle have proven to be the most crucial factor in the market downturn. The last 100 days is replete with such gloom and doom that it is a 'miracle' the ASI has stayed above the 21,000 basis points.

But can all the problems be placed on the doorsteps of Regulators? Hector Sants, Chief Executive, FSA while delivering his speech to participants at the 2009 Securities & Investment Institute Conference, on May 7, 2009 said "From evidence available, it has become demonstrably clear that firstly, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, there are some management decisions that have revealed a degree of incompetence, and at times a rather cavalier approach regarding risk management; secondly shareholders and regulators must be careful not to place excessive reliance on senior management judgements; thirdly, the necessary challenge was missing from governance structures, in particular boards, and finally there may well be questions that can reasonably be asked about the openness and thus, arguably, the integrity of firms dealings with regulators, shareholders and their customers."

He could have been talking about the Nigerian operating environment here. This goes to show that what we are experiencing is a global phenomenon and we should quickly move away from the distracting focus on 'criminalising individuals' and embracing the task of market and nation building. Now that we understand that we have a shared problem, can we change the engagement rules? The CBN must rethink its engagement approach if the ultimate goal is to establish a game changer? To have a market, we must have participants. In our desire to get the banks to become virtuous and disengage from being 'facilitators of criminal enterprises' as they have been branded, we have all been made to pay for the changes needed.

Robert Preston, City Editor BBC while commenting on the cost of changes to get banks to become 'virtuous' without admitting the intrinsic cost of the democratic deficit that is being charged stated that "even if the banks are given long enough to reinvent themselves as more cautious, well capitalised, better balanced institutions, it would be very foolish to believe there won't be costs - and most of those costs will probably fall on us, their customers, rather than on the banks themselves and their shareholders".

He added, "If all banks were to increase their holdings of liquid assets, shrink their reliance on fee based income and lend less relative to their capital resources in one fell swoop, well there would be a collapse in lending to the real economy and we'd be in a fair old depression in no time at all - and the banks themselves would soon find themselves bust". Thus, it is obvious that the price we are being called upon to pay must not be indeterminate; for there is a fallacy of composition arising from all banks discovering virtue and prudence at the same time.

While some continue to push the argument that taking such steps will ultimately benefit the economy over the longer term and in the interest of the banks individually and collectively to strengthen their finances; not a few have now recognised that to do so in such a wholesale manner (leading to the freeze in the supply of credit) will do significant harm to the Nigerian economy. Quite frankly, we must find a middle road to balance the arguments for holding 'quality/safe liquid assets' (those low yield - less income assets considered less attractive to a banking industry long on greed and short on reality) on the one hand and riskier loans and engagements in the capital market on the other.

But can one truly blame the banks? Evidence indicates that they have had to provide services and amenities which the state has failed in its responsibility to do and they continue to shoulder and account for the semblance of developments we have seen and experienced in the last decade. The simply got carried away playing 'God'; and at a great cost to us all. We must devote our energies to resolving this debacle; for should we fail to reward the original providers of capital (investors) with relative returns to capital via dividends for the second year in a row by 2010, there would be far worse unintended consequences than imagined.

This market confidence crisis runs deeper than expressed. The impact of the post August 14, 2009 declaration celebrated with a massive media coverage is beginning to look like a circus show parade - the excitement only falters to deceive. Our banks now know, and the CBN should get it; that trust has been a key casualty in this unending story - that is why the newly appointed CEO's are sending back reports to the CBN with tales of unanticipated challenges.

The staff and customers see them more as impostors or usurpers depending on how deep the consequence of the actions taken and those to follow impact their lives. Their customers have been publicly disgraced and humiliated and the basis of trust turned to a negotiated issue depending on which side of the divide the EFCC chooses to swing. Morale is down and the affair between the banker and customer is facing a rocky season. With talks of new bond issues, there is the ever present fear that in forcing the banks to hold more capital, they will make the price we are paying go higher - in the form of higher interest charges and lower deposit rates.

The CBN must find a way out of the on-going intellectual hole it has connived to create, and we believe it is seriously looking at options open to it; starting with the decision to avoid a wholesale sanction on the whole banking system and the slow down in its me-against-them rhetoric. We are all in this together. Now, Investors in the NCM must confront the inevitable - recognise the cost they will and are paying for engaging in the only legitimate market for building wealth in the country - the capital market.

Our assessment of the situation is that there is no cheering news on the horizon, at this date, to encourage a different course of action. Quite frankly, it is pure fantasy to believe otherwise. Yet, the story does not have a sad ending. History has shown us that we cannot leave our cash-cows - the banks to self regulate. If we are going to achieve a turn around of the losses made in the market - we have to transmute from by-standers to active participants in the paradigm shift taking place. Each generation faces its own major crisis. This is ours, and we must rise up to the challenge.

Events in the capital market with a constant news stream of huge losses by the banks play to investors' big fear - the idea that banks have only recognised the losses they can afford to shoulder today, not the defaults that will arrive eventually. We can start here and receive assurances to that effect. We can do more than just sit down and moan. Finally, 2009 appears it could yet end as it began - with the markets staying south. We must thus set our sights and thoughts on 2010 and make the best of the opportunity to begin again, better informed and wiser. It is a heavy price to pay but one that we can intelligently use to rebuild.

Telecoms’ Good News

Telecommunications investment in Nigeria since 2001 has hit an $18 billion mark. In 1999 total investment in the industry was a paltry $50 million. The growth by all standards, is good news for a country that is almost incapacitated by epileptic socio-economic infrastructure.
Chief Executive Officer of the National Communications Commiss-ion, Ernest Ndukwe, disclosed the figure at the just-concluded International Telecommunications Union (ITU) conference in Geneva, Switzerland. He attributed the investments flow to the deregulation policy of governments and a predictive regulatory environment.
The telecommunications industry in Nigeria also has the twin credit of being the most functional socio-economic infrastructure in the country and perhaps the most successful case of liberalisation in the country. The aviation industry, which has been badly affected by the global financial meltdown, was another successful case.
At the risk of sounding like a PR consultant for the industry, we are compelled to count some of the achievements of the industry to make a point.
The telecoms investment figure comprises about $12 billion in foreign direct investment and the balance made up of investments from within the country. Clearly, following the liberalization of the telecommunications industry by government in 1999, and the subsequent auction of the mobile licenses in year 2001, the telecommunications industry in Nigeria has witnessed tremendous growth.
From teledensity figures of 0.4 lines per 100 inhabitants recorded in year 2000, by October 2008, Nigeria had recorded teledensity figures of 42 lines per 100 inhabitants, and an active subscriber base of nearly 59 million lines. All the states in Nigeria are covered by both voice and data services through the GSM and the CDMA technologies.
Indeed, experts say Nigeria's telecommunications sector is the fastest and largest growing in Africa, with a total of 68 million telephone lines, from just some few hundreds of thousands eight years ago.
The advantages of this growth trend are too many to be listed here, but they include increased range and quality of services available to citizens; the creation of direct and indirect employment opportunities for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled citizens; additional revenue for government through spectrum and numbering fees, import duties, VAT, etc,; improved service penetration to a larger and growing number in under-served and un-served urban, semi-urban and rural areas; technological development in the country; and the lowering of costs of acquiring and using the services.
With these achievements of the industry it is hard to explain the inability or reluctance of government to replicate the model in other ailing sectors such as the railways and electricity.
The beauty of successes such as this is that they become models and a motivation to continue to do the right things to grow the economy. They become models to be replicated in other sectors.
We are not unaware of the case for government's monopoly over the so-called national heritage but beyond facilitating government patronage and corruption, they have not served the country well.
We see another example in the telecoms industry. While local and foreign telecoms companies are blossoming, NITEL continues to be a sore thumb in the industry. And we believe that the reason is not unconnected with hidden interests that have made its transparent privatisation difficult.
NITEL's worth has depreciated considerably since Government broke its monopoly in 2001 and tried to sell it to an operator. Today, Nitel's infrastructure is in disrepair, and its fixed lines have fallen to less than 100,000, while MTEL subscribers have dropped to a few thousands. That is despite its status as a national carrier.
In spite of the weaknesses of private business models revealed in the global economic meltdown, we believe that government's role in business is the provision of an enabling environment and effective regulation. Nothing more. It is time for government to open other sectors of the economy to competition, as it did in 2001 the telecoms sector.
We believe that there are even more benefits to be derived from the telecoms industry as it grows. The challenge is for the regulators to address the weaknesses of the existing services in the industry such as the quality of GSM calls and internet services. Some of the services are appalling indeed. At this age of the industry, quality of service and affordability could be better, and should never be compromised

Nigeria and UN Security Council seat

On October 15, 2009, Nigeria was elected to a non-permanent seat in the Security Council of the United Nations with 186 votes. Four other countries, Gabon, Brazil, Bosnia and Lebanon were elected to similar positions. Unlike previous Security Council elections, there were no contested seats this year. As a result, the five countries nominated by regional groups won an easy election, following voting by the 192-member General Assembly. In the case of Nigeria, the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) supported her candidacy.

According to the rules of the United Nations, 15 member countries constitute the membership of the Security Council. Collectively, they are to ensure peace and security among nations. Of this number, five permanent members made up of the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France exercise veto power over substantive but not procedural resolutions. The remaining 10 are elected for two-year terms only with half retiring every year. Nigeria will assume its position on January 1, 2010.

Ever since the announcement there has been jubilation in official circles almost as if Nigeria has won an undeserved trophy. Foreign Minister, Ojo Maduekwe, has been beating his chest in triumph. Never short of slogans, he has coined a new phrase - Preventive Diplomacy - as his concept of Nigeria's new role at the United Nations. We join him as he rejoices. But Nigeria's triumph is not altogether unexpected. The charter relating to the election of non-permanent members into the Security Council provides that in the first instance, such members must have a track record of contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security for mankind.

Nigeria has eminently fulfilled this condition being second only to India in the contribution of troops in support of UN efforts in achieving global peace and security. Nigeria pioneered and sustains ECOWAS. Nigeria had served three tenures as non-permanent member on the Council between 1966/1967, 1978/1979 and 1994/1995. It currently chairs the UN Second Committee, which deals with economic and financial matters, and the UN Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. In more ways than one, therefore, Nigeria fully qualifies to be a member of the Security Council. But the position comes with a lot of responsibility for which Nigeria must be prepared.

Former Foreign Affairs Minister and current United Nations Under-Secretary General Prof. Ibrahim Gambari who should know what the position entails says Security Council membership requires 24-hour concentration; that meetings are called at short notice and that literally there is no time to 'stand and stare'. He says the challenge now is for Nigeria to have an effective representation of Africa's interests as well as promoting Nigeria's own national interests. We agree entirely with him. Our presence at the Security Council at this time should lay a foundation for the country's bid for permanent representation in a reformed and expanded United Nations. The office of Nigeria's Permanent Representative to the UN should be adequately supported with financial, administrative and personnel resources to enable it discharge the added responsibility.

It is noteworthy that on the eve of this victory, Amnesty International has called on Nigeria to strengthen its national human rights record and demonstrate the country's commitment to promoting and protecting human rights. What Amnesty International is saying, in other words, is that good foreign policy must be anchored on strong domestic policy. Nigeria cannot be presiding over the peace and security of the world when at home it is unable to hold free and fair elections or fight corruption or send our children to school.

The country cannot be at the pinnacle of the world with so much poverty among its people. Right now, Nigeria's economy is stagnating, its banks are in distress. There are bad roads everywhere and not enough employment opportunities for the people. Important industries are relocating away from the country. The cost of refined petroleum products is escalating but the government has refused to build new refineries. These and a whole lot more are things Nigeria should be addressing which its leaders choose to neglect. We shall earn the respect of the United Nations when we respect ourselves by keeping our house in order.

Bankers and the times

LONG before the Sanusi era, banking used to be one of the most sought-after professions in Nigeria. Some may argue that it probably still is. The reason for the former may not be far-fetched. The average graduate fresh from the compulsory one-year national youth service scheme dreams of landing a job in a bank. You cannot really blame them because no other sector gave young people such opportunities and rewarded them highly like the banks did. The banks have been at the forefront of reducing youth unemployment in Nigeria long before the telecommunications sector bullishly berthed on the scene. But still, not even the telecommunications sector, or the Oil and Gas sector could match the recruitment strength of the banks who were always in need of marketing staff, men and women who were quite ready to climb any mountain in their quest for deposit mobilisation.

The increased demand for fresh talent may also be as a result of the high job mobility in the sector, and the post-consolidation expansion strategy that many of the banks embarked on. Some of the banks claimed that they had to spread their branch network to access the under-banked population, but for many others, the glistening gigantic buildings they were erecting across major city centres may just be nothing else but vanity projects, erected to achieve the "My bank is bigger than yours" philosophy of many of the banks. In the end, this contributed to the financial recklessness that plagued the sector as many of such branches were actually loss making. Because bank branches are structured as cost and profit centres, the huge cost of running these branches meant that most branch managers always struggled to declare profits as every profit made is almost immediately swallowed by running costs.

The banks exploited the 'big bank' image in their marketing communications materials, just before the bubble burst, you could hardly see any bank ad that does not declare such a bank as the biggest bank in Nigeria, each claim backed by one or many of the awards that the bank had received from different awarding organisations locally and from abroad.

Now that Sanusi is wielding the big stick, how sad to see yesterday's banking big boys and girls looking towards the sky for some indication of what tomorrow holds. On a regular basis in the dailies, speculations are rife about looming mass sack in the banking halls. Some banks have already started the process of disengaging their surplus staff using different performance indices to determine who stays and who goes. Sadly, some of the great shinning stars of banking, the super marketing staff are also affected.

Why? Deposits have since dried up, depositors confidence very low and the huge deposits they were able to attract in the good old days have since disappeared through the back door into the uncertain risky terrain of insider 'carry go' loans and executive financial recklessness. What a reward, and what a way to pay bank staff back for their sacrifices in helping to build the affected banks through an aggressive regime of marketing and deposit mobilisation. Not even a golden handshake to say the least, but a short cold note to visit HR - a most dreaded memo in the sector currently.

Perhaps there are lessons to be learnt here by all. Back in the good old days, while the going was good, bankers cruised around town in brand new Prado SUVs, Toyota and Honda salon cars. Lady bankers dressed to attract deposits in designer wardrobes to die for, with matching accessories, oversized hand bags and shoes with hills that can injure. The men strutted around town dressed like GQ fashion models; they burnt cash in the best restaurants and night clubs with their wives and girlfriends in tow. Life was good. During this time, savings took a back seat, everybody was living for the moment, many were neck deep in all kinds of loans; margin, mortgage, auto, furniture, education, holidays etc. In retrospect, perhaps a moderate lifestyle may have helped cushion the impending job loss for some.

Are we all going to learn our lessons? Will banking go back to the conservative profession that it should be? Will bankers who survive the chop be able to take show out of the banking business? Only time will tell. And for the new kids on the block, the newly appointed MDs and EDs, this is hoping that they will not go down the widely travelled road. No more $10,000 suits, away with the long Mercedes G Wagon convoys, afterall, we are all now witnessing what happens to people that mess with other people's money. I am not forgetting the unrealistic targets that have driven many female bankers to corporate prostitution. Will all these change now?

There must be things we can learn from banks operating in Europe and America from where we imported the concept of banking. Unlike what obtains in our clime, banks are run as institutions and the banks go on to outlive the founders; people working in traditional high street banks have no business worrying about what the MD will do or say any day he or she has a bad day. They simply go to work, put in an honest hardworking shift and go back home to their families. Unlike the boiler pressure room situation obtainable in Nigerian banks, a situation that has created a lot of in-fighting, 'bad belleism' and favouritism which has pitched many a bank staff against another as they seek to impress the Ogas.

I wish I can find better advice for bankers who may be affected one way or the other in the current right sizing drive except to say that one should now learn to cut his or her coat according to one's clothes, as against one's size as my neighbour Ngozi, a female banker will say. There is no longer any such thing as job for life, not in banking or in any other sector, globalisation has changed all that. Especially in this global financial meltdown and Sanusi era where recent events have shown that it is no longer business as usual. Life will never be the same again; for the bankers, the bank owners and their customers.

The truth about China-Africa relations

I FEEL duty bound to pen this piece as a rejoinder to Olufemi Oyedele's letter titled 'Who is afraid of China?' (The Guardian, October 8, 2009). Oyedele lives in London and coincidentally, I was on a research tour of England at the time he wrote, gathering materials on an aspect of my research on China's diplomacy bordering on Western responses to China's ascendancy in global affairs. Oyedele's views, I must say, were typically Western. He cautioned Nigeria not to grant China's prayer for a $50 billion oil deal on grounds of the former's poor industrial record, penchant for underpayment, corruption, human rights abuses etc - a jumble of things that have little or no bearing on business transactions. Or, how does China's human rights record affect the pricing of oil blocks?

I don't know who Oyedele works for, but I got curious when he remarked thus concerning China National Offshore Oil Corporation's (CNOOC) bid for Nigerian oil blocks: 'They are proponents of 'cheap labour' and may not match the pay of other employers like Chevron, Texaco and Agip in the same sector'. He forgot to add Shell and Total to the list of super-paying Western oil companies!

While I will never say China cannot improve on its international economic relations, I will unhesitatingly declare that it presents a golden opportunity for developing nations of Africa to secure a fairer deal in global political economy, which never served their interests while Western hegemony held sway. There is so much propaganda being churned out in the Western world to scare Third world countries from doing business with China simply because they realise they are losing influence and grips on global affairs to China. The media and academia of the West are awash with news reports and books that are nothing short of propaganda materials. As a matter of fact, the frenzy with which Western universities are setting up centres and special programmes on China is phenomenal. Far-sighted people that they are, they want to understand how to cope with the great challenge China presents to their system and well-being. Some Nigerian academics make money by consulting for Western inquirers on diverse aspects of Chinese penetration of Africa.

To illustrate the Western media-academia anti-China propaganda, Adam Blenford opens a November 26, 2007, report, tongue-in-cheek, on the BBC website as follows: 'In almost every corner of Africa there is something that interests China'. TimesOnline in its October 13, 2009 issue laments: 'There is now barely a country on the continent (Africa) that does not have a sizeable Chinese presence'. If you talk of books, you will find Western titles like these: Mark Leonard's 'What does China think?', James Kynge's 'China Shakes the World: the Rise of a Hungry Nation', Frank Ching's 'China: The Truth About its Human Rights Record', Alexandria Harney's 'The China Price: The True Cost of Chinese Competitive Advantage'. The list is endless and more are at the press in a frenzy.

The grouses of the West against China are basically economic. The West is suffering a complex economic siege from China. They are the preachers of free trade but by the time China opened up to the global market from its socialist cocoon, signing WTO's agreements etc, it in no time began to beat them at their own game. The forms the siege is taking can be condensed into three. One, China is causing business closures in the West by offering high quality, cheaper consumer goods ranging from toys to garments to Western consumers. Two, unemployment is not helped by the growing recourse by Western businesses to relocate to China to take advantage of cheaper overheads. Many so-called Western products we buy in stores in London, Paris, New York, Amsterdam etc are now only Western in name, courtesy of the trend called outsourcing. Factories physically get uprooted and got shipped to China. China has earned the sobriquet: 'Factory of the World.' And, only in the second week of this October, America's General Motors sold its Hummer Jeep brand to a Chinese firm, Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Equipment Corporation.

Three, China is also taking over the overseas markets over which the West used to enjoy a structural monopoly. These include African countries. But, unlike the West, that more or less enforced draconian reforms on Africa in the throes of economic crisis without any tangible support critical to recovery, China's in-roads in Africa come with support in the form of funds with no strings attached and investments in critical infrastructure. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda - a model African leader - spoke the truth in a recent October 12 Reuters report. To quote him, "Our resources have been exploited and served others. Western companies have soiled Africa to a large extent and still do...The Chinese bring Africa what it needs: investment and money for governments and companies. China invests in infrastructure, builds streets." When you view the $50 billion oil deal China is offering Nigeria, which Oyedele is kicking against, ask what the status quo is with the oil blocks the so-called Western oil majors want to keep. Which is more beneficial to Nigeria? CNOOC's offer or the oil majors'? The lawmakers in Abuja handling the new petroleum bill are living witnesses to the extent the 'oil majors' are going to frustrate its contents which are meant to stop their abuses and promote our interests.

To be sure, China is not a charity organisation. It is in the global market to improve the lot of its economy and its citizens. Much, then, as it offers Africa a better deal compared to the West, the onus is on African countries to develop strategies to relate with it beneficially. To achieve this, China deserves our study. Unfortunately, there is no funding for such locally, except researchers turn to Western agencies (Ford, MacArthur Foundations etc) for grants! In my case, I rely on my own resources. But how many can? What may pass for Nigeria's policy towards China, from what I have seen, is poor. For example, in a Joint Commission document undergoing implementation process, Nigeria is calling on China to diversify its interest in oil and include the prospecting of our 'abundant mineral resources'. This is quite stupid as that precisely aligns with China's interests. However, from my exploration of China, from Beijing to Shanghai, Anhui to Guangzhou, China has much better things to offer us if we only but ask and insist.

For example, instead of taking the billions of dollars China so easily offers from its over $2 trillion foreign reserves for infrastructure, we can insist on China developing our infrastructure on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis. Chinese giant infrastructure companies, in their hundreds if not thousands, need to be kept busy and the gargantuan foreign reserves have to be invested here and there to minimise the risk of a dollar slump, among others. I was at a negotiation in May 2007 involving Nigerian government officials and a Chinese power company for the building of a hydropower facility. The company's president, without any request from the Nigerian side, said his country was willing to bankroll the project, which ran into hundreds of millions of dollars. A permanent secretary promptly declined without consultation. 'Nigeria will fund it', he said. It sounds patriotic on the face of it, coming on the heels of our exit from debt peonage to the Creditors' Clubs, but it was my candid view that it would have been better to ask whether the company would be willing to execute the project on a BOT basis. Till this day, the project is on hold; and similar examples abound. With no funding, the company has gone back home. We can also create a platform for the private sector to engage in joint ventures with Chinese companies in critical sectors like power generation, agro-industry, road and rail construction etc. China is no doubt a true friend of Africa. We only need to leverage the Chinese on our own terms.

The 1959 Federal Election: aftermath and lessons

THIS article aims to conclude that "federal character" is both desirable and inevitable in the context of our nation. However, the article itself is an attempt to revisit the 1959 federal election as a platform to arriving at that conclusion. The historical 1959 federal election, 50 years ago, took Nigeria from colonial rule to independence in 1960. Its aftermath still provides useful lessons, even for the distant future.

One significant element in the 1959 election was the participation of key regional politicians, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo, erstwhile premiers of the Eastern and Western regions respectively. What attracted them to the election was the prospect that either of them could become the "first prime minister" of independent Nigeria.

The other member of Nigeria's historical triumvirate, Sir Ahmadu Bello, preferred to continue in his position as premier of the Northern Region. His "able lieutenant", Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, led their political party at the federal level of governance. Tafawa Balewa became Prime Minister in 1957 and had the singular distinction of being the only one to have held that position in the history of Nigeria. The parliamentary system was terminated for good in January 1966 and was subsequently replaced with the presidential alternative.

In an era when political party support revolved mainly around ethnic or regional loyalties, the odds were heavily stacked against the aspirations of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe. The North had 50 per cent electoral representation at the expense of the Southern regions, the Eastern and the Western. Significantly, Azikiwe's National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroon (NCNC) and Awolowo's Action Group (AG) were bitter rivals in the South, both relying on alliances with minor northern political parties such as the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) and the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) respectively. The North was eminently controlled by the ethnocentric Northern People's Congress (NPC) whose leader was Sir Ahmadu Bello.

In Nigeria's peculiar situation, no political party was realistically placed to form the government, thereby compelling a coalition of convenience between political parties. Both the AG and NCNC contemplated forming the government with the support of their northern allies but this did not materialise in spite of Chief Awolowo's willingness to concede the primemistership to his older rival, Dr. Azikiwe. Sir Ahmadu Bello threatened to take the North out of the federation if the proposed arrangement between the NCNC and AG was effected. However, considering the bitter rivalry between the two political parties, it would have been one hell of a coalition government! In the end, a coalition of mutual convenience was consummated between the NPC and NCNC/NEPU alliance. The NEPU was the radical party opposed to the NPC's conservatism in the North.

Chief Obafemi Awolowo led the opposition which constituted mainly the AG and the UMBC, the latter agitated for a separate Middle-Best region out of the North. Customary intolerance for competition and competing ideas meant that opposition coming from Awolowo and the Action Group was considered to be the opposition of the Yoruba to the federal government. Consequently, any attempt to curtail the influence of the Action Group was directed against its ethnic stronghold. There was an attempt to redraw the Western regional boundary by merging a part of it with the north, and the creation of the Mid-Western Region in 1964, popular though it was, had punitive intentions. The more disturbing agitations for state creation in the North and East, principally by the peoples of the Middle Belt and Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers respectively, were gleefully ignored by the NPC/NCNC conspiracy.

By 1962 the ruling coalition government had succeeded in infiltrating the ranks of the otherwise disciplined Action Group. Of course the break up of the party can be explained by diverse reasons but the more relevant explanation has been the ideological one. There were elements within the party which urged the leadership to abandon its ideology of "democratic socialism" and team up with the ruling coalition in the interests of the Yoruba. The subsequent intra-party disagreements arising from this position sparked off a domino effect of conflicts that culminated in a bloody civil war between 1967 and 1970. The census crisis of 1962/63, the disputed federal election of 1964 and the rigged election in the Western Region in 1965, were the most outstanding conflicts that killed off Nigeria's First Republic in 1966.

Our experience of the acrimonious politics briefly reviewed above makes one wonder why some are still nostalgic about the parliamentary system of government. The great Sir Arthur Lewis in his book, Politics in West Africa, concluded that the adversarial politics of "government" and "opposition" was unsuitable for a divided nation like Nigeria. The great Nigerian scholar, Professor Ladipo Adamolekun expressed support for the "Lewisian" consociational viewpoint in one of his books and, of course, this writer shares their view of a "grand coalition" as the better option.

The presidential system with divisions of power between the three arms of government (executive, legislative and judicial) appears to be more inclusive than the parliamentary alternative. Recent governments, just like their predecessors, may have under-performed but the relationship between members of the political classes would appear to have been more courteous and tamed than it once was. The politicians of today rarely come into the open to insult other ethnic groupings and that, in this writer's view, is a positive development.

The fact remains that nations differ in their complexities. The United States of America, for instance, may be as heterogeneous as Nigeria but the truth of the matter is that the former's ethnicity is "dispersed" while that of the latter is "compartmentalised". The idea of a rotational presidency makes great sense in Nigeria and federal character in political appointments can only be rubbished by those with little understanding of the scale and nature of rivalry between peoples of different backgrounds. "Rotational thieving", a writer of opinion once screamed. The fact that Nigerian politicians excel in stealing public money would not mean that ideas that help unity can no longer be discussed. The Swiss presidency rotates annually, yet Switzerland is not ranked among the most corrupt nations of the world! There may indeed be some whose understanding of "rotational presidency" exists only at the cynical level!

Rotational presidency, federal character or ethnic balancing, help unity in Nigeria. What constitutes our differences, ethnicity in particular, will not disappear no matter how hard we wish it away. R V Denenberg's book Understanding American Politics (1984) is quite a useful contribution which one warmly recommends to readers. Here is one revealing extract from the book and it concludes this essay - "... In this 'melting pot' the peoples of the world were to be 'Americanised', amalgamated into a new national alloy.

But out of the crucible came an unexpected product. 'As the groups were transformed by influence in American society, stripped of their original attributes, they were created as something new, but still as identifiable groups'. Politically these Irish Americans, Italian Americans and Polish Americans behave as interest groups, measuring their power and well-being against that of others. In the large cities where the 'ethnics' are concentrated, a political party usually finds it prudent to recognise this heterogeneity by running a 'balanced ticket'; an Italian for mayor, a Pole for the City Council President and Irishman for Comptroller".

The 1959 Federal Election: aftermath and lessons

THIS article aims to conclude that "federal character" is both desirable and inevitable in the context of our nation. However, the article itself is an attempt to revisit the 1959 federal election as a platform to arriving at that conclusion. The historical 1959 federal election, 50 years ago, took Nigeria from colonial rule to independence in 1960. Its aftermath still provides useful lessons, even for the distant future.

One significant element in the 1959 election was the participation of key regional politicians, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo, erstwhile premiers of the Eastern and Western regions respectively. What attracted them to the election was the prospect that either of them could become the "first prime minister" of independent Nigeria.

The other member of Nigeria's historical triumvirate, Sir Ahmadu Bello, preferred to continue in his position as premier of the Northern Region. His "able lieutenant", Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, led their political party at the federal level of governance. Tafawa Balewa became Prime Minister in 1957 and had the singular distinction of being the only one to have held that position in the history of Nigeria. The parliamentary system was terminated for good in January 1966 and was subsequently replaced with the presidential alternative.

In an era when political party support revolved mainly around ethnic or regional loyalties, the odds were heavily stacked against the aspirations of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe. The North had 50 per cent electoral representation at the expense of the Southern regions, the Eastern and the Western. Significantly, Azikiwe's National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroon (NCNC) and Awolowo's Action Group (AG) were bitter rivals in the South, both relying on alliances with minor northern political parties such as the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) and the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) respectively. The North was eminently controlled by the ethnocentric Northern People's Congress (NPC) whose leader was Sir Ahmadu Bello.

In Nigeria's peculiar situation, no political party was realistically placed to form the government, thereby compelling a coalition of convenience between political parties. Both the AG and NCNC contemplated forming the government with the support of their northern allies but this did not materialise in spite of Chief Awolowo's willingness to concede the primemistership to his older rival, Dr. Azikiwe. Sir Ahmadu Bello threatened to take the North out of the federation if the proposed arrangement between the NCNC and AG was effected. However, considering the bitter rivalry between the two political parties, it would have been one hell of a coalition government! In the end, a coalition of mutual convenience was consummated between the NPC and NCNC/NEPU alliance. The NEPU was the radical party opposed to the NPC's conservatism in the North.

Chief Obafemi Awolowo led the opposition which constituted mainly the AG and the UMBC, the latter agitated for a separate Middle-Best region out of the North. Customary intolerance for competition and competing ideas meant that opposition coming from Awolowo and the Action Group was considered to be the opposition of the Yoruba to the federal government. Consequently, any attempt to curtail the influence of the Action Group was directed against its ethnic stronghold. There was an attempt to redraw the Western regional boundary by merging a part of it with the north, and the creation of the Mid-Western Region in 1964, popular though it was, had punitive intentions. The more disturbing agitations for state creation in the North and East, principally by the peoples of the Middle Belt and Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers respectively, were gleefully ignored by the NPC/NCNC conspiracy.

By 1962 the ruling coalition government had succeeded in infiltrating the ranks of the otherwise disciplined Action Group. Of course the break up of the party can be explained by diverse reasons but the more relevant explanation has been the ideological one. There were elements within the party which urged the leadership to abandon its ideology of "democratic socialism" and team up with the ruling coalition in the interests of the Yoruba. The subsequent intra-party disagreements arising from this position sparked off a domino effect of conflicts that culminated in a bloody civil war between 1967 and 1970. The census crisis of 1962/63, the disputed federal election of 1964 and the rigged election in the Western Region in 1965, were the most outstanding conflicts that killed off Nigeria's First Republic in 1966.

Our experience of the acrimonious politics briefly reviewed above makes one wonder why some are still nostalgic about the parliamentary system of government. The great Sir Arthur Lewis in his book, Politics in West Africa, concluded that the adversarial politics of "government" and "opposition" was unsuitable for a divided nation like Nigeria. The great Nigerian scholar, Professor Ladipo Adamolekun expressed support for the "Lewisian" consociational viewpoint in one of his books and, of course, this writer shares their view of a "grand coalition" as the better option.

The presidential system with divisions of power between the three arms of government (executive, legislative and judicial) appears to be more inclusive than the parliamentary alternative. Recent governments, just like their predecessors, may have under-performed but the relationship between members of the political classes would appear to have been more courteous and tamed than it once was. The politicians of today rarely come into the open to insult other ethnic groupings and that, in this writer's view, is a positive development.

The fact remains that nations differ in their complexities. The United States of America, for instance, may be as heterogeneous as Nigeria but the truth of the matter is that the former's ethnicity is "dispersed" while that of the latter is "compartmentalised". The idea of a rotational presidency makes great sense in Nigeria and federal character in political appointments can only be rubbished by those with little understanding of the scale and nature of rivalry between peoples of different backgrounds. "Rotational thieving", a writer of opinion once screamed. The fact that Nigerian politicians excel in stealing public money would not mean that ideas that help unity can no longer be discussed. The Swiss presidency rotates annually, yet Switzerland is not ranked among the most corrupt nations of the world! There may indeed be some whose understanding of "rotational presidency" exists only at the cynical level!

Rotational presidency, federal character or ethnic balancing, help unity in Nigeria. What constitutes our differences, ethnicity in particular, will not disappear no matter how hard we wish it away. R V Denenberg's book Understanding American Politics (1984) is quite a useful contribution which one warmly recommends to readers. Here is one revealing extract from the book and it concludes this essay - "... In this 'melting pot' the peoples of the world were to be 'Americanised', amalgamated into a new national alloy.

But out of the crucible came an unexpected product. 'As the groups were transformed by influence in American society, stripped of their original attributes, they were created as something new, but still as identifiable groups'. Politically these Irish Americans, Italian Americans and Polish Americans behave as interest groups, measuring their power and well-being against that of others. In the large cities where the 'ethnics' are concentrated, a political party usually finds it prudent to recognise this heterogeneity by running a 'balanced ticket'; an Italian for mayor, a Pole for the City Council President and Irishman for Comptroller".

Immunity for Legislators?

The move by the House of Representatives to amend the legislators’ Powers and Privileges Act is apparently a pursuit of self-interest taken to a ridiculous level. This will, no doubt, further dent the public image of the lawmakers – unless the bill is thrown out soon.
The very argument of its sponsor, Honourable Henry Dickson, Chairman of the House Committee on Justice, has veritably weakened the proposition. According to him, the “sensitive” nature of legislative duties renders legislators vulnerable, hence the need to protect them from “indiscriminate” arrests that might be masterminded by their political foes, especially as the 2011 general election approaches. He also thinks that members of legislative houses should be protected against “frivolous” charges to enhance their performance.
It is remarkable, however, that this attempt at securing immunity for the legislators has received opposition even from the lower chamber itself. Honourable Ita Enang reacted pointedly: “The bill seeks to create a class of people above the law but we should know that we are bound by the Constitution and any law that is against the Constitution is null and void.”
That admonition is timely. In the first place, in granting immunity to the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, the framers of the Constitution took into consideration the consequences of some litigants holding those officers, who are the heads of their respective governments, to ransom. But because of the abuses that have so far been recorded in the polity by some of the beneficiaries, even the rare privilege is being contested at the court of public opinion. The clamour to jettison this political right is not restricted to Nigeria. Not long ago, the constitutional court in Italy removed it from Prime Minister Silvio Belusconi who is enmeshed in scandals. The message is clear: Since all men are equal, they should be treated equally before the law, no matter the position they occupy in life.
Our legislators should, therefore, move with the times rather than take retrogressive steps. Perhaps they should be reminded that there are many other jobs in the country that are even more prone to dangers – only that their practitioners are not in the position to make self-preserving, discriminatory laws. Already, the National Assembly (NASS) and many state assemblies have, through exerting disproportionate energies on matters relating to their own welfare, inflicted themselves with a poor public perception – of underachievement. But they need not continue along this ignoble path. Instead, as they enter into the second half of their tenure, they should seek to justify their respective mandates by passing people-oriented laws rather than engaging in misplaced acts of self-preservation.
Nigerian legislators seem to be driven by self interest and preservation. This is hardly a good public perception of elected representatives who are supposed to work for the general interest of those they claim to represent in government.
Our legislators should concentrate on their core responsibilities of law making and oversight functions. Bills like Freedom of Information (FoI), electoral reform, and the Petroleum Industry Bill are begging for urgent attention. These instruments are vital to the deepening of our hard-won but fragile democracy. As for holding the executive arm of government accountable for approved programmes and projects, proofs of failure are not in short supply throughout the federation. With a largely comatose infrastructure and grossly inadequate social security, the citizenry is becoming disillusioned. This ought to bother the honourable legislators.
True greatness, after all, lies in genuine service to others, in this case, those the lawmakers claim to represent, and not in obvious self-defensive plots.

Immunity for Legislators?

The move by the House of Representatives to amend the legislators’ Powers and Privileges Act is apparently a pursuit of self-interest taken to a ridiculous level. This will, no doubt, further dent the public image of the lawmakers – unless the bill is thrown out soon.
The very argument of its sponsor, Honourable Henry Dickson, Chairman of the House Committee on Justice, has veritably weakened the proposition. According to him, the “sensitive” nature of legislative duties renders legislators vulnerable, hence the need to protect them from “indiscriminate” arrests that might be masterminded by their political foes, especially as the 2011 general election approaches. He also thinks that members of legislative houses should be protected against “frivolous” charges to enhance their performance.
It is remarkable, however, that this attempt at securing immunity for the legislators has received opposition even from the lower chamber itself. Honourable Ita Enang reacted pointedly: “The bill seeks to create a class of people above the law but we should know that we are bound by the Constitution and any law that is against the Constitution is null and void.”
That admonition is timely. In the first place, in granting immunity to the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, the framers of the Constitution took into consideration the consequences of some litigants holding those officers, who are the heads of their respective governments, to ransom. But because of the abuses that have so far been recorded in the polity by some of the beneficiaries, even the rare privilege is being contested at the court of public opinion. The clamour to jettison this political right is not restricted to Nigeria. Not long ago, the constitutional court in Italy removed it from Prime Minister Silvio Belusconi who is enmeshed in scandals. The message is clear: Since all men are equal, they should be treated equally before the law, no matter the position they occupy in life.
Our legislators should, therefore, move with the times rather than take retrogressive steps. Perhaps they should be reminded that there are many other jobs in the country that are even more prone to dangers – only that their practitioners are not in the position to make self-preserving, discriminatory laws. Already, the National Assembly (NASS) and many state assemblies have, through exerting disproportionate energies on matters relating to their own welfare, inflicted themselves with a poor public perception – of underachievement. But they need not continue along this ignoble path. Instead, as they enter into the second half of their tenure, they should seek to justify their respective mandates by passing people-oriented laws rather than engaging in misplaced acts of self-preservation.
Nigerian legislators seem to be driven by self interest and preservation. This is hardly a good public perception of elected representatives who are supposed to work for the general interest of those they claim to represent in government.
Our legislators should concentrate on their core responsibilities of law making and oversight functions. Bills like Freedom of Information (FoI), electoral reform, and the Petroleum Industry Bill are begging for urgent attention. These instruments are vital to the deepening of our hard-won but fragile democracy. As for holding the executive arm of government accountable for approved programmes and projects, proofs of failure are not in short supply throughout the federation. With a largely comatose infrastructure and grossly inadequate social security, the citizenry is becoming disillusioned. This ought to bother the honourable legislators.
True greatness, after all, lies in genuine service to others, in this case, those the lawmakers claim to represent, and not in obvious self-defensive plots.

MEND, 'Jomo Gbomo' and amnesty

IN the ongoing struggle for the 'liberation' of the Niger Delta region, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has two vocal representatives who have over the years been at the vanguard of the campaign. I refer in particular to "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte", two names that have dominated press reports on the Niger Delta conflict. Although they are regularly quoted by journalists, doubts remain whether "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte" actually exist or whether the names are pseudonyms devised by the hierarchy of MEND to match the government's public information crusade.

In his press releases, often quoted mostly verbatim by lousy journalists, "Jomo Gbomo" cuts the image of an uncompromising, incorrigible, indestructible and invisible face of MEND. His language is tough, brusque, provocative and hard-nosed. He portrays MEND as an underground movement driven by the philosophy of "no defeat, no surrender".

In a letter published in The Guardian of Monday, 19 October 2009, and entitled "Jomo Gbomo and the programme amnesty," Ayo Olorunfemi expressed worry that "... after going through the list of the repentant warlords, one name was conspicuously missing and that is the name of the mouth-piece of the struggle, Jomo Gbomo. What is the significance of the amnesty without him? What would become of the hope for eternal peace in the region without him? Why pondering over those questions, I stumbled on an interview granted by Boyloaf, an ex-militant and he emphatically said Jomo Gbomo is a ghost, fictitious, imaginative and non-existent."

Whether "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte" exist or whether they are mere phantoms in the arsenal of MEND's radical campaign, credit must be given to "Jomo Gbomo" for his or her unwavering commitment to MEND's motto, for his or her passionate determination to transform the Niger Delta region, and for his or her untiring efficiency in churning out retaliatory rhetoric about how MEND plans to assail and humiliate federal forces patrolling the streets and swamps of the Niger Delta.

In terms of effectiveness in propaganda, "Jomo Gbomo" ranks next to the legendary Iraqi Information Minister - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf - who, during the last days of the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003, kept telling western television audiences that there were no coalition forces inside Iraq and that those who managed to get into Iraq were already "committing suicide", even as U.S. forces encircled Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities.

The difference between Al-Sahhaf and "Jomo Gbomo" is that while Al-Sahhaf appeared regularly and physically on television and whereas he conducted open press conferences, "Jomo Gbomo" (if the person actually exists) chose to remain faceless and to utilise the Internet and e-mail technologies to draw the world's attention to the problems and injustices that confront the Niger Delta people.

New technologies such as e-mail and the Internet now serve as a forum through which marginalised groups and minorities such as the Niger Delta activists tell their stories and communicate their problems to the rest of the world. There are possibly two reasons why "Jomo Gbomo" uses the Internet and e-mail to communicate with journalists who cover the Niger Delta conflict. One: The technologies are highly valuable means of communication - they are convenient and they can be used from any location without compromising the identity of the user. The second reason has to do with self-preservation or personal security.

If Niger Delta activists must maintain their invincibility, it is imperative that they must rely on the technologies that guarantee them anonymity and safety. These guarantees are embedded in Internet and e-mail technologies, which explain why "Jomo Gbomo" uses the technologies for regular press releases. It is in these contexts that Internet and e-mail technologies serve as tools for the economic, social and political emancipation of marginalised groups (such as the Niger Delta people) in their struggle for self-determination.

As MEND celebrates the amnesty deal, and as President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua engages in endless photo opportunities with Niger Delta activists who have enthusiastically snapped up the government's official pardon, only a few people seem to be asking questions about where "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte" stand on the amnesty issue. Have they accepted the amnesty offer? If they have accepted the deal, do they plan to travel to Abuja to take photos with Yar'Adua?

These questions are relevant because "Jomo Gbomo", as the official amplifier of MEND's voice, cannot sound conciliatory in one press release and issue threats in another press statement. The inconsistencies are not a good sign that MEND has genuinely accepted the amnesty. The key question is: Has "Jomo Gbomo" (if it is not a pseudonym) accepted the amnesty as Henry Okah and other leaders of MEND have done?

Yar'Adua and his men must be worried that nothing has been heard about the official position of "Jomo Gbomo" and "Cynthia Whyte". However, one good feature of the amnesty is that it has effectively unmasked the identities of some of the principal leaders of the disparate groups that operate in the creeks and waterways of the Niger Delta. Prior to the amnesty deal, the public had no way of knowing what the activists looked like. The public is now able to match the names they see in news reports against the faces of the men who signed up for the amnesty. The names include Henry Okah, the leader of MEND, Ebikalowei Victor Ben (also known as "Boyloaf"), Government Ekpemupolo (otherwise known as "Tompolo"), Ateke Tom, leader of the Niger Delta Strike Force, Farrah Dagogo (who calls himself the "overall field commander of MEND"), Burster Rhymes, etc.

In a speech to mark his formal acceptance of the amnesty nearly two weeks ago, Tompolo told journalists: "I and my people accept the offer of amnesty." He also pledged "to work with Mr. President to achieve the dreams of this country". In his response, Yar'Adua said: "I thank Tompolo and all members of his immediate team for accepting this unconditional offer of amnesty. Tonight belongs to you Tompolo. By signing this amnesty, you have demonstrated that the interest of the Niger Delta is better served through peace."

Yar'Adua and his senior security officials must be smiling that they have successfully pulled off the amnesty deal by offering incentives which the leaders of the various groups could hardly resist. Although it is too early to judge the success of the amnesty, at the moment it should be seen as a brilliant idea, a masterstroke on how to apply domestic diplomatic pressure to end a potentially destabilising conflict. But, I must emphasise, it is still too early to judge Yar'Adua's amnesty offer.

In a press statement released soon after Yar'Adua met with MEND leader Henry Okah, "Jomo Gbomo" said that MEND would turn its attention to corrupt governors once this phase of the campaign was concluded. This is indeed the right way to go. Part of the reason why the Niger Delta has been neglected for many years must be traced to high levels of corruption among political leaders in the region. Questions must be asked about what previous governors did with the federal funds they received for the development of their states.

While the argument must be made that previous federal administrations never considered the Niger Delta as a region that deserved special attention, the state governments must also be asked to account for whatever amount they received from the federal government. If the federal government neglected the Niger Delta region, so too did the governors of the states who received some money but failed to use the money to make a difference in the lives of the people in the region.

It would be a good idea for MEND and other organisations to hold the state governments to account. There is no point turning the streets into a shootout zone through mindless kidnapping of ordinary citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with the underdevelopment of the Niger Delta. Going after corrupt governors and former governors, including corrupt senior public officials would signal a significant shift in the way MEND agitates for fairness and justice in the region.

It is important for MEND to demonstrate that it understands the difference between responsible agitation for the development of the Niger Delta and careless activism that punishes everyone. If MEND wants to earn public respect and recognition, it must not punish those for whom it is fighting.

The proposed deregulation of petrol price

FOR the better part of 20 years, the economics of the petroleum pump price has held Nigerians in a riveting contest. Military governments and elected governments have struggled to rationalise the socio-economics of petroleum pump price for the Nigerian people. On at least eight occasions in the past decade, the dynamics of the increased pump price has been the touch-stone for popular nationwide strike action by Nigeria's organised Labour unions contending with Federal Government on behalf of the masses.

Government has now decided to fully deregulate the price of petrol, (PMK), having already allowed the price of diesel and kerosene to find its open market price. According to the spokespersons, this would be the culmination of the deregulation of the downstream oil sector. The kernel of the issue remains fairly unchanged, namely that Government in its benevolence has subsidised the pump price for petroleum products and is no longer in a position to do so. In 2008, this country spent N650 billion on petroleum products subsidy. It would therefore allow the effective market-determined price to flow through to consumers and the expectant rational behaviour of the Nigerian consumer to come to play in the orthodox matrix of market demand and supply.

Deregulation as a doctrine is well acknowledged in a number of instances in our country today and Nigerians are at home with the vagaries created by deregulating a number of basic living sectors - epileptic electricity supplies, incontinent water supply, the progress of telecommunication, monetisation of public sector emoluments etc. In other words, the shedding of a benevolence toga by the Governments of Nigeria is up and running.

However, we assert that to let the pump price of PMK float independent of Government's influence or more certainly, public finance subsidies, is a most intractable option. First, this Government is neither prepared to complete the pre-deregulation assurances nor are Nigerians on the strength of extant track record, confident that there is a bulwark for the challenges of deregulating the most pervasive factor in socio-economic determinants of Nigeria. There are a number of examples to buttress the lack of serious capacity to do things right.

Why is Nigeria almost completely dependent on the importation of refined petroleum products for the entire economy when we have both human and material resources, and have had the time, to remedy the existing plants? Nigeria is the sixth largest exporter of crude oil and is the only member of OPEC in this ugly situation.

In 1999, the pump price of petrol was N17 and the incoming civilian government made a series of pledges about the refineries and distribution. Today, this is not the case and at a nominal price of N65 per litre of petrol in only a few cities, Nigerians are in the dark about the investments in refineries and are anxiously aware that the gigantic conspiracies in the import of products will not go away with deregulation. Where is that regulator with credibility and muscle to protect Nigerians and guard against anti-trust behaviours?

As a key component of creating an efficient deregulated market, Nigerians expect that the actual and contrived bottlenecks at our ports which are a huge source of demurrage charges and fraudulent practices would be dismantled in a brisk manner. This is not the case.

Another example of shoddiness is in the manner of informing Nigerians. It has begun in a cloak and dagger framework: bad cop, good cop. One, not quite recognisable, was ferrying the bad news, while another, in a role properly due to another functionary, cancels the first announcement of November 1 as commencement date. The so-called senior official of the NNPC has been countermanded by the Minister of Labour. It is instructive that it is the Minister of Labour, and not Ministers of Information or Petroleum who denied Government's decision on a commencement date.

Perhaps this is so as it is very likely he will be required to engage Labour Unions who have declared their readiness to keep dates at the barricades. It is however another atrocious example of a dysfunctional communication practice within this Federal Government that it could not synchronise a critical policy decision and its implementation details on a decision, which we are persuaded, will save Nigeria N650 billion annually, but is also well known to be an unfortunate tinderbox to the social fabric of the country.

Further, another matter that beggars belief in the imminent deregulation includes the fact that Government intends to continue with the concept of equalisation of prices across Nigeria. It cannot be proper to contradict this policy so blatantly. As deregulation has no half-way house, pump prices will be dictated by costs of importation or preferably local refining plus added cost of pipeline or truck deliveries to locations. By that fact, uniform prices cannot be the norm. We therefore counsel that this is an opportunity to erase fully any concept that would lead to suspicious subsidy, outright leakage of public funds and mischievous collaboration against the people of Nigeria.

The final obvious example of unpreparedness is the timing and economic environment. In a milieu of severe stress and shock in the finance sector infecting the entire credit and banking chain, it is difficult to locate the salvation point for the stupendous hike in transport fares, consumer costs and production prices that the deregulation of petrol will generate. The public dilemma is quite clear: that distance from supply point cannot be subsidised by tax payers, and also that efficiency and competition will not germinate overnight to check inordinate supplier-greed.

We accept the inevitability of the end of subsidy howsoever defined on petroleum products. But perhaps, far more germane is the stoppage of payments to freeloaders, rent seekers and unintended beneficiaries from the public purse. It behoves this Government to take another look at the Petroleum Trust Fund model and other examples across OPEC countries to convince Nigerians that the trade off for the so-called subsidy is applied in robust and transparent initiatives that convey to Nigerians respect and improved infrastructure, create jobs and implement conscientious governance. This matter may indeed turn out to be actually a test for the purpose of Government - to convince the people and stand measured by pledges.

The indications of the policy thrust for deregulating PMK and its anticipated performance grids are lamentably opaque, and far from these. The first task should be a revival of the country's refineries